The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuing the series of articles on nuclear weapons, here is the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the successor to the Manhattan Project. If you ever wanted to know what happened next, here is an article... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"These involved their maintenance, storage and handling in the field" partially repeats what was said in the first paragraph
"A hand picked team of officers was trained in their assembly and handling" - should be "hand-picked", should specify who picked them (if known), and should specify Army (I'm assuming?)
Groves picked them. All were Army officers. Because he chose only from the top 10 percent of West Point graduates, all were from the Army Corps of Engineers, like Groves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Patterson and issued a memorandum" - is this supposed to be Patterson and someone else?
"However, its role and organization remained much the same, with Admiral Parker remaining as its first director. However..." - suggest rephrasing to avoid repetition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typo here also I think: "According, Groves was appointed to the Military Liaison Committee...", possibly should be "Accordingly, Groves was appointed to the Military Liaison Committee."
"Strauss, now an AEC commissioner, was disturbed at the number of AFSWP personnel who were participating, and feared that a sneak attack on Eniwetak would wipe out the nation's ability to assemble nuclear weapons." Do we know who Strauss fear would perpetrate such an attack? (minor point).
Typo here "...the wartime commander of the Manhattan District, during the was designated as his successor, with the rank major general." Specifically "during the was".
This sentence seems out of place chronologically (to me at least): "By 1959, the nuclear stockpile had grown to 12,305 weapons, of which 3,968 were in AEC custody and the remaining 8,337 were held by the Department of Defense." The next paragraph goes back to 1953. Perhaps move it to the "Conversion to Defense Atomic Support Agency" section (suggestion only).
"Major General Roscoe C. Wilson, who had worked with Silverplate during the war" - the 'worked with Silverplate' sounds a bit odd - should this be 'formed part of the Silverplate project' or similar?
Can anything be added on the day to day experiences of the men who worked on the weapons assembly teams? Given that they were of above average quality, did they find weapons assembly work tedious? Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should use dashes for all page ranges - some use hyphens
"The Allied Air Forces had developed a new techniques" - one technique or many?
Why link Madang in the third paragraph of Japanese plans instead of the LLsecond? Why link No. 30 Squadron two sections in a row? Check wikilinking throughout
The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
The images are all PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
"Some 416 sorties had been flown with only two ships had been sunk, and three damaged...", consider "Some 416 sorties had been flown with only two ships sunk, and three damaged."
This is a little repetitive: "...while 22 RAAF A-20 Bostons of No. 22 Squadron RAAF...", perhaps consider "...while 22 A-20 Bostons of No. 22 Squadron RAAF..."
Maybe a missing full stop here: "Three Lightnings were shot down The fighter pilots claimed 15 Zeros destroyed, while the B-17 crews claimed five more."
"Due to miscounting of the Japanese force, General MacArthur...", should just be "Due to miscounting of the Japanese force, MacArthur..." per WP:SURNAME.
Comments This is looking really good, but I think it needs bit of tweaking before it's at A class:
The article should probably go into more detail on the results of the battle on the strategic situation in the New Guinea Campaign. Drea has a summary of this on page 72 of his book.
"This time, a course was chosen that followed the north coast" - 'This' is used in relation to two different operations in two successive sentences, which is a bit awkward
"Allied air attacks would have to fly over the Japanese airfields on New Britain." - that's over-stating things given how under-developed New Britain was! I'd suggest changing this to "Allied air attacks would have to fly within range of the Japanese airfields on New Britain." or similar
Can 'combat loaded' be linked to something? A red link would be suitable here if it can't be linked given that this is an important topic (Loading of assault shipping perhaps?)
You could mention that the USAAF (and RAAF?) units involved in this battle practiced skip bombing near Port Moresby in preparation for attacking the convoy
"When the ships turned to face them, and the Beaufighters were then able to inflict damage on the ships' anti-aircraft guns, bridges and crews during strafing runs with their four 20 mm (0.79 in) nose cannons and six wing-mounted .303 in (7.70 mm) machine guns." - this could be worded more strongly. The aircraft could have damaged the ships by attacking from any direction. The point of attacking from the length of the ship was to maximize the damage caused by each pass. Gillison states that only "some" of the Japanese ships turned towards the Beaufighters.
You could mention that Oscar winning film maker Damien Parer was on board one of the RAAF Beaufighters (from where he took the remarkable footage used in this film).
Can you provide a reference to a secondary source that states that the Hague Convention of 1907 was violated? This seems likely, but needs a supporting reference
Gillison 1962, p. 697 doesn't state that the killing of Japanese survivors was a war crime as is credited to it (he actually describes it as being the "terrible yet essential finale" of the battle on page 694). I have read this elsewhere though. Gillison and Drea discuss the disgust felt by the Allied personnel involved in these killings, and this might be worth mentioning.
I've made other spot checks of references to Gillison and Drea and found no problems with accuracy or close paraphrasing (note: this is something I intend to do in all future articles I review where I have access to some of the relevant references, so please don't feel singled out - this is just the first review where I've made these checks - which I've been promising to do for ages). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As another comment, I was initially concerned to see that Kenney's memoirs were used as a source, but everything referenced to it seems like simple statements of fact. Except for where it's Kenny's opinion or wording you're quoting, I'd suggest replacing these references if possible though - Kenney's memoirs don't have a good reputation for accuracy and there are some good books about him now which you could reference (I vaguely remember reading that Kenney wrote his memoirs entirely from his memory of the war and they were published without serious fact checking, but this might be mistaken). Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only have the one good book on him, MacArthur's Airman : General George C. Kenney and the War in the Southwest Pacific (Modern War Studies) by Thomas E. Griffith (1998). Let me know if you have any other recommendations. He is on my work list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a biography on him published by an American university press a few years ago as well? I might be getting my USAAF generals mixed up though. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Allied Air Forces' is in the lead and the prose more than once and based on the capitalization its a proper name for something - I think this should be a wiki-link (or red link but I think it exists already)
War games of the operation predicted losses... I don't like how this is phrased; I think you mean something like "Based on the results of war games of the operation, Allied commanders predicted...
SupportComments/suggestions: not a lot for me to comment on here, looks pretty good overall, IMO:
I'm not sure about the capitalisation here: "They held War games of the operation which predicted" (IMO probably should be "They held war games..."
the duplicate link checker tool reports possible overlinking of "Port Moresby", "No. 30 Squadron RAAF", "38th Bombardment Group", "Asashio" and "Finschhafen";
inconsistent presentation: "PT Boats" and "PT boats";
in the Aftermath: "The Allies lost 13 aircrew killed and eight wounded." But in the infobox: "8 killed"
this seems a little awkward: "Ordered back in January, it now received a increased urgency";
this doesn't quite work, I think: "Allied aircraft led to the development of a routes along the coast of..." (specifically "a routes");
Comment: Good job, especially on giving the Japanese side in the background section. I think, however, you might want to give a little more background on the New Guinea campaign. Weren't the Allied victories at Buna-Gona and Wau a big influence in the Japanese decision to reinforce New Guinea with the 51st Division? If I remember right from working on the Guadalcanal Campaign article, the 51st Division was originally intended to go to Guadalcanal. After General Imamura arrived at Rabaul and the forces in the area were reorganized as the 8th Area Army, Imamura and the General Staff decided, based on the Buna-Gona offensive, that Allied forces in New Guinea represented a greater threat to Rabaul than the Allies in the Solomons. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watson, Richard L. (1946). has bibliographic information contained within the document, including a publisher (important!) and a series (less important).
Support. I think it is at A-class level. You might check the TROMs at combinedfleet.com for the involved warships and submarines for additional information, but otherwise I think the article is good to go. Good job. Cla68 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re-nomination. Has since been through an unsuccessful A-class and successful GA reviews. The article still contains one flaw, in that the term "relief", while technically correct, sounds like a sculpture of the General. In the end, no better wording has been suggested, and the contradiction between common misconceptions and technical and historical correctness lies so very much at the heart of the article that I gradually came to like it this way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Research coverage: As I was composing a Chinese Korean War orbat in my own personal workspace, I can't help but notice that MacArthur issued his March 23 public statement at the exact time when the Chinese lost 4 field armies out of 6 deployed on the front...did this development affected (or impaired) his judgment in issuing the public statement? I know in the peer review you said that this is a political article, not a milhist article, so forgive me if I over step my bounds. Jim101 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Added explanation to the Public statements section. I regard this as a military article; I just wanted the politics people to have a look over it, which would not otherwise occur until it went to FAC. Something that set MacArthur apart from soldiers of the mid-20th Century like Bradley, Clark and Ridgway was that where the latter saw soldiering as fighting the best army in the world in Europe, MacArthur took an expansive in which soldiers gave equal importance to military government, peacekeeping, civic disturbances and civic assistance. In the 1950s, few professional American soldiers would have agreed with MacArthur; in the 2000s, few would not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
"...the Far East Command initiated a program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered...", consider "...the Far East Command initiated program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered..." (remove "a" for "initiated a program").
You might consider rewording this: "North Korea invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War, on 25 June 1950...", perhaps: "North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950, starting the Korean War..." (suggestion only).
"That being the case, then operations would be necessary...", perhaps more simply: "That being the case, operations would be necessary..." (suggestion only).
"General Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", should more simply be "Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", per WP:SURNAME.
Is there a word missing here: "House Minority Leader Joseph William Martin, Jr. slammed Truman for following Attlee's to "slavery to government and crippling debt..."?
"...at 2000 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 1000 on 12 April Tokyo time...", should be "...at 20:00 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 10:00 on 12 April Tokyo time..." per WP:MOSTIME.
Typo here: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasing far apart from one another...", perhaps: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasingly far apart from one another."
Not sure about the chronology here: "The increasingly unpopular war in Korea dragged on into 1953, and the Truman administration was beset with a series of corruption scandals. Truman eventually decided not to run for re-election. Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate in the 1952 presidential election attempted to distance himself from Truman as much as possible." Specifically you jump from 1953, back to 1952. Could this possibly be reworded?
"General Omar Bradley, doubted that there would ever be another large scale amphibious operation." - What year was this testimony? I think it's important to the context given the mention of the Revolt of the Admirals.
"Newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times opined..." I assume they did so after the fact. In that case, this graph is a little confusing, as it seems to switch from before the act to after. Maybe add another bit of context, or move it to after the "Relief" section?
"With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government ... " - for some reason, this quote and the proceeding quote graphs are not indenting correctly. Probably something to do with the placement of the left-aligned image. My screen is very wide and this might not be an issue for others, though.
I'm surprised you didn't include any numbers as to how this affected Truman's approval ratings. Yes, it is mentioned that he did not seek re-election, but there have to be a few polls out there to more strongly tie these together.
Support My highest complements. I visited the Truman Library and spent a lot of time in its Korean War section last year, this coverage is superior to what even they had on the topic. Well done. —Ed!(talk)19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very well written and comprehensive account of these events - well done. I think it needs a little bit more work to reach A class though, and would benefit from further expansions before it goes to a FAC. My comments and suggestions are:
Saying that MacArthur was only a 'a popular war hero' in the first sentence is under-selling things a bit: this should note that he was also commanding the UN forces in Korea in a very hot war
"So too was the principle of civilian control of the military, but the rising complexity of military technology, and the consequent creation of a professional military class, coupled with the cumbersome constitutional division of powers, made this increasingly problematic." - this could be split into two sentences, I think
"MacArthur had to deal with draconian cuts in the defense budget which had seen his troop numbers decline from 300,000 in 1947 to 142,000 in 1948" - the major cutbacks in the occupation force in Japan were also related to how peaceful the country was.
Have to look into this. Four of the Army's ten divisions were still based in Japan.
Where did MSTS Sgt. George D Keathley sail from? (Japan I assume)
"MacArthur, faced with a desperate military situation, was forced to commit his forces in Japan to what he later described as a "desperate rearguard action."" - this is a bit repetitive
"Truman was dismayed by a statement MacArthur made to the 51st National Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on 26 August," - this implies that he spoke to them in person, which seems unlikely. I'd suggest replacing 'made' with 'sent' or similar.
Done.
"Within days, MacArthur encountered the Chinese in the Battle of Onjong and the Battle of Unsan." - I'd suggest tweaking this to 'The forces under MacArthur's command' or similar
"Communist antiaircraft gunners" - replace 'Communist' with 'Chinese and North Korean' or similar
That would imply that we knew which country they were from. There was a tendency at the time to attribute everything that worked properly to the Russians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'nuclear weapons' section needs a stronger link to the material which precedes it, as the transition at present is a bit jarring. You could do this by changing the first sentences to something like 'Despite the deteriorating situation in Korea, MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons. However, on DATE Truman stated that the General had proposed using these weapons on Chinese positions.' or whatever the situation was.
"The ethics of a system under which serving generals were compelled to publicly support policies that they felt were potentially ruinous for the country," - 'compelled' seems a bit strong given that these officers can resign in protest, and this has actually happened (including in the lead up to the Iraq War).
If they do though, then they are no longer serving officers. Changed to felt compelled. Of course Donald Rumsfeld would tell you that they should support it in private as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While not essential for A class, I'd suggest expanding the material on MacArthur's pre-Korean war experience, conduct and political connections as they're under-played at present and are important in understanding the conduct which led to his dismissal (as well as how this is now perceived). It's not surprising that someone who'd operated at the highest levels of the US Army and Philippines government and had strong political connections before World War II, hugely influenced the government of Australia (including manipulating the requests for reinforcements it sent to the US government to his advantage) and seriously considered running against FDR during World War II before going on to become the de-facto leader of Japan for five years would be impossible to control by 1950. His links with the Republican Party should also be fleshed out a bit more. You could also expand upon his wheeling and dealing over grand strategy in the Pacific in 1943-44, which led to both the probably unnecessary Philippines Campaign and this campaign then being prolonged for no clear purpose in 1945, as this was an example of MacArthur being willing to, in effect, negotiate directly with the President and fight his own war rather than fully consider the 'big picture'.
While possibly being even less relevant to this article, I'm pretty sure that I've read that the command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons also contributed to major changes to the Post-MacArthur relationship between the President and military (eg, as the President alone has authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, and may need to do so at no notice while under enormous stress, it became more important for military officers to act in accordance with his wishes and not undermine his authority). If this is the case, it might be worth adding to the last section. The material on Lincoln is also a bit simplistic; from what I've read, he was willing to put up with his generals political ambitions during the first years of the war because he lacked knowledge of warfare and knew that they couldn't make good on their (amazingly frequent) bluster about overthrowing him. By the middle of the war he was exercising direct control over the military (generally quite successfully and sometimes by personally sending orders to individual units) and making firm decisions about grand strategy, and this continued until the apolitical Grant was appointed to head the Army and did a good job of it. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons is a very complex issue, worthy of an article in its own right. (Which does exist: National Command Authority) However there were few weapons in Truman's time. The issue was really one for the Eisenhower administration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for Lincoln, I don't know much about that period. It was particularly relevant though because Truman consulted books on Lincoln's handling of McClellan. He should have drawn the lesson that McClellan was not just bluffing; McClellan did indeed run against Lincoln in 1864, and Truman was afraid that MacArthur or Eisenhower would run against him in 1952. But after reading a bit more I think I have misconstrued the conflict between them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about the nuclear weapons issues more in terms of the discussion of the current expectations of, and limitations on, senior officers in the 'legacy' section. But as I said, it's not necessarily relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider if Annapolis and Canberra are sufficiently well known publishing cities?
I usually regard a well-known city as one where you type the name into the Wikipedia and it comes up. My experience with foreigners is that they are more familiar with Canberra than the ACT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something appears slightly wrong with the volume number? Strout, Lawrence N. (1999). "Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950–1954". Journal of Political and Military Sociology 2001 (Summer). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is by Hackley, CA; not Strout? Which did you read? Strout or Hackley? Given the page numbers it looks like someone has mucked this citation up, and you actually mean to cite Strout 1999 published by Greenwood Press in Westport, CT if you used the Google Books version?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it fulfills A-class requirements. It is one of my GAs from earlier this year, just didn't get about to A-class reviewing it sooner. One thing I wish we had is a map, but not a single source I used had it, so we are out of luck here, with regards to easy fixes. On the bright side, we have File:Plan Łodzi 1897.jpg, which could be adapted into such a map (time range seems close enough, less than a decade), but sadly I don't have the image editing skills for that, and the map seems to be in Russian, so I cannot even decipher all of the streets on it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Good to see an article on this period of history, and plenty of good work has clearly gone into it. I'm not sure it's quite ready for A class yet though, some thoughts below:
"Down with the autocracy! Down with the war!" - if it's a quote, I think the MOS suggests that the link to autocracy should be removed.
"The Russo-Japanese War has caused rising dissent" - "had caused"?
"70,000 workers in were on strike" - excess "in"
"social support for the sick" - "financial support"?
"Tensions mounted further, and in the evening of 21[6][10] or 22 June[11] (sources vary), angry workers began building barricades and assaulting police and military patrols, killing those who did not surrender" - I'd add a footnote, explaining what the difference sources said. (Ditto the later "sources vary" remark)
"liqueur stores" - just to check, do you mean liqueur (a flavoured alcoholic beverage), or liquor (a strong alcoholic drink)?
"(were four barricades were located)" - "where", not "were"
"The uprising was reported in international press and recognized by socialist and communist activists worldwide" - recognised as what?
On the sources, is Gazeta Wyborcza really a high quality source? It is referenced extensively in the article, but appears to be a Polish newspaper, equivalent to the British Times, which I wouldn't normally regard as a good A-Class source for military history.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most issues fixed. I did not create the footnotes, as I tend to think that referencing numbers in such cases makes it clear which source gives what (contradictory) claim. If you think it is a MoS issue and would kindly point me to the right MoS section, I can revise that. With regards to GW source, you are right it is a newspaper similar to Times. I was not aware that such sources are not considered reliable; I have milhist A-class articles using GW as a source (ex. Armia Krajowa) and FAs as well (ex. Polish culture during World War II). My understanding is that such sources are accepted, unless it is for something controversial, or we could easily use other sources. With LI, the only sources I didn't use are some Polish-language offline printed sources that I don't have access to. Articles from GW were quite helpful in enriching this article, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Has something changed in WP:RS/A/FA-class requirements in the past few months? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
The images are all PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
Inconsistent date format. In the infobox and parts of the article you have used Day, Month and Year; however, throughout the rest of the article you have used Month, Day and Year. Either is correct IMO, as long as it is used consistently.
Minor reword here "...who also declared martial law...", perhaps consider "...who declared martial law." (suggestion only).
Tense here "...believed that Poles must show their determination to regain independence...", consider "...believed that Poles should show their determination to regain independence...".
Per WP:HEADING generally we don't use the word "The" to start a heading. As such the section heading "The uprising", should probably just be "Uprising".
Tense here: "About a hundred barricades would be constructed over the course of the next few days...", consider instead "About a hundred barricades were constructed over the course of the next few days..."
"...as workers set some liquor stores on fire...", perhaps more simply just "...as workers set liquor stores on fire..."?
Is there a missing word here, I'm not sure. "...and the government forces assaulted first barricades, initially without much success...", perhaps "...and the government forces assaulted the first barricades, initially without much success..."
This is not grammatically correct IMO: "The Rokociny area was manned by about 3,000-strong worker militia...", perhaps consider: "The Rokociny area was manned by a 3,000-strong worker militia..."
Support. I do have one comment on this though: "26 June[11] – sources vary". The n-dash should be an m-dash instead. Otherwise good work! Otto Tanaka (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSuggestions: mainly just copy edit stuff, as I have no knowledge of the topic:
in the infobox there is no information regarding the strength of the Russian Empire. If it is unknown, it is probably best to say "Unknown" as per the other entries where this is the case;
"against the Russian Empire on 21–25 June 1905" (this might sound better as "against the Russian Empire between 21 and 25 June 1905";
the second sentence of the lead begins the same as the first, in the interests of reducing repetition, perhaps try using a pronoun, for instance: "It was one of the largest disturbances";
this seems awkward to me: "For months, workers in Łódź had been in a state of unrest, with several major strikes having taken place, forcibly suppressed by the Russian police and military". Perhaps try: "For months, workers in Łódź had been in a state of unrest, with several major strikes having taken place, which were forcibly suppressed by the Russian police and military."
I think that there is a missing word here: "On 26 January 1905 about 6,000 workers in took part in a large strike" (specifically after "in" but before "took");
"They demanded an 8-hour work week and support for the sick" (An 8 hour work week seems like very little work to me, do you mean 8 hours a day?);
inconsistent presentation of dates: "on May 1" but also "23 June". Either month day, or day month is fine, but you need to be consistent, IMO;
you have linked "Cossacks" and "Cossack" in the same paragraph, I think one of these would be enough;
"escalated into major demonstrations on 20 June and 21 June" (this could be simplified as: "escalated into major demonstrations on 20 and 21 June";
this is grammatically incorrect: "and few dozens of semi-enlisted workers". Perhaps try either: "and a few dozen semi-enlisted workers" (this would imply around 24 individuals or slightly more), or "and dozens of semi-enlisted workers" (this implies a lot more than 12 individuals);
"killing those who did not surrender" (Do we know what happened to those that did surrender? Or how many in fact surrendered?)
"Around the Wschodnia street" (I think this should be "Around Wschodnia street");
"workers opened fire on a company of soldiers" (you could probably wikilink "company" here to Company (military unit), as this would give readers an understanding of the size of the force);
inconsistent presentation: "The tsarist representatives" (here you have used lower case "tsarist" but elsewhere you use upper case "Tsarist", this should be consistent);
"six infantry regiments and several cavalry regiments" (Do you know how many soldiers this equated to?);
"On the 23 June, all industries, workshops" (should be "On 23 June, all industries, workshops" - no "the" before the date here);
"were captured by the Russian troops by the end of 24 June". (Probably might sound better as: "were captured by Russian troops by the end of 24 June");
in the Further reading section: "Warsaw: Publisher?" I'd suggest leaving the book out, rather than include an entry like this. Or may be say "Publisher unknown". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another list article, this one for the heavy cruisers built or planned by the German Navy in the 1930s-40s. This list is the capstone for this topic, which is complete with the exception of the list, which will need to go to FLC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting "Several innovations were incorporated into the design, including extensive use of welding and all-diesel propulsion, which saved weight and allowed for the heavier main armament and armor." When you say "all-diesel propulsion", is it clear to the English speaking community that you are referring to a diesel powered engine with cylinders and pistons? I mean a turbine could also be diesel fueled or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: how about creating a template for the "See also" section? A see also gives the impression that the article is not yet finished. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I am being picky here "The German Kriegsmarine built or planned a series of heavy cruisers". How about "The German Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine built or planned a series of heavy cruisers" MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this is not your problem but I want to mention it anyhow. The conversion template does a funny line break. Example: "20,000 long tons (20,000 t)[19][Note 2]" introduces a line break between 20,000 and t, for tons. Looks very strange. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine why they coded the template without using a non-breaking space for the output. I'll raise the question over on the template talk page and see what can be done. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardcoded it is. I'm on a different computer today, and all of them appear fine to me - are there any others that need to be hardcoded? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the dates in column "Laid down" need no breaking spaces too. In column "Fate" you may want to introduce them between day and month, where applicable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References follows the "Major publishing city" rule for locations, but strangely not for Barnsley (Barnsley, UK?); similarly Windsor, England => Windsor, UK, unless devolution occurs
Inconsistency about language indication: "Hümmelchen, Gerhard (1976). Die Deutschen Seeflieger 1935–1945." but yet "Prager, Hans Georg (2002) (in German). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit." ?
Comments This is pretty good, but I've got a few comments:
The lead section is really a 'background' section and should probably be labeled as such. In particular, the first paragraph is full of relatively obscure background information which will probably confuse non-expert readers given that it doesn't introduce the topic of the article (which is a list of ships).
This is essentially how I've written all of the other lists (forex List of battleships of Germany) - I don't know what exactly you want me to change. Moving it into a background section would require a new lead; I don't know what would go in it apart from what's already there. You can't really talk about the Deutschlands without talking about Versailles, which is essentially the reason the Germans built ships of this type. They were also particularly notable as the first major warships of all-welded construction and diesel propulsion. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead (and especially the first para) doesn't really introduce the topic of the article at the moment - a summary of the number of classes and ships built and proposed would be useful, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that the term 'pocket battleships' doesn't appear anywhere in relation to the Deutschland class. While this might not be the 'correct' term, it remains a very common one for these ships, and should be noted as an alternative - I imagine that some readers will be surprised to see ships popularly called 'pocket battleships' in a list of 'heavy cruisers' with no explanation given for why the ships are classed as CAs in most modern works.
"Both ships ultimately returned to German waters by the end of the war, where they were both sunk by British bombers" - this sentence is a bit confusing: aside from using 'both' twice, the two ships had returned to German waters by the end of 1943, well before the end of the war
The section headings of this list aren't consistent with other lists, and it's confusing to put the majority of the content under the "key" section.
"The treaty limited large German warships to a displacement of 10,000 tons" - is there a suitable convert template for this unit of measurement?
P class section: "They were an improved design over the preceding planned D class cruisers, which had been canceled in 1934.[23]" - how was this class an improvement? While I understand it was a paper design, it does seem rather vague as to how these ships were supposed to be different.
The biggest improvement was propulsion; the P design was significantly faster than the D design, despite a 25% increase in displacement on essentially the same size hull. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P class section: "A revised version reduced the number of ships to eight, and another revision removed them entirely before work began, replacing them with the three O class battlecruisers, which were also not built.[25]" - why were these ships canceled, and what about the O class was more favorable? Just needs a sentence or two of explanation.
Added a line to explain the O-class ships were larger, faster, and more powerfully armed.
More a comment from me than a proposed fix: As a non-naval person reading an article like this, it strikes me that I want to know more about German naval doctrine with regard to its heavy cruisers. How were German designs unique? How were these ships used? Particularly given Germany's large military force, the heavy cruisers seem somewhat under appreciated in favor of heaver ships and U-boats. Why? I understand most of this discussion should take place in the Kriegsmarine article, but I wish some larger context about German ships with regard to other navies and wars were here to give a better sense of global perspective. I hate to rock the boat (I know the other lists have made it to FL with essentially this format) and this isn't a criticism, I just wanted to hear your thoughts. —Ed!(talk)22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the first two points, but I've got 70 or so finals to grade so it might be a day or two before I get to the others. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for your last point, there are a couple of issues. The main one is that there aren't really any books that discuss what you're looking for in any detail. Comparisons between different navies ships are usually highly problematic for a number of reasons, including different strategic outlooks, different doctrines, etc. Another thing to consider is most European countries stopped building heavy cruisers by the time Germany started, so comparing ships built 10 years apart is problematic (especially in a period of rapid technological change). In addition, reliable references rarely do such things; critiques of specific designs (see for instance Preston's The World's Worst Warships) usually focus on the class by itself, not in comparison to other ships. The other issue has more to do with my long-term plans for the topic; eventually, once the light and protected cruisers are done, I plan on replacing List of cruisers of Germany with an article, Cruisers of Germany, that acts as a summary of the lists (without reproducing the lists of ships). I hope to address some of your questions there (why the Germans built various types of cruisers at certain points, for example). This list does talk briefly about the use of the ships during WWII (primarily as commerce raiders). Oh, and no worries on rocking the boat - it seems we ship article writers rarely get opinions that help us think outside of the box :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for your thoughts. I look forward to seeing these articles as they improve, both as a reviewer and as a curious bystander. —Ed!(talk)21:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because having passed a GA review, and carried out further tweaks and fixes, I believe this article meets all 5 criteria. Benea (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keen not to do that. That last voyage, or more specifically its depiction by Turner, is the primary reason why this ship, out of all the British Napoleonic-era sailing ships with the exception of Victory, is remembered, and I think benefits from being kept separate from the formulaic procedure of the decommissioning of a warship that Temeraire went through. Benea (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Date please!: Clayton, Tim; Craig, Phil. Trafalgar: The Men, the Battle, the Storm. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Date added.
Citations
fn36: I hope Warwick provides a narrative commentary, and that you aren't sourcing from a primary source in a source book? Correspondingly with all Warwick citations, "Voices" seems suspiciously like a source book to me.
I hope I can lay your suspicions to rest. Warwick provides ample commentary.
Note C. what citation does Warwick provide for Lucas' statement? We need to cite their cite.
He does not provide specific citations, merely a bibliography at the end of the book, including a variety of archives and books. A small excerpt from Lucas's letter appears in Willis, simply cited to a 1933 translation of E. Desbriere's work The Naval Campaign of 1805, Trafalgar.
Note D. is this a quote from Willis, or a quote _within_ Willis? If Willis is quoting someone else, we need to cite Willis' cite; as well as citing Willis.
Willis is citing Harvey. If you give me an example of how Willis's cite should be rendered in this context, I would be pleased to cite it.
Eliab Harvey (Date). Document Title. finding method. as cited in Willis. The Fighting Temeraire. p. 192. For example, "Eliab Harvey (1830). Published record of my voyages. London: Hammer & Sons. as cited in..." or "Eliab Harvey (12 November 1815). Letter to his wife. National Archives collection ABC123 box 13. as cited in..." Depends how much detail Willis gives us, and transform it into the style you're using for other citations. Unpublished documents don't take "Quotes" or Italics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
according to the Featured article tools, there is one disambig link that might need fixing: [13];
Fixed
the infobox says: "Laid down: July 1793", but the Construction section in the body says: "Temeraire was laid down at Chatham in July 1791"
A slip of the mind I think, the infobox is correct.
WP:MOSTIME issues: "7.30 am", should be "7:30 am", etc. (there are other examples);
Corrected where I've found them.
"Having done so they refused orders to open them again, jeered the officers and threatened violence". I think you need a comma after "Having done so";
Added a comma.
"command of Captain Edwin H Chamberlayne". I think you need a full stop after "H" to indicate that it is an initial;
Fixed
quotation marks: per MOS:PUNCT, I think you need to use double quotation marks rather than single. An example is here: "The survey reported that she was 'A well built and strong ship but apparently much decay'd'."
Fixed all the ones I could find.
"In choosing his title Turner created a enduring appellation..." I think "a enduring" should be "an enduring";
"Copper sheathing" - worth a short phrase to explain that this was to protect against worms etc.?
There are a number of motives for applying copper sheathing. Rather than select one or two over the others, or deviate a little from the topic of the article with a fuller explanation, I think the link is the better option.
"Under Eyles's command Temeraire finally put to sea that July," - we're really talking about the very end of July (between the 28 to 31st by my reckoning), whereas "that July" suggests a wider timeframe.
I've clarified this to 'the end of July'
'I'll thank you, Captain Harvey, to keep in your proper station, which is astern of the Victory'. - The MOS recommends double speech marks I think for this and the other quotes in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to not have addressed this sooner, I have been travelling for the last nine days and have only just returned. I will work to address the points raised, and hopefully some more reviewers can be found in time. Benea (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: has everything I want to see. I'm no sufficient prose editor, but it looks like the others have taken a look at that. Referencing, scope, and organisation all fine. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vanguard was the last battleship built and became a white elephant in the impoverished environment of post-war Britain. The article is written in British English and probably need to checked to ensure that no American English has been used.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I am happy with many of the aspects of the article, the referencing of almost all of the "Career" section to a single source. It has an impact on "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" (ACRI#1) and "comprehensive" (ACRI#2) - not that I accuse the source of bias, just we've seen that it is very rare to get the full picture from a single work, even a book directly on the battleship in question. It would be nice to see at least a second source woven in. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found tantalising references to further material. For example, this US navy museum page describes a decision whether or not to convert to a missile ship. I've added one source (although your style of multiple references does not facilitate the sort of source I was using) and I would consider researching the missile conversion (or, possibly, referencing that site? It's US military). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there were any serious plans to do so, but I've ordered David K. Brown's book on the post-war RN designs to see if he has anything to say. If not, then there wasn't even a real design study as to its feasibility, which means that it's not worth noting in the article, IMO. Thanks for adding the material from Piggott.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Vanguard was a British fast battleship built during World War II and commissioned after the end of the war. She was the only one of her class and was the biggest, fastest and last of the Royal Navy's dreadnoughts, and the last battleship built in the world. For some reason, I was expecting to find this information in the article and not just the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; I've changed the statement to last BB launched. Problem is that I can't find a reference that explicitly says as much. I could cite the entirety of Conway's or some other book as proof, but that seems rather awkward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find end-of-para only citations not sufficient, and I'd fail the article for a B-class review at WP:POLAND. Milhist mileage may vary, but I'd implore you to increase the citation density. Sure, end-of-para ref may seem sufficient for you know, but what if somebody splits a paragraph, or adds a sentence (referenced or not) into one? Then the reader is suddenly faced with unreferenced paragraphs, or misleading referencing suggesting that the (for example) middle of the para ref is for the beginning for the para. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be your perogative, but nothing on en.wiki requires every sentence cites. Provided that the same source is used for the entire paragraph, one cite at the end suffices all the way up to FA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a FAC/MILHIST-A reviewer of citations and sourcing. I wrote WP:HISTRS in a pique of annoyance at bad sourcing practices, and want to increase the standards of history article sourcing to an equivalent to MEDRS's power in that field. Piotrus asked about dealing with a discussion issue surrounding these citations; and I requested that he point me to the discussion due to my strong interest in sourcing.
I've read the article as current. There are stylistic problems in ¶1 "Design and Construction" in that 10 claims are cited to two sources, one spread across 6 pages. If only a single claim is referenced against Raven and Roberts in that paragraph, it is normal style to indicate which claim derives from Raven and Roberts. ¶4 in the same section has a similar issue with courtesy to the interested reader.
¶1 in "Protection" shows a similar issue, with the citation of the length of the main belt being specific, but other claims listed against two sources without an explanation of which claims derive from which source.
Consider a paragraph where Jones and Jones are responsible for most claims, but one claim comes from Roberts. A bundled citation could cover it as "For x, Roberts… ; Jones and Jones." etc. But it is stylistic, and the article as cited wouldn't seem to be held up from A-Class over this aspect of citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and I generally avoid bundling to avoid confusing the reader. However, when a section of text is that is very closely interwoven using information drawn from two or more sources, I bundle as I see little point in splattering cite numbers every few words throughout a sentence or, worse, a whole paragraph. I realize that this isn't ideal, but detailing the bundling as you'd like when I'm providing a large number of facts in a small amount of space isn't worth the effort. An example would be: displacement, length, date of sea trials, beam, propeller diameter from Raven and Roberts; designed speed, draught, speed and horsepower on sea trials, designed horsepower from Garzke and Dulin. That's nearly the same amount of effort required to document the facts as it was to lay them out in the text. Where I can, I segregate the cites as I did in the first couple of sentences of the protection paragraph, but that's not always convenient and I'll make the reader look at multiple different pages to figure out what facts came from where.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I have a large disparity between sources with one fact going to one source and nine to another, then I specifically cite that source and repeat the other cite as necessary on either side of the single cite. Which is pretty much what I did in the first para of the propulsion section. I only bundle when the facts are pretty evenly divided between the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a sensible strategy, especially given the highly technical data cited there; and, given that it seems reasonable and appropriate synthesis to treat such technical data as (effectively) a rather large single claim. I'm reassured that you've got stylistic control over this. I'd also note that when citing different material (opinions, political changes, budget statements, etc), that people often want a finer grain of detail, and that the types of reasonable and unreasonable synthesis are different. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am aware of the academic standards for citing and have been frustrated myself when trying to pin down a specific reference, so I try to do good. But I will note that this issue is Piotrus's hobbyhorse as demonstrated in [14] and [15].--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This hobbyhorse of mine, as you put it, is essential to a project like wiki. I don't understand why some people, like yourself, refuse to consider the consequences of "editable by anyone", which mean that anybody can split paragraphs, insert content inside them, and such. The new version of source text integrity is a step in the right direction. You cannot have integrity without sentence by sentence referencing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, I just don't think that it's a cost to worth paying to prevent. In other words, your cure is worse than the supposed problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am used to being in minority; I remember when the minority dragged the majority kicking and screaming from the days of brilliant prose and "no footnotes needed" into the current era of inline citations. It's called progress, and it will continue :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I too became aware of your hobby horse on this issue via the two discussions linked above by Sturmvogel and when you did this at a DYK I followed, Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi. Your logic has been resoundingly rejected in two community discussions, but you continue disruptive editing. At the Japanese Amagi article, you edit warred to re-instate citation needed tags even after it was documented on talk that the paragraph was cited, and then you did worse-- you made a WP:POINT edit to break the paragraphs, hence disassociating the citations from the content, and you did so in a way that started a new paragraph with a vague "this", so that the reader can't tell what "this" refers to. You have a) damaged an article's prose, b) edit-warred, and c) made a pointy edit against d) the consensus in two community discussions. Please stop unless you're looking forward to a visit to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled that somebody with your authority would scoop to such underhanded threats and actively support damaging this project with poor referencing. But sure, I'll leave the MILHIST A-class reviews to others, if my standards of quality are not welcome here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me03:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, Sandy, Piotrus was asking for citations. Maybe too many of them (have you seen GA/FA reviews lately?) He was courteous and polite about it. It's perfectly reasonable to ask a little bit more than just end-of-paragraph citation for A-class article (end-of-para citations is the standard at DYK which is one of the things you've been complaining about a lot - understandably, so why flip here?). For some projects A-class is about equivalent to GA (and maybe even more), while for others it's a total joke. So, this is probably just a result of different expectations that people from different backgrounds bring into an umbrella project such as this. It seems that this was getting worked out one way or another (and actually, Fifelfoo was the first to bring this up) - the problem is you jumping in and threatening people with AN/I. Especially coming from someone who usually abhors that kind of bullying, it's very surprising and undue. Ay, come on you've been bullied yourself and rightfully objected when you saw it happen to other people. Don't take that kind of cheap recourse yourself just because you have a disagreement (which will always happen). Volunteer Marek 06:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you both seem to have missed the point. Two discussions (now three that I've found) where consensus was against Piotr on requiring citations by sentence, edit warring on another Strum article to demand citations in a paragraph that was already cited, and a WP:POINT edit to that same article to break a paragraph (in a way that damaged prose). This is referred to on Wikipedia as disruptive editing, and dispute resolution is where such editing usually ends up. It is not courteous and polite to continue to ride a hobby horse after three times your proposal has been rejected by the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you responded to my polite request with an unfriendly volley of personal attacks, and you got a number of facts wrong. While there is no community consensus to cite every sentence, there is no consensus that is shouldn't be done (and indeed it frequently is). I am very much within my rights to ask the editors to exercise high standards with referencing; at the same time I admit they do not have to heed my suggestions, which is why I disengaged from that article when it became clear that the principal author does not share my concerns. I still do not believe that all potentially contentious and controversial, non-BLUE facts in the article are properly cited, but if MILHIST standards do not require such levels of quality, so be it. More to the point of what I and VM noted, what you call a disruptive POINTed edit (splitting the para) was even accepted by the author himself as a good idea ([16]), so at the very least you are misrepresenting my edit in a pretty bad light. Such misrepresentation and calls for dispute resolution hardly contribute to a friendly and collegial editing atmosphere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me00:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is in very good shape. I've got a few mainly minor comments though:
"the biggest, fastest and last of the Royal Navy's dreadnoughts,[2] and the last battleship to be launched in the world." - 'last' is used twice, and could be replaced with something like 'final'
Done.
"Her design was begun before the war began" reads awkwardly. How about "Work on she ship's design commenced before the war" or similar?
Good idea.
"The main constraint of the construction of any new battleships was the limited capacity available to build large-calibre guns and their gun turrets, but using four twin 15 inches (381 mm) mountings in storage offered the possibility of bypassing this bottleneck and allowed the construction of a single fast battleship more quickly than building more Lion-class ships" - this should be split into two sentances
Done.
"The design was modified to increase protection against splinters on the sides of the ship's hull, the armour of the secondary armament was increased to resist 500-pound (230 kg) semi-armour-piercing bombs and the splinter belt's thickness fore and aft of the main armour belt was reduced by 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) in compensation. " - this is a bit confusing - the first part of the sentence appears to say that protection of the ship's hull against splinters was increased, but the last part appears to say that it was reduced
Clarified that it was the unarmored portions of the hull that received splinter protection.
"This was unsuccessful because insufficient skilled labour was available and that proved to be the bottleneck in building the ship." is awkwardly worded
How does it read now?
A bit wordy, but OK
"Admiral Vian transferred his flag to the carrier HMS Indomitable (92) which collided with Vanguard as the former was docking at Gibraltar on 10 February 1951. The hole in the latter's stern was not serious" - the (92) isn't necessary and I got confused about which ship was the 'former' and which the 'later' - why not replace this with 'battleship' and 'carrier' or similar to make things clearer?
Good idea.
The introduction states that "While refitting in 1955, the Admiralty announced that the ship was going to be put into reserve upon its completion" but this announcement isn't directly referred to again or referenced in the body of the article.
It's referred to by the simple statement that she was placed in reserve after finishing her refit.
I guess so, but the bit about the 'announcement' and its timing isn't really supported by the reference then, so you might want to tweak this. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request: My hobbyhorse Sturmvogel, but would you mind adding the flag officer aboard during the SA Royal trip? Was it Flag Officer Royal Yachts - seems unlikely - or another one? Also if you could work in Flag Officers aboard in other places it will make it easier for future articles referring to structures/FOs and others. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(talk)12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that McCart even mentions a FO aboard during the Royal Tours, perhaps Grandiose can check and see what Piggott says. I'll check just to make sure, but I've mentioned just about every single FO who hoisted his flag aboard during the ship's short career because McCart covers that nicely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Shirley North's Vanguard page, it would seem that Agnew was serving as a Captain despite holding the rank of Rear-Admiral. No doubt a contemporary Navy List would confirm that arrangement. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External links all check out [18] (no action required).
Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [19] (suggestions only).
The Citation Check Tool reveals one error:
Raven and Roberts, p. 322 (Multiple references contain the same content)
The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
"Using four twin 15 inches (381 mm) mountings...", should this be "four twin 15-inch (381 mm) mountings" (I think its used as an adjective here)?
Missing word here I think: "The ship's fuel supply was increased to 4,850 long tons (4,930 t) prevent...", should it be "The ship's fuel supply was increased to 4,850 long tons (4,930 t) to prevent..."?
Typo here I think: "...to modify the ammunitions hoists...", should this be "...to modify the ammunition hoists..."?
I think this should also be hypthenated: "Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000 pounds (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb ...", i.e. "Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb..."
"...newly promoted Rear Admiral Agnew...", should just be "...newly promoted Agnew..." removing rank at second instance following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
All done, thanks for going over this with a fine-toothed comb. I always have problems with the surname thing as my training is always to use the rank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Performed my usual copyedit, somewhat cursory this time given the article has already had a fair few eyes on it. However I'd suggest you go over again before any FAC nom as there were a few terms here and there that might require a bit of explanation for the non-military audience. No issue for ACR though, and referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
A good article, a few minor points below:
It would be really useful if the term "belt" was explained in the main text though - it's linked, but is really important to understanding the "Design and description" section and is a specialist term. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The flat transom stern was retained as it was estimated to improve speed at full power by ⅓ of a knot. This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern." - given that you've specified the transom was flat, it would be worth clarifying if this made Vanguard the only ship with a flat transom stern, or any type of transom stern at all.
"the large flare applied to the bows " - I couldn't quite picture this.
" a "double cheese" Type 274 fire-control radar" - I was fascinated by what a "double cheese" radar might be! Any chance of a footnote?
"they were fitted for RPC in azimuth only" - did this mean the gun barrels could be powered up and down, but had to be rotated by hand? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Field Marshal Sir Thomas Albert Blamey was an Australian general of the First and Second World Wars, and the first, and to date only, Australian to attain the rank of field marshal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
A good article which I enjoyed reading. Minor ce points listed below:
Lead:
"and implemented innovations such as police dogs and wireless patrols" - I couldn't work out what a "wireless patrol" was.
"However, upon the creation of the Cadet Instructional Staff of the Australian Military Forces, he saw a new opportunity..." - I'd avoid starting a new section with "However..."
"His first child, a boy named Charles Middleton after a friend of Blamey's who had died in a shooting accident, but known to his family as Dolf," - unclear if the boy was called Dolf, or the friend. I suspect the boy, but could be clarified.
"For his services as Corps Chief of Staff, Blamey was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath in 1919,[31] mentioned in despatches twice more,[32] 1919,[33] and was awarded the French Croix de guerre." "twice more in 1919"?
"He reported that the "conception of an Imperial General Staff... was absolutely dead." It wasn't clear to me what this meant; did he get there to find that the IGS had been abandoned/shut down?
" he brought with him several cases of spirits, providing all the ingredients he needed to turn the Prime Minister's party into a real party. " - the "real party", although sounding fun (!), also sounds a bit informal in tone.
"Blamey joined the Australian Army as a regular soldier in 1906, and attended the Staff College Quetta." Would this work better like this "Blamey joined the Australian Army as a regular soldier in 1906, and attended the Staff College at Quetta."
Missing word here too I think: "Blamey began his working life in 1899 as a trainee school teacher Lake Albert School...", should it be "Blamey began his working life in 1899 as a trainee school teacher at Lake Albert School."
"...on the staff of the Major General William Bridges' 1st Division", might work better as "on the staff of Major General William Bridges' 1st Division."
This sentence might need to be reworded: "Blamey protected the man, whom he said was married with children, has never been identified, but the description of him given by the detectives and the brothel owner did not match Blamey." Consider perhaps "Blamey protected the man, whom he said was married with children, and never identified him, but the description of him given by the detectives and the brothel owner did not match Blamey."
This is repetitive (use of operations twice in same sentence): "These operations aroused considerable criticism on the grounds that the operations were unnecessary...", consider "These operations aroused considerable criticism on the grounds that they were unnecessary..."
Missing word here "He was also criticised for not spending in forward areas...", perhaps "He was also criticised for not spending time in forward areas..."?
in the lead it says "promoted to field marshal in 1951", however, later it says "Blamey was duly promoted to field marshal in the King's Birthday Honours of 8 June 1950";
in the lead, "He attended Japan's ceremonial surrender in Tokyo Bay on 3 September 1945 and signed the Instrument of Surrender on behalf of Australia, and later personally accepted the Japanese surrender at Morotai". This might be smoother if you remove the second last and, for instance: "He attended Japan's ceremonial surrender in Tokyo Bay on 3 September 1945, signed the Instrument of Surrender on behalf of Australia, and later personally accepted the Japanese surrender at Morotai."
I think you need a second or "paired" comma here: "24 January 1884 in Lake Albert, New South Wales near Wagga Wagga, New South Wales" (after "Lake Albert, New South Wales"). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, I think this should be slightly tweaked: Blamey, Controversial Soldier : a biography of Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey (issue with the space before the colon, and "a biography" should probably be "A Biography")
as above, Blamey : The Commander-in-Chief, should probably be: Blamey: The Commander-in-Chief.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SupportComments/suggestions: I had a go at copyediting the lead and the aftermath. I have a few suggestions (I got up to the start of the "Battle of Komam-ni" section):
in the "Outbreak of war" section: "Following the 25 June 1950 outbreak of the Korean War after the invasion of the..." This could probably be simplified. For instance, perhaps try: "Following the 25 June 1950 invasion of the...";
"the goal of fighting back the North Korean invasion and to prevent South Korea from collapsing". Consider: "the goal of pushing back the North Korean invasion and preventing South Korea from collapsing..."
"The division was consequently alone..." (not sure about this one, as a consequence of what? For me, I think you mean as a consequence of the drawdown of US forces in the Far East that is mentioned in the paragraph above, but IMO it is separated too much for the reader to make that leap). I think it might be best to add something, for instance: "...much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive. These were held up due to logistical problems and as a resutl the division was consequently alone..." (something like that, but I am only making up the part about logistical problems, you would need to confirm this, or substitute the reason);
there is some repetition here: "he division made a final stand in the Battle of Taejon, where it was defeated a final time" (specifically the word "final" - perhaps reword);
repetition here: "With Taejon captured, North Korean forces began surrounding the Pusan Perimeter from all sides in an attempt to envelop" (surround, all sides, envelop - these essentially mean the same thing, IMO). Perhaps try: "With Taejon captured, North Korean forces began surrounding the Pusan Perimeter."
repetition in the North Korean advance section: the first para ends with: "...repeatedly pushing back U.S. and South Korean forces". The second paragraph begins with: "American forces were pushed back repeatedly";
there is a comma splice here: "and the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade attached, a force of about...". Perhaps try: "and the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade attached. Together this represented a force of about...";
not sure about the caps here: "However the rest of the Task Force was slowed by enemy resistance". Probably should be "task force" as it is not a proper noun in this instance;
there is some repetition here: "the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade forces were withdrawn from the force on August 12 " (specifically forces). Perhaps try: "the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade elements were withdrawn from the force on August 12..."
this could be tighter: "forward supported by naval artillery and field artillery". Perhaps try: "forward supported by naval and field artillery";
I suggest the addition of an introductory comma here: "In the confusion North Korean armor was..." (specificially after "In the confusion");
this could be tigher: "inflicting massive numbers of casualties on one another". Perhaps: "inflicting heavy casualties on one another";
this needs an endash: "The 6th Division had been reduced to 3,000-4,000" (also I suggest adding "personnel" after the numerals);
in the UN redraws battle lines section, this probably should have a paired comma: "Walker then ordered the US 25th Infantry Division, under Kean to take up defensive" (second comma after "under Kean");
"The 2,000 feet (610 m) mountain ridges" I think this should be: "The 2,000-foot (610 m) mountain ridges..." (could be achieved by adding "adj=yes");
"dominated by 900 feet (270 m) Sibidang-san, along..." Probably should be: "dominated by the 900-foot (270 m) Sibidang-san, along..."
there is comma splice here: "left flank west of Komam-ni, 2nd Battalion held..." Possibly try: "left flank west of Komam-ni, while the 2nd Battalion held..."
"On division orders, 5th RCT" (probably need to formally introduce the abbreviation);
"Kean then ordered the 5th Regimental Combat Team to take..." (you could use the abbreviation here);
in the North Korean consolidation section, probably could add an introductory comma here: "Meanwhile the NK 6th Division was ordered to await reinforcements before" (after "Meanwhile");
"The North Koreans realized they presented a weakness in the lines but was unable to acquire men" (I suggest replacing "was" with "were");
there is a comma splice here: "The North Koreans at T'ongyong lost about 350 men, the survivors withdrew to Chinju". Perhaps change to: "The North Koreans at T'ongyong lost about 350 men, and later the survivors withdrew to Chinju". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I followed up Gugeler, the goss at the Chronicle of Higher Education is that some people know them for publishing soviet-style texts! It doesn't seem to have been reviewed, but, at the same time it isn't used at all here; I was just following up the name of a press I didn't know.
External links check out [24] (no action required).
Images all have Alt Text [25] (no action required).
The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
The images are all PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
Missing word here I think: "For the first month after the defeat of Task Force Smith, 24th Infantry Division was repeatedly...", consider "For the first month after the defeat of Task Force Smith, the 24th Infantry Division was repeatedly..."
Irregular caps here: "the 35th Infantry Regiment encountered 500 North Korean Infantry...", specifically I don't think infantry should be capitalised here.
Not sure about this: "Both North Korean and American armor swarmed to the scene and US Marines aviation...", specifically would this work better as "US Marine aviation..."?
"On division orders, the 5th Regimental Combat Team (5th RCT) first...", this abbreviation should be introduced earlier at first instance (in the Task Force Kean section).
Missing word here I think: "A battalion of North Korean troops drove ROK police out of T'ongyong but...", consider "A battalion of North Korean troops drove the ROK police out of T'ongyong but..."
"UN naval forces heavily shelled T'ongyong as three companies of ROK marines from Koje Island made...", specifically should "ROK marines" be capitalised as "ROK Marines"?
"...8 radios, 11 telephones, and 2 vehicles in the process...", should be "...eight radios, 11 telephones, and two vehicles in the process..." per WP:MOSNUM.
"...the 24th Infantry command post was at Haman and Colonel Throckmorton's command post was at Chindong-ni...", specifically "Colonel Throckmorton's" should just be "Throckmorton's" per WP:SURNAME as you have already formally introduced him by rank earlier in the text.
Punctuation missing here I think: "Eighth Army intelligence credited the North Koreans with having moved one or two new divisions and about 20 tanks to the Hyopch'on area on the west side of the Naktong River opposite the US 2nd Division However, the US intelligence overestimated the strength of these divisions."
Repetitive: "The ROK troops in the pass left their positions and fell back on G Company south of the pass...", consider "The ROK troops in the pass left their positions and fell back on G Company to the south..."
"When the North Korean attack broke through the 2nd Battalion, Champney ordered the 1st Battalion...", who is Champney? He needs to be introduced formally with rank and name at first instance per WP:SURNAME.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this a typo? "draw attentions away from his wife's vocal opposition to the war...", specifically I think "attentions" should be sigular, i.e. "attention".
"attentions" refer to the different levels of attention of multiple people. Collective "attention" of the public also makes sense but as far as I know they are interchangeable. Kind of like the difference between "people's hearts and minds" and "the heart and mind of the people." —Ed!(talk)19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a little repeatitive. In particular in the "Medal of Honor action" section you write: "Davis was one of only 31 pilots in US aviation history with over 20 victories" and later "Throughout his career, Davis was credited with 21 confirmed victories, one probable victory and two aircraft damaged. This made him one of only 30 US pilots to gain more than 20 confirmed victories over their careers..." in the "Aerial Victory credits" section. You could probably trim one of these sections. Perhaps remove the first sentence (from the Medal of Honor Action section) and keep the second (that in the Aerial Victory credits section)? Anotherclown (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be a good idea to remove the statement "It was returned to the US after the end of the war in 1953." until a source can confirm this statement, since Davis is still officially MIA, not KIA. Jim101 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, can you double check your source Texas Cemeteries: The Resting Places of Famous, Infamous, and Just Plain Interesting Texans to see if Davis' grave is a real grave or a cenotaph? Also, shouldn't the Place of burial field in the infobox changed to something like Lubbock, Texas USA (cenotaph) or Unknown? Jim101 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all my sources again. I can't find anything explicitly stating his resting place or what became of his body after the Chinese recovered it. Only that there is a monument of some kind for him in Lubbock, Texas. —Ed!(talk)02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Cemeteries: The Resting Places of Famous, Infamous, and Just Plain Interesting Texans, that is an awesome publication.
The sidebox in §Length of Tour is an excellent example of how to "illustrate" with a primary source.
There is an excellent balance of sources, making use of scholarly, militaria, and the most appropriate sources published near the event. The view of the opposing force has been sought in scholarly sources.
References: Watch for full-stops at the end of the references, some like "Zhang 2004, p. 158." have them, most don't.
Spotchecked for facts/plagiarism: fn2, 23, 35 (yes, the easy ones); they're all good.
Support: I made any edits that I would have suggested. Feel free to revert if you disagree. In terms of a tech review, there were no dabs and ext links all worked. Some of the images have alt text, while others don't. You may wish to add this in before taking it to FAC. I think the images are licenced correctly, but I'm not exactly an expert on these matters. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another list of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients for A-Class review. The list follows the familiar layout and structure of the other A-Class lists of the series. New to this list is the section of Hans Turnwald, who was not identified by the Association of KC recipients. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with two comments:
"The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry." - I think this sounds strange. Maybe, "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from senior commanders for leadership in battle to regular soldiers for a single act of extreme gallantry."
"Recipients" section lead paragraph: You're inconsistent with whether you spell out or use numerals for the numbers. Generally in writing all numbers above 10 are numerals and all numbers below are spelled out.
SupportComment: generally looks fine to me. I made a couple of tweaks, which you might want to check you agree with. This sentence leaves me asking "so what happened?", though: "The nomination of the Heerespersonalamt (HPA—Army Personnel Office) was ready for signature". For instance, they had the nomination ready, so why didn't they complete the nomination? I think it is because the war ended, but it probably needs to be stated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question but very difficult to answer. The KC required Adolf Hitler's or his successors (Dönitz) personal approval. Generally speaking Hitler did approve almost everything submitted to him but not everything. In the final days of the war, some senior commanders had been authorized to approve on his behalf. I am still researching to fully understand this. My plan is to someday integrate the approval procedure into the KC article. Until then I think ready for signature will have to do. Maybe we should add ready for signature by Karl Dönitz as head of state? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe just say something like this: "The nomination of the Heerespersonalamt (HPA—Army Personnel Office) was ready for signature but the process was never completed." AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This list looks to be the same high quality of the other lists you have written on this topic. I see no problems with it. Keep up the good work! Otto Tanaka (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another list of German warships, this one caps off this project, which is all but ready for nomination as a Good Topic. This article follows the formatting of my previous ship lists. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets our project standards, as well as with preparing the list for WP:FLC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those designations correspond to the more general "ironclad warship", "armored frigate", and "armored corvette", which are included in the individual ship/class sections.
"she was built by the relatively inexperienced Royal Dockyard in Stettin"; Royal Dockyard links to Kaiserliche Werft Danzig and Danzig is not even close to Stettin. What am I missing? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danzig is right, don't know why I typed in Stettin.
Link tender, guard ship, training ship, ship breakers, boiler room, barracks ship
Fixed.
Specify that turrets of Prinz Adalbert are fixed.
Fixed.
This is awkward: The ship was commissioned into the Prussian Navy in January 1867. Friedrich Carl served with the fleet from her commissioning in 1867. What's the point of the last sentence?
Fixed.
Link to the 1873 insurrection; I think it's the Third Carlist War or some such.
It was the Cantonal Revolution, which was simultaneous with the Third Carlist War.
Shouldn't it be "during" rather than "in": The ship was refitted at the Imperial Dockyard in Wilhelmshaven in the 1880s.
Fixed.
What's a harbor ship? Do you mean hulk?
Groner simply says "harbor ship" - he usually says that a ship was hulked if it was.
This is awkward: Only two sorties in which Kronprinz participated were conducted, both of which did not result in combat.
How does it read now?
Move link to naval register to first occurence.
Fixed.
The conversion to short tons is unnecessary, IMO. Only long and metric tons are important for ship articles. Just specify t|LT in your conversions. That will improve the appearance of the tables as well.
The article title is not good since this seems like just a list of Panzerschiff (and maybe Panzerfregatte and Panzerkorvette), not ironclads in general. I agree with MisterBee that the distinction is kind of lost; the Prussia/German navy had other warships which would be considered ironclads in other navies such as the Kreuzerfregatte or armored frigates and two river monitors. Does one of your sources limit the list this way? Perhaps you'll need to expand it to include those other ships or maybe just rename the article List of Panzerschiff-type warships of Germany. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the term "ironclad" refers to capital ships of the era, not necessarily all warships armored with iron/steel/etc. Many references, such as Sondhaus's two books, use this schema. As to a specific source that limits the list this way, Gröner's German Warships breaks the chapters down as such (the chapter that covers all of these ships is titled "Armored vessels 1864-1884" in the English translation - this would be the general "panzerschiff" in German). None of the contemporary cruising ships to which I assume you're referring (such as the Bismarck and Leipzig classes) were armored, neither were the steam corvettes (such as the Nymphe through Carola classes). Those are iron and steel-built ships, not ironclads. Only a small number of coastal and riverine gunboats (including Rhein and Mosel as you noted) carried armor. When one talks of ironclad strength in this era, these ships are not included. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironclads at War has a page at the beginning which supports what you are saying but also talks about the type in general; maybe you can add similar wording in a note. Also, I suggest re-reading the Ironclad warship article since its FA and does talk about all warships armored with metal not specifically capital ships. Kirk (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article is almost entirely about ironclad capital ships, and really only discusses smaller craft in passing in the section on the American Civil War (and it would be an omission not to, given the sheer number of coastal and riverine craft operated by the Federal Navy). The point remains that the small riverine/coastal craft aren't typically referred to as ironclads, while all of the ships in this list are. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about this, but ironclad does specifically include small armored ships like river monitors and the like. So I agree with Kirk and the armored gunboats should be added unless you want to specifically limit the list to ocean-going. Which is what I'd suggest if you're going for a good topic as getting the gunboats up to GA would be very, very difficult.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I've never seen an author discussing ironclads include small craft, especially when discussing the ironclad strength of the various navies of the period. I don't know that anyone would include the flatiron gunboats. Aside from them, the only iron-armored vessels that aren't included are the two Rhein class riverine monitors. At least in my experience, the unqualified "ironclad" is a term of art that means more than a ship clad in iron - there's a reason other vessels are qualified as "ironclad floating batteries", "ironclad gunboats" and the like. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of ironclads in the US Navy were small craft, and they really had no ocean going types until after they stopped calling them 'ironclads'. Also consider the Union ironclad template Template:Union ironclads, which includes river and coastal ships, and your definition is inconsistent with the ironclad warship article, which includes small craft. A term of art is a good way to put this; that's why I though you should go with a different title to avoid confusion. Kirk (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Old USN was an anomaly and should not be the basis of understanding a concept that was nearly universally accepted in every other major navy. My definition is in accordance with that understanding, which is essentially that "ironclad" = "Victorian-era battleship". There's a reason that Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships refers to, for example, "Warrior class broadside ironclads", but "Vixen class armored gunboats", even though the types were near contemporaries. Go read through contemporary naval annuals that talk about "ironclad strength" of the major European navies. For example, the 1889 edition of Brassey's Annual on page 662 talks about German ironclad strength that year. It makes no mention of anything other than capital ships. Does this note address your concerns? Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its better but I would like to see "ironclad" = "Victorian-era battleship" somewhere (a note, the ironclad warship article) because that's what this article is trying to list and the average reader still might be confused if we don't attempt to make this more clear. Ironclads at War had a whole page on this at the beginning. And I don't think you can dismiss the US Navy that easily since the Arminius and Prinz Adalbert, a monitor and an ex-Confederate ram, don't really match your definition of an ironclad warship. I'll go read some of the sources you mentioned; it sounds like to me the definition changed as the Civil War designs gave way to the Royal Navy's designs. Kirk (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sondhaus(2001) p. 134 "...by the standards of the early 1880s, navies no longer considered ships capable only of broadside fire as first-rate battleships, regardless of their size; likewise, ironclads displacing less than 2,000 tons, along with some larger monitor type, were considered suitable for coastal operations only and not counted as part of the battle fleet...Germany ranked a distant third with nine [ironclads], not counting 12 coastal and three broadside ironclads." Based on that standard, you could have two lists: the last 10 ships in the current article as ironclad battleships/armoured frigates and the first 6, along with 9 other ships in another list. You could change the list to Armored Frigates and leave out the Hansa, Arminius and Prinz Adalbert. We don't have Conway in our library so I couldn't check how the ships are organized. In any case, it seems like an incomplete list of ironclads at this point based on how Soundhaus defined them. Kirk (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the note better address your concerns now? The definition didn't change in that it referred to armored capital ships - the designs of ships are what changed over time, from essentially armored versions of sail/steam ships to barbette/turret-armed ships that eventually grew into pre-dreadnoughts, by which time the term "ironclad" fell out of use (much the same as how "dreadnought" fell out of use after WWI).
The problem with using that quote from Sondhaus is that the article isn't titled "List of ironclad warships of Germany defined as first-line battleships in the early 1880s." By that logic, List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy should be renamed because after 1906, none of the listed ships were regarded as first-rate battleships. The fact remains that in the 1870s, all of these ships were viewed as capital ships. Conway's accordingly groups them as such under the heading "Capital Ships", stating on page 242 "German battleship development up to 1906 can best be seen as a four-stage process. Initially in the mid 1860s a number of vessels already begun for other customers...were purchased from British and French builders...by these means...Prinz AdalbertArminius, and the powerful central battery vessel Konig Wilhelm were acquired." Groner similarly arranges them (as I pointed out above) as "Armored vessels 1864-1884", directly before the chapter on the Siegfried and Odin classes of coastal defense ships, and before the chapters on pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, and WWII-era battleships, a clear indication that these 16 ships are all to be regarded as capital ships. Rhein and Moselle and the Wespe class flatirons are appropriately grouped in both works under chapters on gunboats. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but none of the authors I checked have a List of Ironclads of Germany with the ships you have listed; most have the more specific types of ships listed chronologically. I read the Gröner book in German and he calls the ships in this list Battleships (Schlactschiffe) with the Panzer-schiff -fregatte -corvette subheading which was translated to 'Armored Vessels' instead of 'Ironclad' or 'Battleship'. The article matches Gröner so I supposed you could go with the terrible sounding 'List of armored vessels of Germany' but none of the other authors seem to use that term. Maybe ironclad is the least worst option here but I just don't see a lot of evidence that you can leave out the non-captial ironclads in any 'list of ironclads' article/infobox so the note probably isn't sufficient; Hopefully some other editors will comment. Kirk (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still with Kirk on this name issue. But let me reiterate, the simplest thing is to rename the article as the list of ocean-going ironclads .... You're missing some data in the armament entries for the tables for the Kaiser and Sachsen classes and a bunch of the later tables still have short tons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - there are several sources that support what I'm saying about the difference between these ships and the two Rhein class river monitors, and the usual meaning of the term "ironclad". As for the short tons, that should now be fixed, and I only included the main battery guns for the Kaiser and Sachsen classes, per standard practice with the later ships. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Arminius was ocean-going, but a little explanation with that ship being grouped with the others in German sources would address my concerns. Kirk (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groner states that Arminius was horrible at sea and that she needed her ruddle to be turned 15 degrees just in order to sail straight. I dont believe she was ever used beyond coastal duty until she was converted to an icebreaker.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arminius sortied some 40 times during the Frano-Prussian War to attack the blockading French squadron - she was essentially the only operational ironclad of the war. How does this note read, Kirk? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I get around to doing lists of US, Confederate and Brazilian (and maybe Austro-Hungarian) ironclads I'm going to have little choice but to include riverine ironclads as they make up the bulk of the ships in question. And I could make the case that the French, British and Spanish armored floating batteries should be included as well. I think that Sondhaus, et al., are making a false distinction among European ironclads (ocean-going and coastal defense) simply because ships like the floating batteries and river monitors are poorly documented and thus very obscure. My impression is that most of these people aren't nuts and bolts type of people and may not even know that they exist. Which would explain why they defined ironclad as they did. BTW the tables look fine now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They might be making a false distinction, but there is a distinction nonetheless. We should be following the example of what are essentially naval encyclopedias (Conways and Groner in this case - oddly enough Conway's 1860-1905 doesn't even include the US riverine craft). As for the Rhein class, they're included in both Conway's and Groner, though in the section on gunboats, and are not referred to as ironclads. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conway's lumps all of the Union ironclads together, subdivided into broadside ironclads, monitors and other armored ships. All Confederate ironclads are lumped together as armored ships as are the Brazilian ironclads, called coast defense battleships, curiously enough. There's no mention of either the French or British floating batteries, nor of the Brazilian Para-class (river) monitors. So no real support for your position from Conway's. To my mind an ironclad is any armored ship built between 1850 and about 1885, regardless of size or role. And I suspect that that's the definition in most people's minds. You can parse it more finely if you choose, but you need to explicitly say so to prevent confusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but Conway's doesn't list the small (500 tons and less) ships - the Neosho class isn't mentioned at all, for example. Conway's does include the Rhein class, which does make clear the editors were aware of them (or at least Lyon, the author of the Germany chapter). There are two classes of the French floating batteries, though not of the ships they used at Kinburn. As for specifically stating what the list treats as ironclads, that's in the note I added per Kirk's request. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I can find a lot of authors who describe any armored warship of the period as an ironclad, with the possible exceptions of the floating batteries. Again, by Greene and Massignani's definition only New Ironsides and, perhaps, the large ocean-going monitors, would count as ironclads and that's simply not how the term was used in the US. I'd suggest that you move that note to the lede and explain that you're following G & M's definition and mention that other authors define ironclads more broadly. As I've said before, you can define the list criteria as you wish, you just need to justify it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to note that Groener does not have a category of ironclad in his book, so using him as an example for descerning which ships are ironclads or not is rather useless.XavierGreen (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, do you mean take the justification for the list definition from the note and in place it in the lead? If not, it's already after the first sentence in the lead. I did add a bit that the term can be used to incorporate smaller vessels, especially in the case of the US Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier, "Ironclad" and "armored ship" are synonyms; that'd be like arguing that since the protected, armored, and battlecruisers are in the same chapter, they should be considered equivalent for list purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this article promoted so stepping back, I'm concerned about all list articles, since a List of A article implies to the reader that A is a complete set of A instead of a subset of B, and its pretty clear to me after this discussion this list is a subset of B. Note #1 is a good way toward to addressing my concerns, although I feel sentence #2 is an opinion instead of a fact and I serious doubt I'd find a version of that sentence on page 261 of Gardiner. In my opinion the Wespe and Rhein classes aren't included in the source lists because the sources don't really consider those ships important enough to write about, which makes your job difficult so its easier to toss them aside, which is fine with some justification. The beginning of the third sentence I would remove "frequently" (it doesn't seem frequent to me) and specify the list contents matches Groener but he doesn't use the term ironclad (in both German and the English translation), and then specify the author(s) who use the term ironclad with these ships. Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I need to state that "ironclad" and "armored ship" are synonyms? I don't know why I need to keep explaining this. There are two alternative definitions for the term "ironclad"; I have chosen the one I have seen expressed more frequently, which is to say, an armored capital ship. Similarly, one could reasonably expect a hypothetical List of cars to contain only cars. The argument could be made that the list should be based on the more expansive definition that includes trucks, vans, and other motor vehicles. I have chosen the former rather than the latter here. In any case, Gardiner and Groner, both include the Rhein and Wespe classes, and Sondhaus (Weltpolitik) refers to the latter extensively; none refer to them as ironclads. If you'd like, I can supplement the Greene & Massignani citation with a citation to Olivier's German Naval Policy: 1856-1888, which states "A ship-of-the-line was a large warship, usually armed with 50 or more cannon arranged on two or more decks, designed to fight in the line of battle. This type of ship eventually evolved into the ironclad, the battleship and the dreadnought" (emphasis mine). Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last bit is a good addition; let's see what the other dissenters think. Kirk (talk)
Templates fixed, and as for the last sentence, Sondhaus talks specifically about Caprivi's (the chief of the navy at the time) views on the Jeune Ecole and the dissatisfaction of the navy in general with the Sachsens, and ties these issues directly to the decision to halt construction - for example, "Caprivi acknowledged the need for new armored warships but wanted to avoid the mistakes of Stosch's designs." on page 165. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow. The poor performance of the Sachsens and the rise of the Jeune Ecole to prominence in the naval officer corps (which is to say that its prominence is more directly important than the tenets of the doctrine themselves) were the direct reasons for the decision to wait on building new ships. I don't see the problem with using causal language when the relationship was directly causal. If I were overstating the situation, then yes, there would be a problem, but that's not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the WP:Checklist is designed mainly to give copyeditors some help with getting articles through FAC. This is a list, and I've never had a good feel for WP:FLC. If you're headed there, I'll keep an eye on it and try to learn a bit more about what's needed there. FAC is a little idiosyncratic. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sections don't have pictures. Can you add [26] this one for example?
That photo doesn't have a source that demonstrates it was published before 1923. We can't assume it was simply because it was old, so we can't use it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say in the second paragraph that the German navy "temporarily ceased construction of capital ships in the 1880s". Maybe you should add a sentence on the capital ships built after this and why they're not on the list. Otto Tanaka (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The ship's construction was delayed by multiple changes in her design after she was laid down as well as outright suspension after her shipyard closed after she was launched." - this sentence is a bit hard to follow
Split in two; how does it read now?
Watch for overly wordy phrases like "Most of the changes were due to the fact that her designers..." - suggest "Most of the changes were because her designers..."
If we go with Ark Royal as a template, the sectioning could be improved: I suggest start with Design, Construction, Armament and aircraft; finish the service section with Sinking.
The sections are small enough that I don't really see any advantage to breaking them into smaller ones.
Maybe someone else has an opinion about the sections; the reason I suggested sinking was I believe that's the action's name.
Specficially on Aircraft I had a hard time gleaning what type/number of aircraft were carried on board during her service career and this seemed to vary frequently - maybe expand the infobox's '20' with some time periods or add some more detail in the prose. If the various 'squadron X' mentions were supposed to tell me the number of planes I would put that in the article somewhere.
I'll grant that you were not able to derive aircraft numbers during the interwar period because I don't have a source that provides them. I know that Flights were generally about 6 aircraft, I'm not sure that that was true of those embarked on Hermes. I'm truly puzzled by your comment that you couldn't track the types of aircraft deployed given the info provided in the second paragraph of the service section, forex. And when the units received different types of aircraft that's been noted as well. Otherwise they can be presumed to have kept the same aircraft. That said, I see that I didn't provide the aircraft flown by a couple of flights and need to add them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant when squadron X appears on board in 19xx, what happened to squadron j, k and/or l which were mentioned earlier? The way it reads to me the ship only carried a single squadron of a single type of aircraft which doesn't sound like 20 to me, and most contemporaries carried multiple types at a time. I thought the Ark Royal article did a good job of summarizing the types (if not the numbers).Kirk (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From about the mid-30s, all the ship is generally carrying is a single squadron of a dozen Swordfish so you are reading things correctly. The Fleet Air Arm was so chronically short of aircraft between the wars that it didn't have enough fighters to deploy a squadron on each of its fleet carriers, much less a light carrier like Hermes. It's the early period from 24–33 when she usually has two to three flights aboard that I'd think would be more confusing. That table is nice, but would be a PITA to assemble because Hermes, although much smaller than Ark Royal, had a much, much longer career and more individual units to track because Flights were about half the size of a Squadron before the war began. And, quite frankly, I really have no desire to try and assemble an equivalent table for Victorious with her much longer career. My feeling is that if you want to track a Flight or Squadron, read the unit's article. That's why I linked to all the flights, even if they're an echelon below what we normally consider notable. If the ship had actually done anything significant with her aircraft during the war, I'd have specifically listed them, just like I've done for Akagi, Kaga, Courageous and Hosho, all A-class or better. I used the same format here that I used on Eagle, currently at FAC and I think that documents the ship's aircraft well enough for our purposes. If you disagree, feel free to comment there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put some comments at Eagle; if Hermes only had 12 aircraft on board because of a war shortage or the modern aircraft were bigger I think you need to say that somewhere because 20 does not equal 12. Please sprinkle in a few numbers with the squadron/flight references so the reader doesn't have to look up the number of planes in each. My quick read of the other articles you mentioned: Akagi/Kaga has a nice summary of her aircraft in the infobox and the design section. Courageous has some of the same problems as this article. Hosho doesn't have much in the infobox but does have a 'Air Group' section summarizing the types of aircraft over time, that would be less of a PITA for you I'm sure. Kirk (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you confusing capacity with what she actually had on board? You seem to be assuming that countries always load their carriers to their capacity, but that's not at all true. Note: 12 Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers of 814 Squadron (her only embarked squadron for all of WWII as a close reading will reveal) and nine Fairey Seal torpedo bombers of 824 Squadron. As I said, I've provided numbers when known. I'll look at Hosho's treatment of this issue, but my sources to not generally specify proposed air groups for the British carriers, unlike the Japanese, just raw numbers, so I'm not sure that I'll be able to use that approach.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is either her capacity in 1939 was 12 Swordfish, or the ship wasn't at full capacity and I would prefer if that was explained in the article if possible; if you've checked your sources and none of them seem to care I understand. I did find a source British naval aircraft since 1912 which says her capacity was 15; but Colledge says 20. The article is very well sourced and I understand there's not a lot you can do when your sources get it wrong or can't agree! Kirk (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to say what her capacity was exactly since it all depended on how large the aircraft were. The only sure thing is the number she had onboard at any given time and I've provided that as often as I have been able to. If you'd like, I can add something about her being in a secondary theater and therefore lacking her full complement of aircraft, if I can find a source that says as much. Which I may not be able to do. I'll have to poke around to see if I can find something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"Most of the changes were because her designers were waiting for the results of experiments with the existing carriers to allow them to optimise her design.": Not sure I follow. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Like Hōshō, Hermes was based on a cruiser-type hull, but she was initially designed to carry both wheeled aircraft and seaplanes.": This is the first sentence below the lead, and I feel like I'm missing some context. For instance, I don't understand the "but".
Me neither; yet more evidence of my habit of treating "but" like "and".
I'm not completely clear on how much of WP:LEAD is enforced at FAC, but I do see people say that everything in the lead is supposed to be supported by something below the lead. The only mention of Hōshō below the lead is the second word.
If it's cited, I don't think that it's a big deal.
"Progress was slow as the conversion of Eagle from a battleship to an aircraft carrier in the same shipyard was much further along and could be finished much more quickly. The leisurely speed of construction allowed for more time with which to reconsider the ship's design.": I don't follow. "As" implies causation here; how did the quick construction of Eagle slow down the construction of Hermes? The sentences need to be in a different order.
Rewritten
"44 by 20 feet (13.4 × 6.1 m)": Use "by", not "×" in the convert template, here and below. [I got the other one. Done.]
"needed some repairs to repair storm suffered en route.": I don't follow, and "repairs to repair" doesn't work for me.
Agreed, it was missing a word or two in addition.
"403 Flight": I changed it to "No. 403 Flight" (just for the first one; same principle as in your previous FAC).
"began a refit at Chatham Dockyard at the beginning of November. One of her 4-inch guns was removed during this refit. Sometime after this refit,": too many "refits".
Indeed.
"Bangkok, Siam": second comma
Yep.
Consistency needed in Hermes's, Hermes'. (Either is okay; I'd go with 's).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it is currently including all reasonably available information, I believe, and is well-referenced and well-illustrated. An intriguing footnote in the U.S. Army's history that I think meets the A-class criteria - The BushrangerOne ping only01:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Second paragraph of Design: suggest splitting into two sentences
"inter-mesh" or "intermesh"? Check for internal consistency throughout
Some copy-editing is needed for clarity and flow
Short citation lists Corn and Horrigan as coauthors, but Bibliography entry lists only Corn
I don't have page numbers for all of the sources - the information is viewable in the Gbooks links and thus verifiable, but the page numbers were not shown. I'll get to the rest shortly. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "The machine was a simple, cross-shaped frame, with the pilot standing on a platform, secured by a safety harness along with the engine, which was an outboard motor manufactured by Mercury Marine" - not clear whether the engine is on the platform or secured by a safety harness. Another example: "Over 160 flights totaling more than 15 hours of flight time were conducted,[7] and the results of this early test flight program were considered promising enough that a dozen examples of the type were ordered[1] (serial numbers 56-6928 to 56-6939),[8] and predictions that the craft could provide transport to a modern version of the old horse cavalry, providing airborne "eyes and ears" for the Army, were made" - very long sentence, difficult to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NACA testing proved that the idea had merit, and several companies began development of rotorcraft using the concept, including Bensen Aircraft, Hiller Aircraft, and de Lackner Helicopters." - might sound better as: "NACA testing proved that the idea had merit, and several companies, including Bensen Aircraft, Hiller Aircraft, and de Lackner Helicopters, began development of rotorcraft using the concept";
in the Bibliography, "Maurice A. Smith", should probably be listed with the surname first for consistency;
in the Bibliography, "Retrieved 29 Sept 2011" - should probably be "Retrieved 29 September 2011" for consistency with other dates in the list;
in the Bibliography, some of the "work=" parameters don't seem right to me. For instance, "U.S. Army Transportation Museum" and "Hiller Aviation Museum" seem more likely to be publishers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" (to 50 miles (80 km)[4]) " - the double brackets could be pared down
"cargo lifting line being able to be threaded" - could be simplified.
" secured by a safety harness along with the engine" - do you mean that the engine was secured by a harness, or that the pilot was secured next to the engine?
The Harding book has 1 page on the HZ-1 and that includes specs and a picture. So I could only cite a couple things with it. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Albert Ball was in his lifetime the highest-scoring British fighter ace of World War I. He was also the first to gain popular adulation in the UK, helped to design his own fighter prototype, and died at just 20. This co-nomination with Georgejdorner is the long-delayed follow-up to our successful ACR (and later FAC) for another World War I ace, Stan Dallas. We plan on taking this one to FAC as well assuming a positive outcome here, so any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books
Done.
File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG: if we don't know who the author is, how do we know it was created by the UK government? Same with File:Austin_AFB_1_Outside_Longbridge_Works.jpg
Re. first, I think we just assumed it must be an official portrait but admittedly no proof of that -- replaced with the painting in the Other Awards section.
Replaced again with one of the photos mentioned below as the image of the painting appears to be copyright (even though the painting itself probably isn't due to being an official government commission). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. second, can't locate any definite PD images of this aircraft. Given that, and the fact that only one example was built so long ago, may be a case instead for a fair-use rationale...
Regarding images, FWIW, the ODNB article lists all the likenesses of him the author of that article found. Those include one held at the National Portrait Gallery of him driving a car, see here. Also, the Poole statue model ended up in the NPG via Ball's father, see here. Probably worth mentioning that in the article, as it is on public display. The E. N. Birkett photograph (at the IWM) is mentioned in the ODNB listing. The only non-IWM photographs (I presume someone has checked whether File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG is one of the IWM ones?) are: "photograph, repro. in P. G. Cooksley, VCs of the First World War: the air VCs (1996)" and "photographs, repro. in Revell, High in the empty blue". If someone has copies of those, they could check where that photograph is from. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the NPG car shot is presumably PD as the photographer died over 70 years ago, I have to admit I don't find it particularly remarkable so perhaps we'll keep that in reserve... I think that's a fair suggestion re. the Poole statue, will see if I can work it in. Re. File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG, I've double-checked IWM but it's not online, and the Osprey book I scanned it from has no further info, which is why I just bit the bullet and dropped it for now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the author information is wrong for File:Albert Ball portrait.jpg. It currently says 'Imperial War Museum Photograph Archive Collection', when it should say 'E. N. Birkett'. Though I'm not sure what should be done here, as the IWM catalogue page doesn't specify the photographer, but the ODNB article does. And does the photograph being part of the IWM collection mean it is OK for use here? Or do you have to check the details of E. N. Birkett? Sadly, I've been unable to find out any more details here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Albert Ball portrait.jpg seems to be the most ubiquitous image of the man, on the cover of Bowyer's book, in the ODNB entry, and in a couple of other WWI ace books I've seen. Interestingly, I've only seen the Birkett credit in ODNB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation format of the references is not one that I'm used to. The title of the work (Albert Ball VC. pp. 20–21) is used instead of the "author, year" (e.g. Bowyer 1977) format I'm more used to seeing. In at least one case (which I mention below), the citation format is not that normally used, and this might be the case for other citations as well.
The citation style is not one I normally use either but it seems clear enough so, given I didn't begin work on the article till after it had got to B-Class, I applied the guideline that one doesn't mess with the existing citation style unless one really needs to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm talking here about whether the citation style used is valid or not. Only once you've determined that can you start talking about not changing to other citation styles. You say "it seems clear enough". That doesn't really answer the question of whether it is valid or not. There are reasons standard citation styles have been developed. Is this citation style one of them, and if not why not? Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you judging "validity"? Personally I use author/title in articles I start or develop largely from scratch, never author/year, and I've never had an issue in all the GANs and FACs I've done. Granted the style I inherited here uses only title but the point is that clearly more than one format is acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Validity might be the wrong word. I have just found it awkward to use, as I got into a terrible tangle trying to put a non-book source in the "references" section, mainly because creating a "shortened" form to use in the main body of the article wasn't really working. I then realised that it was best to just create a single reference to use. The "title, page numbers" format seems to work best for long books where you need to cite the page numbers. For short articles and sections of only a few pages (like the 2-page ODNB article), it makes little sense to cite as a book, which is why I switched to 'cite encyclopedia' and made it a standalone 'named' ref tag (like the London Gazette and web citations), not listed with the books. Overall, though, I sort of get how this format works now. I guess I need to learn to work more with other citation formats! Short answer: I'm happy now with this citation format, so consider this point dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, one last point, I have been using Stan Dallas as a comparator at times, and I thought the 'author, title' format used there was better. The point being that WP:CITEVAR shouldn't mean "preserve the existing citation format at all costs" but rather "improve the citation format if needed, and don't avoid asking if you can change it as sometimes people will be happy to change if you ask politely". Variation is good, but so is some degree of consistency across citation formats. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ODNB citation is not the standard one used. It should give the name of the author of the article and the title of the article, not the ODNB editors and the name of the entire biographical dictionary. Also, there are many ways to link to the ODNB entry, and those links should be provided even though subscription is required. Have a look here for the doi reference. If you are using the latest version of the ODNB article (January 2011), the citation they provide is:
David Gunby, ‘Ball, Albert (1896–1917)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011, accessed 6 Oct 2011
There are two previous version of this biography, published in October 2008 and September 2004. Ideally you need to specify which version you are citing. Can you remember which version you referred to here?
I don't have an issue with the article author/title suggestion above, however I used a hard copy of the 2004 ODNB so that's the ref I've given. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have used a hard copy of the 2004 ODNB, but you (or whoever wrote out the details) got the name of one of the editors wrong. The link is to Colin Matthews (composer, born 1946) instead of Colin Matthew (historian, 1941-1999). On the article/author issue, it's non-negotiable really. David Gunby is the author of the work you are citing so you absolutely have to cite him - you wouldn't reference a journal article and cite only the journal title and pages and the journal editors and omit the author names and article title, would you? Returning to the wider issue of ODNB citation, it might be worth looking at Template:ODNBweb, though that has its own problems as it too doesn't name the authors of the articles to which it links. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I fixed the Matthew link and then tried to redo the ODNB reference to correctly credit the actual author of the article (David Gunby). While doing that I checked the formatting of the other references and corrected two typos ([27], [28]). I'm not entirely happy with the shortened cite I came up with for the ODNB reference, but that is partly due to trying to fit into the existing citation system in use (I would normally have just said "Gunby 2004"). I also compared the ODNB articles online for the 2004, 2008 and 2011 editions, and they are identical apart from a change in title case for one word from 2004 to 2008, so I made this change. There is, however, still a slight conflict between providing page numbers from the 2004 print edition and a link to the 2011 online edition (which also needs to be marked subscription needed, though more people are likely to have access to the online edition through public libraries than the print edition). Not sure how to resolve that. Do we provide both the page numbers and the online link or just one? In passing, the original entry for Ball in the DNB (the predecessor publication to the ODNB) was published in 1927: "Ball, Albert (1896–1917), airman, by H. A. Jones". Doesn't add anything as far as I can tell that isn't in the later articles, but noting this here for completeness. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 'Victoria Cross and legacy' there is more that can be said about the memorials. It should be possible to find and name the sculptor of the statue and more details (the image description page mentions a "flying angel"). See here, for example. That page says the statue was unveiled by Sir Hugh Trenchard, with the design by E. Rickards (who is Edwin Alfred Rickards, 1872-1920) and the bronze part of the memorial was by Henry Poole. Other details include the base being made of granite and Portland Stone, and the unveiling date being 8th September (more specific than the article is at the moment). It also mentions the "allegorical robed figure of a woman representing the air".
Well I considered Homestead a bit iffy as an RS, so replaced pretty well every one of its citations with something else, however I'm happy to add a bit more on memorials if I can find it elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to find reliable sources on memorials, and certainly not for this memorial. Please ask if you have any trouble with this, I would be happy to help. Though having said that, the situation with who designed which bits of the memorial looks rather complicated. Rickards died before it was unveiled. The architectural firm of Brewill and Baily are listed here and other sources mention the firm of Lanchester and Rickards. So careful sourcing needed here. Having said that, I found a picture of the marker in the field, see here, so that is nice to see. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current source used for the statue information is h2g2 (which is in transition), not the BBC. This means I can't compare this source to the one I've provided above, but that needs fixing in any case.
Charming, that move must've just happened in the last couple of days, because I checked every online source less than a week ago. Have to see about this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions a "plain memorial stone" erected at the crash site. Does this still exist and can it be photographed?
To update this, it is not a "plain memorial stone", it is an inscribed memorial stone, and photographs of it and the inscriptions can be seen here. There is also a nice photo here of the grave. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better photograph of the grave would be nice at some point. I've been in that area and may travel there again at some point. It is likely that it gets photographed a lot, so obtaining a higher-resolution photo at some point shouldn't be impossible.
I'm not entirely happy with it either but another editor added it in good faith and I thought it churlish to make a fuss over the quality; if you or someone else can provide a better one then we can use that instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally link to the CWGC record at some point. It doesn't add an awful lot of extra information, but it is something standard for WWI and WWII casualties that can be linked to in the external links, and from there people can find out more about the location of the grave (or it can be cited to confirm information about the grave).
Thanks for including the British Pathe film reel link. That site is a great resource and should be linked to more often. Personally, I would mention in the article itself that the unveiling was filmed, but that might not be to everyone's taste.
The French school news (excerpted from an article in The Times from 1999) in the external links is nice (also naming the local girl who cradled him as he died and mentioning that her relatives still tend his grave). Is there a reason some form of this is not included in the main article?
I found two sources giving two distinctly differing names for the young French woman who pulled Ball from the wreckage. They seemed of equal reliability. For that reason, I omitted the name, figuring it was better not to include a fact of dubious accuracy. Barring conclusive proof of her identity, I feel it best that it stay deleted, although a mention of the annual ceremony might be a welcome addition.
I wanted to include it too but again in the interests of foolproof RSs I wanted to locate and cite the original Times article, but couldn't find it online. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I see a copy of the article from The Times of 1999 I'll drop a note back here. And having looked, I ended up finding the website of the actual school itself! See here. Though you will probably still want some news reports as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons link takes readers to the gallery page rather than the category (which has more pictures). I've changed this here. If you prefer to link to the gallery (where it is possible to arrange and annotate the pictures), then I'd suggest add more pictures from the category.
I see a work from 1918 listed under 'further reading'. This looks like a contemporary biography published after his death. If this and the 1977 work by Bowyer and the ODNB article by Gunby are the main sources on this person, then it is worth saying that here (i.e. that you are not aware of any other sources) and possibly mentioning in the article the progression from contemporary biography to later biography to ODNB entry. Is it possible to say how his death was reported in the media of the time? The Gazetting of the VC doesn't seem to say he was dead, but the posthumous promotion to captain presumably did. Was the death reported only in the London Gazette, or did other papers report it as well?
Heh, I've actually seen the 1918 work and took some notes from it a while back but managed to lose them! I didn't pursue it because I found it more a memorial than a true biography. Can't really do much about tracing progression in biography from then to now, however if I can locate something on contemporary media reports I will, as George and I found a couple of reactions to Stan Dallas' death that I think worked well in that article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Further reading listing is just that–further reading. It is not used as a source for the bio.
If you have trouble accessing contemporary news reports, let me know, as I'd be happy to help with that. There were reports in the New York Times, such as this one if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Albert Ball Sr. bought the French field where his son had died and erected a plain memorial stone on the crash site." Do you have a date for this? Presumably in the years immediately after the war?
That source is from 1981, some 30 years ago now. Updates since then might be worth noting. I took a look and immediately found the details of the Albert Ball Memorial Homes being Grade-II listed in 1995. More details below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources mentioned in the references section of the ODNB article is: "R. H. Kiernan, Captain Albert Ball (1933)". Is it worth trying to obtain a copy of this, or mentioning it in further reading?
The Kiernan book is held at the British Library, so will try and have a look at some point (though other books and papers will likely take priority as I want to order those ones up first). Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"along with other Ball memorabilia" - is it possible to give some details here? A few examples?
"A memorial to Ball, along with his parents and sister, appears on the exterior wall of the southwest corner of Holy Trinity Church in Lenton" - is it possible to supply a year here for when this was first erected, and was it added to over the years as a family memorial?
"One of the houses at Nottingham High School Junior School is also named after Ball" - again, is it possible to date this? This sort of thing is notoriously hard to pin down, but it would be nice to know. The real point being that if you can't date it and no-one else has been bothered to date when this happened, then it is essentially trivia.
I tend to agree with you, the only reason I left it in was because it was because of the Nottingham connection -- I can't give a date for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ODNB article gives an exact date of 9 May for the burial (not specified in the Wikipedia article).
There are various quotes removed to the talk page 2 years ago. Is it worth bringing some of those back in with sources as provided there?
Yep, saw them. I felt we had a reasonable number of quotes in the article, but happy to give the talk page another scan and/or add some if George is keen on them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotes had been included by editor(s) prior to me, and were being deleted at an earlier stage of the article's evolution. I rescued them and saved them on the Discussion page as a courtesy to those editor(s) preceding me. I also tagged them with such source(s) as came readily to hand (and computer mouse). Although interesting, I do not consider them vital.
Not sure how crediting of victories is done, but does the final one (the forcing down of Lothar von Richthofen) really count as a victory if Ball didn't return safely?
Well, as noted, it's not a confirmed victory. In any case, I don't think failure to return from a sortie necessarily precluded credit for a "kill" during that sortie. It might well be that, had the combat not been so hectic that day, Ball would've received offical credit for that last one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The final unconfirmed victory over Lothar von Richthofen is included because of the claim that just the opposite occurred. The circumstances that indicate that the German claim is false are included in the article. Although latter day air historians have discredited the German claim (see Above the Lines, pp. 186-187, which does not list it), the bogus version is widespread and needs countering. Your comment does make me see dissonance between the two biographies. (Another little corrective chore lurks.) (Note: done.)
Crediting a dead flier with an aerial victory is as old as the concept of reporting the wins; Pyotr Nesterov died by ramming an Austro-Hungarian plane, and that was the first aerial victory ever. There are other examples, specific to British fliers, but I would have to root around for them.
Ball's name is listed on the Lenton War Memorial, erected in 1919, mentioned in the Lenton Listener article. This could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article and a photograph of the war memorial and the name would be possible. The Lenton War Memorial is also right in front of the Memorial Homes, as can be see in the photograph in the Lenton Listener article. This proximity of location should be mentioned.
Well I'm happy to add that War Memorial is in the same street as the homes (the text mentions both being in Church St) but not sure how we assume the building behind the memorial in the photo is from the Memorial Homes -- we'd need more precise sourcing to establish such close proximity I think. Also not sure we have room for more images in the legacy section of article without sandwiching text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English Heritage source I found says the war memorial was also paid for by the family, though I'm not entirely happy with that as I suspect they may be conflating things there. Certainly the statue was from a public subscription fund set up by the town authorities. And the homes funded by the family. The war memorial history is less certain. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Lenton Listener article: "The City Council decided to open a subscription fund to provide a tangible memorial to Albert Ball. Eventually a statue was commissioned and placed in the Castle grounds where it still stands." - the fact that the memorial was commissioned with funds raised by public subscription should be mentioned. It should also be possible to find out how much the fund raised.
The Albert Ball Memorial Homes (formal name, should be in article) are Grade-II listed, as detailed here. Lots of nice details there. Though the address given there is Sherwin Road, not Church Street. You can see the homes quite clearly on the satellite/aerial views on Google Maps. They are at the junction of Church Street and Sherwin Road. A photograph would be excellent for this article, and a simple search on Commons reveals we have this picture - a search carried out on Commons for pictures relating to Albert Ball (if such a search was conducted) should have picked this up (even if it is not good enough for the article, it should be added to the category that readers of this article are being directed to). One minor correction: "a row of eight homes" is slightly misleading. It appears to be a single building with eight flats contained within them. We also have an article on the architect who designed the homes: Arthur Brewill (though that article has several mistakes that need correcting - I'll try and help out there).
Pardon the interjection here; however, in my research I discovered that this part of Nottingham has been renumbered since Ball's era, and some of the streets were even renamed.
Heh, when our so-called reliable sources conflict with what the eye sees (the old "verifiability vs. truth" issue) then I usually find it best to just try and word things with a tiny bit less detail, so any contradiction disappears... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the English Heritage maps much more helpful. That shows the way the homes are split into 8 units, so it is really a terraced row of eight, to its own unique design, athwart the angle formed by the road junction, with the war memorial and gardens taking up the 'point' where the roads meet. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sentence is misleading: "A memorial to Ball, along with his parents and sister, appears on the exterior wall of the southwest corner of Holy Trinity Church in Lenton." From the Lenton Listener article, it seems there are *two* objects. A memorial plaque to Ball, and a family memorial stone. This is not clear in the Wikipedia article. Again, photos of both will be possible here.
In general, I think a potential weakness here is not bringing things up-to-date, as apart from the ODNB reference, this article relies heavily on sources from 1977 and 1981. I would suggest careful checking to see if any further developments in the intervening period (e.g. the Grade-II listing of the Memorial Homes, and the French school) need to be incorporated into the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rejig the bit about the memorial(s). Again, photos of these as well may crowd the article, and overbalance the number of (PD or otherwise usable) images of the man while he was alive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments (mainly literary and cultural)
The 1978 musical Billy Bishop Goes to War includes a sequence that includes the recitation of a poem titled 'The Dying of Albert Ball', some details of which can be found by searching Google Books (three hits).
There is a poem included in this 1918 memorial booklet (looks to be different to the Briscoe and Stannard one mentioned in the article already), and if you put the phrases "Cobbold" and "Albert Ball" together into Google Books, you get several hits that look really worthwhile. W. N. Cobbold was the author of a 1918 or 1919 poem called 'Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO'.
Mmm, I imagine he might have inspired various songs or poems and it might be difficult to judge how significant or popular they were -- "in popular culture" stuff seems generally frowned upon so I'd prefer to mention any that were notable in themselves (in WP terms) or by notable authors. However I will check those links you've given. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not popular culture, it's culture pure and simple (nothing popular about it). I despair sometimes when people mistake cultural aspects of something for "in popular culture" (which is a Wikipedia term-of-art anyway). The sources I have are academic ones, anyway, so that should reassure you. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I've explained a bit on my talk page to Georgejdorner the perspective I'm trying to bring to the article, not so much a military or aviation perspective, but more the social history and memorial and legacy aspects. As I said there, it is possible to overdo that, but I do think it is an important part of the story here. All the bios I've read about Ball emphasise that he was a hero to the public and it is important not to downplay that here. I have the book Who's Who in World War I (2001), where the entry for Ball says: "Together with William Leefe-Robinson, he was the first pilot to become a national hero". That entry also makes the point that many of the WWI aces now celebrated were little-known to the public during the war, with those such as Ball and Leefe-Robinson being an exception to this, a point I don't think quite comes across in the article yet. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we're downplaying his status as a popular hero, given it's mentioned in the lead and elaborated upon in the main body of the article. As I've said on your talk page, I'm happy to expand on this and legacy part somewhat, commensurate with its emphasis in the sources, and will certainly add something on reactions to his death, but I want to make sure we don't overbalance things in relation to our reporting of the actual deeds that made him a hero. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from the article:
"...he was lionised as a national hero..."
"A crowd of journalists awaited him on his family's doorstep."
"...in a tribute from his native city, Ball became an Honorary Freeman of Nottingham." At age 20, he was only the seventh or eighth man so honored in the city's history (sources vary as to the number).
Yes, I had overlooked that when I made the comment. The point I was making was that this continued after his death. It was precisely because he was a popular hero (and because his family also funded various things) that there was the reaction after his death that there was. There were crowds lining the route the memorial procession took to the church, the public subscription funding the statue, that sort of thing. The point that hasn't been answered yet (or placed in the article) is discussion of his fame relative to other aviators and war aces of the period, both then and now (apart from his ranking in lists of kills). I touched on this above in the mentions of Billy Bishop and William Leefe-Robinson, but from what I can tell, Ball and a few others were unique because they became famous during the war, rather than after the war. Now the source I quoted (from 2001) might be wrong on that, but I'd like to see that addressed at least. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(this was a response to Ian above) I disagree that what I would expect to see in this article would be overbalancing, but I can only really demonstrate that by editing the article (as I have started doing), so I probably need to bow out of this review now. I'll add a note about that below. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been digging around the article some more. And have two points that need to be made here:
(1) Grace's Guide is a wiki, but this page is used as a source for this article (currently reference number 8). You can't use a wiki as a reliable source - you will have to use the sources they use, which is stated as "Information from published lists in Flight magazine under the Official Notice to Members of the Aero Club of the UK (Royal Aero Club)".
(2) That wiki has an article on Albert Ball as well. It looks like they copied it from us, as they say at the bottom that one of their sources is "Wikipedia". But I can't see the page history over there to be certain of this. Care needs to be taken that things don't get too confusing here, and that the licenses are being ported correctly either or both ways.
As stated above, I'm being drawn too much into editing this article, so after this edit I'm going to raise matters on the talk page instead of here. Is there a non-messy way to transfer much of the above to the talk page and leave a clean slate so others can review from scratch? Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like you've in any case made many of the changes you requested of us, and George and I may make further edits based on the discussion above, it's probably best to leave it all here, but perhaps in a collapsible section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary comments
More details of the memorial stone in the field where he crashed.
Are you talking about an inscription?
I was initially, but am now talking about the details of the history of that memorial, though as it seems to only be covered in one source, that may be difficult to reliably source and may be excessive detail. I do think some of the matters that you might consider excessive detail could still be handled adequately by footnotes (ones separated from the reference footnotes). Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More details of the crosses that marked his grave before the stone grave marker was erected.
Added inscription on first cross, plus sentence re. second cross, which means we now have all three mentioned/cited.
Mannock, Bishop and McCudden all mentioned. I don't really think we need the play reference, Bishop already has more space than any of the other aces mentioned and further tidbits seems a bit excessive.
The mention of the play would be less in the context of Bishop, and more in the way the WWI aces (and Ball in particular) have been depicted in literature and by analyses in non-military history academia in the years since the war. The article only really touches on that with the Robertson reference (The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination), and it doesn't seem a coincidence that this is the only reference from a university press. The other references appear to be mostly standard military history references. For the purposes of a MILHIST A-Class review, I'm happy to wait until a pre-FAC or FAC discussion before raising this again, but there are other sources out there that will need to be consulted on this to get additional perspective from academia outside military historians (I had already suggested at least two, and I'm pleased you found a third, though unsure why the other two were not used). Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I must've missed those. However since we have at last one similar source in the article now, if the others can wait till after this review that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The annual parade held at the statue memorial in Nottingham.
Haven't located anything in my recent searches.
It is covered in current news sources, though it is not clear when this tradition started I think it was before WWII. It was also mentioned by Georgejdorner, so you could ask him as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some consideration of the material raised for discussion on the article talk page.
A good deal more from his letters home, reaction to his death by colleagues, family and press, discussion of Captain Ball VC and tributes therefrom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those six points are all that is left from me based on comments above and elsewhere (though the sixth one, relating to the talk page sections, is a bit open-ended). All the other stuff above (in the collapse box) should be considered resolved as far as I'm concerned. Apologies for the length of what is now in the collapse box, and I hope this summary helps. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your additions and comments. While there are still points to be addressed re. images, I think should be able to largely leave the content alone now and let people review it in its current form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just rejigged and expanded the lead to a third paragraph to better reflect the weight of post-mortem information in the article now, as we discussed on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to "I think [we] should be able to largely leave the content alone now and let people review it in its current form", I agree, though as I said elsewhere, I would like to discuss the talk page material before any FAC. As far as MILHIST A-Class Review goes, though, I'm happy to support it, though I've probably edited the article enough that any support doesn't really count. I'll be interested to see what reviewers make of the expanded article. Please feel free to pull most of my comments above (and the responses) within the collapse box, but please leave this final comment visible for reviewers who may not open that collapse box. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. further discussion before any FAC, no problem, I'd like to do so and I expect George would too. Re. potential support here, yep, was thinking the same thing. However it's not uncommon to put 'support with disclaimer' (followed in your case by a brief comment re. your additions to the legacy section) on one of these reviews. That at least makes it clear that you regard your comments as fully actioned for the purposes of the ACR, and the closing coordinator can determine how much weight to assign the support in terms of the overall result. Up to you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was asked (on my talk page) to comment here again. Support for A-class, with the caveats noted above (I've worked a bit on the article and I've not reviewed in great details the flying career sections of the article). Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
If the article goes to FA discussion, you'll need to give some additional information on the portrait of Ball and the painting by Norman Arnold. At the moment the tags are the usual Crown Copyright one, but there is nothing on the description pages to back up the tag claim that either "is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1961" - they are currently owned by the Imperial War Museum, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the painter, Edward Newling or Norman Arnold, was employed by the government when they painted them (NB: doesn't mean they weren't either, but the default presumption would be to the contrary).
Yes, I get you, this will need some further investigation. You know I could've sworn that the IWM collections database used to have "copyright expired" or some other PD tag on items like this (similar to the Australian War Memorial collections database, but I'm not confusing the two). I never assume paintings are out of copyright no matter where they originate and, as I uploaded these, I think they must've had such a tag. Do you recall tags like that in IWM or am I imagining it?
It seems likely - I'm sure the pages looked different when something like this came up before. I've done a bit of digging. Edward Newling, according to Harries' "The war artists: British official war art of the twentieth century", was officially appointed to make the portraits; Norman Arnold was also an official war artist and tasked to produce aerial paintings from 1916 onwards. I'm wondering if they've removed that tag because although the originals are clear of copyright, the IWM can claim copyright over the photograph of the original? (at least in the UK; the US and much of the rest of the world takes a different view!)
Mmm, it looks like it's not just for paintings but photos too. I'm sure the two shots in this article that came from IWM, the first one of him in front of the plane and the one in the S.E.5, had PD tags as well when I last looked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got some clarification from IWM -- the WWI photos are out of copyright and it looks like the paintings (certainly the dogfight one) are as well by virtue of official commission, however -- you guessed it -- the IWM photos of the paintings are copyright, so will have to remove them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"he paid to undertake pilot training in his own time at the Ruffy-Baumann School, which charged £75 to £100 for instruction" - would be good to have a modern equivalent financial comparison figure.
Oddly enough I don't think I've ever done such a comparison in an article -- is there a tool we generally use for that?
"as close to an "elite" unit as any established by the RFC" - is the "elite" a quote? If so, worth saying from whom; if not, I'm not sure the speech marks are necessary.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following on the articles on Groves and Oppenheimer is this article on Deak Parsons, the US Navy's senior man on the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
In citations but not in bibliography: Groves 1962 and Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977.
Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated.
Be consistent in whether you provide OCLCs for books that already have ISBNs.
Support Comments -- Very good as usual, almost ready to support. Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look fine; prose-wise, performed my habitual copyedit but a few things:
Remind me, do our American cousins not hyphenate "Commander in Chief"?
Does the section header "Proximity Fuze" need to be all caps?
On 6 January 1943, Helena was part of a cruiser force that bombarded of Munda in the Solomon Islands -- "bombarded off Munda" or just "bombarded Munda"?
Have to admit I don't quite get why Groves was (apparently) angered by the school at Los Alamos -- did Parsons go over budget in realising his more permanent vision, or what?
Not sure whether it's necessary/appropriate to put "Rear Admiral William S. Parsons Award for Scientific and Technical Progress" in inverted commas -- I'd have though just the caps would be sufficient for the name of an award.
It's a big article and in my honest opinion the first four paragraphs need to be sourced/referenced. Then it may become a an "A Class" article. Adamdaley (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it's probably worth someone's while (perhaps yours, Adam!) filling out the B-Class assessment, it's not a prerequisite for nominating at higher levels such as A-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"fatally damaged", maybe reword to "critically damaged" or something similar? Machines cannot be killed... (very minor point of course so suggestion only)
In the 'Death and legacy' section you mention "the anti-intellectualism of recent months" and Oppenheimer being blocked from access to classified material. Why did these events occur? I'm by no means an expert on the era but I assume it had something to do with allegations of Oppenheimer being a Soviet spy and McCarthyism. Could you possibly add half a sentence to give further context here?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is currently in as good a condition as sourcing will allow. The article passed a GA review with no problems, and has remained stable since. I'm new to the A-class criteria as a whole, but having read them over, I feel this article meets them all. It's not exactly expansive, but due to the confidentiality of its subject, I'm confident that it's exhaustive. I have only added the WP:MILHIST banner to its talk page tonight, however, I feel it's appropriate given that the subject is a United State Air Force project dating from the Cold War - if this isn't the right avenue for review, I do apologise. I should be available most, if not all, nights this week to reply to any concerns. GRAPPLEX21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
First of all, I like your nick :) Welcome to MilHist! At first I thought that A119 was a road somewhere in England. Some comments:
It is assumed that the purpose of such an act Sounds like WP:WEASELWORDS. Since Ulivi, Harland & Zhou say "its main aim being to send to the Moon, without any warning, a fission atomic bomb to impress the Soviets and their allies". Suggest removing "It is assumed that".
in the eyes of the American population Suggest "public" instead of "population", since we are talking politics here.
Sputnik was the first artificial satellite in Earth orbit, and the surprise of its successful launch, compounded by the resounding failure of Project Vanguard to launch an American satellite after two separate attempts, sparked the Sputnik crisis and was the impetus for the beginning of the space race. Apart from the fact that the sentence is kind of long and awkward, The Project Vanguard failures occurred as a result of the Sputnik crisis. suggest re-wording.
Edward Teller, the "father of the H-bomb", who in February 1957 proposed the detonation of an atomic device some distance from the lunar surface in order to analyze the effects of the explosion. Actually, he proposed detonating both on and above the surface.
It was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advantages gained by the Soviets. What advantages gained? Suggest "advances".
It was then decided to use a device similar in yield to the Little Boy bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, No, it wasn't. They decided to use a lightweight W25 (nuclear warhead), a small warhead used by the US and Canada that weighed only about 220 pounds (100 kg) and had a yield of 1.7 KT - only about one-tenth of a Little Boy. Suggesting incorporating this instead, and linking to the W25 article.
seemingly out of fear of a possible negative public reaction and the possible risk to the population "possible" sounds weasily, and appears twice in the same sentence. Suggest deleting both.
Thanks for taking the time to look over this. I've made the changes suggested here. I left in a line about the yield of the Hiroshima bomb for size comparison with the W25, though if that seems unnecessary then it could come straight out. GRAPPLEX14:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the "consequences" section, are there any sources, references, etc. that suggest it might have been more favourable had Project A119 been executed, versus the "obscene" comment? (WP:NPOV isn't a straightjacket if all sources are negative, but I'm curious if there's anybody who thought it was a good idea.)
'Possible implications of the nuclear fallout' - can this be expanded upon? Was fallout considered a serious problem even in the low-gravity, atmosphere-less lunar environment?
I found a few search results for 'Leonard Reiffel, though none of them mention the project so I'm not 100% sure it's him or not. Probably is though - here and here for instance. I'll try to get an article together tonight but I'm completely green when it comes to BLP material.
Haven't seen anything positively receptive of the project, to be honest. The reporting on the event seems to have mostly come in one wave after the Nature letters, and concentrated on the seeming absurdity of the idea. I'll have another search in case anything appears to have been favourable since, but to be honest I doubt it, as 21st century opinion on moon-bombing isn't likely to be positive. I do have a source on Reiffel saying "Now it seems ridiculous and unthinkable [...] but things were remarkably tense back then", if that would work as an addition.
From what I've read, it seems to be more of a fear of contaminating scientific readings, as Reiffel has cited that as a concern from the initial project (here, for instance), and it was raised again in a 1969 proposal. I don't think it was much of an ecological concern like it might be considered now. GRAPPLEX22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there had been an agreed-upon co-ordinate, so anywhere along what would have been the location of the terminator line at the time of impact would be suitably representative, I think. I'll add the second image now. GRAPPLEX01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is some inconsistency in capitalisation throughout the article: "the moon", but then later "the Moon";
this abbreviation should probably be formally introduced: "the US Air Force vetoed" (in the lead you could add: "the United States Air Force (US Air Force) with..." Then the abbreviation can be used consistenty;
the "DARPA" and "NASA" abbreviations might similarly need to be formally introduced (although I believe I have heard some arguments that NASA doesn't - not sure I agree, but I'm prepared to defer to that if others feel this way)
please check for English variation consistency. I found "over 375,000 kilometres (233,000 miles)" which is British English ("kilometres");
I think I've caught everything you've addressed. The British English spelling I hadn't noticed as it was the default output of {{Convert}}, I found a parameter which now spits out US spelling for it. I just changed the sole use of "US Air Force" back to "United States Air Force" as I felt an aside explaining that US was a contraction of United States seemed a bit too far, so now the need for it is avoided entirely. The other two acronyms are presented in full at their first use followed by a bracketed use of the acronym; the capitalisation of Moon is now consistent, and I nabbed that second IIT link. Thanks! GRAPPLEX23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- Nice article but a few things to consider:
Prose -- copyedited a little but some questions:
...where it would be detonated on impact -- Was it to be self-detonating upon striking the Moon's surface? In that case this should say "it would detonate on impact", otherwise it sounds like detonation is being controlled from Earth.
Cancellation / canceled -- I know the latter (with one "l") is correct Americanese; not the same for the former?
A STUDY OF LUNAR RESEARCH FLIGHTS, VOLUME I – I think MOS demands this to be in title case even if it’s capitalised in the source
Detail / structure / supporting materials – These look good
References / spotchecks – Generally good and no obvious instances of close paraphrasing; however in citation#13, while it accurately reports on the impact re. other scientific investigations, it doesn’t mention that violating the test bans was a consideration.
Fixed the spelling and casing issues. As for your first point, I've actually lost access to the main source used there (the book Lunar Exploration: Human Pioneers and Robotic Surveyors. I think you're right in that "it would detonate on impact" is the more plausible wording, so I'll change it to that - but I'm not 100% sure right now if that's the case (just 99.999%). I've omitted the clause about violating the test ban treaties - I hadn't intended for the hook to support that, as earlier mention of the treaties had supported that such an action would violate them, which made the latter clause somewhat redundant anyway. Thanks for your copy-editing, too! GRAPPLEX00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all that. I'm assuming we don't know who launched the FOI action; if not, can't be helped -- good work in any case! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, missed that one. No, unfortunately not. It's just evident that it has happened, but I haven't been able to find out who is behind it. I assumed it was a reader of one of the Nature letters. GRAPPLEX00:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's been significantly expanded since it passed GA several years ago. This is a co-nom between Cla68 and myself. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It's great to see this article in good shape, as well as a joint nomination. However, I think that this needs a bit more work to reach A class
" The following month her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia" - they probably didn't; from memory, the IJN aircraft concentrated on the ships in Darwin Harbour while the IJAAF land based bombers went after the town and its airfields. I'd suggest changing this to 'The following month her aircraft participated in an attack on Darwin, Australia'
Some of the ship's aircraft were probably among those that attacked land targets in and around Darwin.
What was the composition of the carrier's air group prior to 1938?
Added.
"She supported operations off central China" - this should be 'operations in Central China'
Good catch.
Can more be said about the ship's involvement in the war in China?
I've hit the limit of my sources, but it seems to have been limited pretty much to ground support.
"The IJN centered its doctrine on air strikes that combined the air groups within carrier divisions, rather than each individual carrier. When more than one carrier division was operating together, the divisions' air groups were combined with each other." - this is a bit repetitive and could be combined into a single sentence
"Akagi was designated as the flagship for the First Air Fleet, a title the ship would hold until her sinking 14 months later." - this was more than 'a title' as it involved the commander of the Air Fleet and his staff being posted onboard the ship. What impact did this have on her crew size?
Fixed, no specific numbers are available.
Given that the quality of the IJN's air crew was an important part of its success during the early months of the Pacific War, it would be interesting if more detail could be provided about the pre-war training exercises which were conducted. Were the IJN deck crew and aircraft maintenance personnel as well trained as the pilots?
It would be helpful to provide the strategic context for the various operations Akagi was involved in during World War II (eg, that the attack on Pearl Harbor aimed to cripple the US Pacific Fleet, the attack on Darwin sought to prevent it being used as a base to contest the invasion of Java, etc). The present text has the ship sailing around doing stuff, but it's not explained what the Japanese hoped to achieve.
Good idea.
"On 26 March Akagi set sail for the Indian Ocean raid." - 'set sail' is rather misleading as the Japanese force was already at sea south of Java. More generally, the current text doesn't really capture the fact that this ship spent what was an unusually long time at sea conducting complex and geographically dispersed operations during the first months of the Pacific War.
Actually not, the Kido Butai was based at Staring Bay during the operations in and near Indonesia/Australia.
This PD map from the West Point Military Academy would be of value to the article (non-direct link here).
Good idea.
The blow by blow coverage of the Battle of Midway seems greatly excessive given the relatively brief coverage accorded to the other battles the ship participated in. I'd suggest chopping this back heavily.
Given the many myths about exactly how the Americans actually destroyed the Japanese carriers, I believe that this level of detail is needed to show just how the Americans caught the Japanese at a disadvantage during the battle.
Can anything at all be said about the experiances of the ship's crew? For instance, how habitable was the ship? was she regarded as being particularly lucky or unlucky? what did her air group think about her? At what point in time was she manned by 1,630 sailors, and did this vary across her life? Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found a crew size after reconstruction, but nothing more.
Support' I'm happy to support this for A class. However, I think that the Midway section is greatly over long and should be cut back before it goes to a FAC. This kind of detail is simply disproportionate to the rest of the article. Nick-D (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The lead is really rather brief given the length of the article (67kb) - service history information can be expanded (forex, I think that she was Nagumo's flagship during the war should be noted, maybe some minimal information on the results of her activities, like the BBs sunk/damaged at Pearl, sinking Dorsetshire, etc.) and maybe some more technical stuff (like number of aircraft carried) - the Kido Butai should really be mentioned as well.
Added some of the requsted information.
Might want to consider the {{#tag:ref||group=Note}} template for the notes, so that the citations are formatted the same as the rest. Not necessary though.
But the cite displays as an indecipherable string of letters and numbers. It displays properly if I move my cursor over it, but not otherwise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have more reviewers for ships than for anything else ... what happened? I'm not faulting anyone, Nick is busy jetsetting around the world and Parsec has grad school now ... but we're close to 28 days now with no supports. If this is headed to FAC, and if we can get a support or two, I'll be happy to copyedit and add my support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Nick's support came right after this ... moved to his section].
"an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), originally begun as an Amagi-class battlecruiser. She was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty to an aircraft carrier.": an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Her hull was designed and built as an Amagi-class battlecruiser hull, but the ship was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty to an aircraft carrier.
Rephrased.
"a single enlarged flight deck, with a greater capacity for aircraft and an island superstructure.": a single, larger flight deck with an island superstructure.
You mean that I can't just link it and expect readers to make the jump from biology to ship design?
"Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 meters (624 ft 0 in) long, her middle flight deck began right in front of the bridge and was only 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) long and her lower flight deck was 55.02 meters (180 ft 6 in) long.": This would be better if it were more parallel, so: "Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 meters (624 ft 0 in) long, her middle flight deck (beginning right in front of the bridge) was only 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) long, and her lower flight deck was 55.02 meters (180 ft 6 in) long."
Agreed.
"lighter and smaller than they were during World War II.": lighter and smaller than during World War II.
Done.
"slightly sloped": sloped slightly
Agreed.
"to take off directly from the hangars, while landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above.": no comma.
Agreed.
"11.8 by 13 meters (38 ft 9 in × 42 ft 8 in) in size.": not a big deal for me, but someone's going to ask for consistency on "by" vs. "×".
This is a template thing and I had problems with this on one of my other carrier FACs. I'll have to look up and see what I did about it.
I can understand your confusion; somebody inserted lots of Brit English into the article without me realizing.
"no other alternatives": no alternatives
Done.
"developed by Shiro Kabaya when she was refitted in 1931": How many Westerners will know that "Shiro" isn't a woman's name?
Replaced with Japanese-designed as the nationality is more important than the person.
"It was replaced with a transverse cable system with six wires developed by Shiro Kabaya when she was refitted in 1931 and that was replaced in turn by the Kure Model 4 type (Kure shiki 4 gata) before Akagi began her modernization in 1935.": The dates are the reader's best clue here, so I'd prefer: "It was replaced during refitting in 1931 with a transverse cable system with six wires developed by Shiro Kabaya, then replaced again before Akagi began her modernization in 1935 by ..."
See how it reads now.
"No island was fitted as completed, the carrier being commanded ...": The deck had no island superstructure; the carrier was commanded ... [Also, link "island", here and in the lead.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"3rd Year Type No. 1", "10th Year Type": needs a link. Whether it needs quote marks depends on whether you think a link substitutes to some extent for quote marks.
"guns; one twin Model B turret on each side of the middle flight deck and six in casemates aft.": guns, six in casemates aft and the rest in two twin Model B turrets, one on each side of the middle flight deck.
Done and linked.
"between 22,600–24,000 m": "and" per WP:DASH and Chicago.
Done.
"vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and other features": What features did she have that non-carriers didn't have that made her more vulnerable?
Her superstructure was almost entirely unarmored and it was far, far bigger a target than any cruiser or battleship's superstructure.
"the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels": I'd go with "impracticality", from "impractical", meaning "not likely to work out well in practice". "Impracticability" is a less common word, and means here that the carriers couldn't engage in gun duels ... obviously they could, they just didn't do well against battleships. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. More later
"When Akagi was being designed the problem of how to deal with exhaust gases in carrier operations had not been resolved. The swivelling funnels of the Hōshō had not proved successful and wind-tunnel testing had not provided an answer either. So Akagi and Kaga were each given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions.": On Akagi's predecessor Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. [Also: when a possible danger is suggested, readers will generally want to know the outcome; did the new exhaust system on Akagi avoid the danger?]
How does it read now?
"was downturned 120° ...": was angled 30° below horizontal
Added.
"with its mouth facing the sea and the smaller one exhausted ...": This would be easier to read with a comma after "sea".
Added.
"hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gasses": Either plural is fine; pick one.
Done.
"As a battlecruiser her expected speed was ": would have been
Added.
"some of which were oil-fired and the others used a mix of oil and coal." nonparallel unless there's a comma after "oil-fired"
Added.
"Akagi was reduced to second-class reserve status ...", "first-class reserve", "third-class reserve": Technically, it's her status that was reduced, although I agree that this lingo is common and I don't have a problem with it. A wikilink is probably needed for each of the three classes; I don't think they need in-text explanations.
If I knew what the differences were, I could do that, but I'm just parroting what my sources.
"her radio and ventilation systems overhauled and improved.": were overhauled and improved.
Yes.
"Due to being in dock for the refit, the carrier missed participation in the Shanghai Incident which took place ...": You can lose almost all of those words with no loss of meaning.
"the IJN's developing carrier doctrine was still in its earliest stages.": the IJN's carrier doctrine was still in its earliest stages. (Actually, this is pretty close to the example of redundancy given at WP:Checklist!)
Indeed.
"pre-emptive": American dictionaries are pretty solidly against the hyphen here, but it's universal in BritEng and AusEng.
Done
"Aerial strikes against enemy carriers were later, beginning around 1932–1933, deemed of equal importance in order to establish air superiority during the initial stages of battle.": I'm not sure I follow. Do we not know whether it was in 1932 or 1933, or were important directives issued in both years? Were aerial strikes of equal importance in gaining air superiority, or were they contribute to a separate goal that became co-equal with air superiority?
The timing is from our source; but the goal is both air superiority and elimination of enemy CVs and BBs. Not sure how to emphasize the latter, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've done less of the copyediting than usual, but that doesn't of course mean that the nom has to do it; anyone could, and you've done enough for other writers that I think you deserve some help with the workload. What would be even better would be if you got the help before I copyedit :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when the Kure photo album was published?
I've queried the uploader about its history.
File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi_01.jpg: if the author is the "Japanese military", how can we assert that it is "the work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy"?
There is no template for war booty photos, which is what this is.
File:Pacific_War_-_Japanese_Carrier_OP_1941-42_-_Map.jpg: source link is dead
Updated link.
Be consistent in how you notate multi-author/editor works, both in footnotes and bibliography
In general, multiple formatting inconsistencies in footnotes and references alike
Still finding inconsistencies here. It's not as much of a concern for A-class, and I certainly wouldn't oppose over ref formatting (unless it was outrageous), but if you intend to go to FAC it will be a bigger problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a large number of notes and it seems to me you could incorporate some of it in the prose: e.g. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, etc.
Its better now but I think the remaining notes could be pared down some more.
Others I would probably just delete them since in my opinion the facts were trivial or about people who did not appear to meet the WPMH notability guidelines: e.g. note 3, 16, 19.
I've deleted a bunch of the notes about non-notable pilots.
As Nikkimaria mentioned, FN 59 is actually a good candidate for a note since it explains something confusing although I found it trivial.
Defensive fire from the Devastators shot down and killed one of Akagi's Zero pilots, Shinpei Sano. Is this pilot notable?Kirk (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- Picked up the copyediting from where Dank left off, starting with Reconstruction and, for the moment, finishing immediately before Sinking. Couple of things in the meantime:
Not sure what the standard has been in other Japanese carrier articles but I find it a bit wearing to see the inverted commas around the Japanese planes' names every time they appear. I'd have thought that one could introduce them with the inverted commas and then drop them -- I find in fact that in some of the footnotes and in the main body of the Midway section you don't use them, so perhaps that's impetus to follow my suggestion and just use on first appearance, like you would a wikilink...
Yep, see that. Have admit I would've thought Vals and Kates were almost as well known as Zeroes and so could've been treated the same way, however I'm not going to make a fuss about your solution as it at least got rid of the repetitive inverted commas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with my colleagues above who've recommended cutting down on the footnotes, particularly where we mention every non-notable pilot's name. This stuff may belong in a book or other in-depth study but in a WP article it looks like showing off and is so painstakingly detailed that it actually detracts from the reading experience.
Completed the rest of my copyedit -- this is the sum of my edits.
Although I'm reasonably happy with the prose in general now, I can't support until the above points from Nikki, Kirk and myself, especially regarding the overly detailed footnotes, are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. Have proofread the article and see no problems with the prose. Will check citations and sourcing next, but saw no problems with uncited material in reading. GRAPPLEX22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query - having passed this article at GA with suggestions for improvement here, I'm surprised to see that many of these suggestions - including a relatively straightforward grammatical fix - have not been addressed. Is there some reason for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not know about that page! I probably got mixed up with the strange way things worked out with the first reviewer. I'll make those fixes. —Ed!(talk)17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Citation Error check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Images are all PD and seem appropriate for the article (no action required).
This is problematic: "During a patrol, Shadrick was killed by the machine gun of a North Korean T-34 tank, and when his body was taken to an outpost where reporter Marguerite Higgins was covering the war." Seems like a hanging sentence to me, in particular "and when", and when what?
All issues have been dealt with so I've added my support now. I have also reworded the lead a little so please review to see if your happy with the changes and revert if you don't think they work. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments:
in the lead, I'm slightly confused by this: "dying between the Battle of Osan and the Battle of Pyongtaek" - is this chronologically between or physically? If chronologically, wouldn't the casualties that occured during the Battle of Osan have come before Shadrick?
Actually it was both chronologically and physically between the battle. As to the casualties at Osan, that's addressed later in the article. —Ed!(talk)19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ed, thanks for clarifying. My suggestion is to reword it slightly, but it is not a major issue. Something like this might work: "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war and, as a result, received national attention after his death. However, subsequent reports indicated that he may not have actually been the first American killed as his death is now believed to have occured between the Battle of Osan and the Battle of Pyongtaek." AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, this might be reworded: "killed hours before Shadrick at a different engagement" (specifically "at a different" to "in a different engagement");
this sounds a little repetitious: "so Shadrick's father donated US$5 so Shadrick..." (use of "so"). Perhaps, "...as a result Shadrick's father donated US$5 so Shadrick..."
in the References section there is some inconsistency in presentation style: "retrieved 2011-08-07" as opposed to "retrieved August 7, 2011" and "Retrieved 2009-11-29" - if possible this should be consistent;
on the image description page, "File:Osan Bazooka Team.jpg" is missing a date, it also does not identify either of the men. If you are able to, would you mind updating that page? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure all of Masterman's honours need to be included, but if they are can they be wikilinked? Not all readers may be familiar with all of the orders
There are a number of very short paragraphs that disrupt textual flow - you might consider combining or otherwise reformulating these
Suggest briefly explaining what "Freedom of the borough" is
Thank you. So far I've corrected the page range, removed Masterman's honours, added the bibliographic details for Sherwood 2007 and adjusted the citation quote format. Harrison49 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. There's still some choppiness in the prose, but not as much as previously. Page ranges still need to be addressed - you appear to be using emdashes, but should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I was looking forward to another RAF station article after Northolt... ;-) Now completed my first pass at this, copyediting for prose. I emphasise it's a first pass only, and I haven't time tonight to re-read the thing from top to bottom to ensure things are flowing nicely after my mods, nor have I checked references, image licensing, etc. A few outstanding things following the copyedit:
Hillingdon House, the country estate which eventually became RAF Uxbridge, was built in 1717 by the Duke of Schomberg,[3] a general serving under William of Orange (later King William III) and subsequently Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne. -- too long; suggest you should simply lose either "and subsequently Commander-in-Chief of the Forces," or "who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne." to trim it down.
She left the estate to her stepsister Elizabeth, widow of William Weddell MP, who sold it to Josias Du Pré Porcher in 1805 as she had been left Newby Hall and a house in Mayfair by her late husband and had no need of it. -- another long sentence; suggest you could easily lose "as she had been left Newby Hall and a house in Mayfair by her late husband and had no need of it" since it's more detail than is necessary.
The hospital opened on 20 September 1915 and closed on 12 December 1917, having had four commanding officers and five Sisters-in-Charge. -- not too long a sentence this time, but "having had four commanding officers and five Sisters-in-Charge" isn't particularly interesting infiormation unless some of them were notable in their own right; I'd lose that bit.
For what exactly did the Royal Flying Corps pay the Canadian Red Cross that fee? Was it rent, a donation, or what?
A detachment of the RAF Depot from RAF Halton and the Recruits Training Depot arrived in August 1919... -- does this mean one detachment made up of elements of RAF Depot, Halton, and the Recruits Training Depot, or a detachment from the former and the whole of the latter?
The T.E Lawarence paragraph is worthwhile but so short that it should probably be merged with another.
Should use ndashes for date ranges in the RAF Units table.
A general comment, one that I'll revisit when I go over the thing again, is that, as with RAF Northolt, the narrative does jump around a bit in time here and there. I don't think it's too severe an issue and, as before, I realise it's being done to keep the thread of similar subjects or sub-narratives together. However there may be ways to tighten things up in that area. Don't worry too much about this one now, I just mention it while I think of it. In the meantime pls review and/or action the other points above, and I'll come back with the rest of my input in due course -- well done so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. images, licensing and fair-use rationales look okay to me, though of course things can get tougher at FAC in that regard. You should be quite safe with the station crest in the infobox, but there may be an argument about the hospital one since that unit isn't the prime subject of the article. I realise the historical picture of Hillingdon House comes from a recent book but if it's described as being taken in 1900 I'd have thought a UK PD licence would be appropriate as that's when the original picture was taken. Well done with all those of your own, the Hurricane one at the end is particularly good -- pity about the bin in the Spitfire one though!
Re. references, these look reliable to me -- I haven't done any spotchecks as yet but will endeavour to get to that.
Re. level of detail, I think you're fine there.
Re. structure, this relates to the point I made earlier where I felt there was a bit of jumping around. I've had another think about it and believe the thing is that some of your subsections under History relate to subject (e.g. Royal Air Force, Observer Corps) and some to time period (e.g. Second World War, Post-war years). I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to make it all time-based, using the following subheaders: Early years, First World War, Inter-war years, Second World War, Post-war years. Effectively this'd mean merging the current Government purchase subsection with the first (short) para of Royal Air Force to make the new First World War subsection; the rest of Royal Air Force and the Observer Corps subsection get merged to form the new Inter-war years subsection; and you're fine as you are from then on. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the sections and repositioned some paragraphs where necessary - it looks much better. The historical photograph of Hillingdon House is credited to a 'D.Rust' but the only UK public domain licence I've found is for the British Government. If D.Rust took the photograph, it is unlikely they were working for the British Government in 1900. Which free licence would count? Harrison49 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and you've merged the ROC info in at the appropriate points, which helped. Re. the image licence, I was under the impression that UK copyright granted PD for images taken before a certain year whether government or not (like Australia's PD for all pre-1955 photos), however I may be wrong there. Just one other thing re. that pic, I'd have thought you could leave it on the left to maintain the alternate placings you had before -- not a biggie though. Almost ready to support, will just complete a spotcheck of a source or two when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look and the only licence I've found relates to the British Government, but I might not be looking in the right place. I moved the photograph to the right as the new section heading would be displaced otherwise. Harrison49 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck -- last thing before wrapping up this review, randomly checked online sources for citations #19, #20, #31:
#19: Found no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing and the article appears to accurately reflect the content of the source -- no action req'd.
#20: Couldn't see the article info in the source indicated -- pls check and let me know if I've missed something.
#31: One issue among the four instances of this citation -- in the article you say Churchill repeated the quote in the House of Commons four days later, pretty well identical to the source's He repeated the quote in the House of Commons four days later. I realise that while copyediting I innocently changed the last bit as you'd written it from "on 20 August 1940" to "four days later" but even so the sentence construction is very similar and should be recast in this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, this is sort of the online equivalent of a community newspaper, eh? Not quite the same as Timesonline... ;-) I'd be interested in other reviewers' opinions. Alternatively, I'd have thought the local library would have a copy of his bio Reach for the Sky, which would surely refer to it -- might be available on preview at Amazon or GoogleBooks too... This and the bit about the Churchill quote are relatively minor, it's more that I expect you'll take this to FAC as you did Northolt, and they tend to leap on such things there... Anyway, while I think another source is probably advisable for #20, I'm ready to support now -- good work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Minute": I went with "Minutes from a meeting" ... is that right?
Butting in, I suspect not. In the Commonwealth military (as I know from personal experience) a "minute" is a kind of memo, distinct from "minutes of a meeting". Confusing I know, and I wouldn't argue if the more general term "memo" was used in its place, though I'll leave that to Harrison to consider. At any rate I don't think it should remain as "minutes from a meeting"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After four years of off and on work on this article I think it now peaked to what a fellow editors calls an "easy to do medal winners" article. The list should be ready for A-class evaluation now following the familiar layout and structure. I guess if he's right it should be a relative straightforward review. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I would list my edits but ... none were needed, good work. Just a note: I think it helps a lot that you added "(RAD)" after Reichsarbeitsdienst, because it gives most readers an "out" ... that is, they don't have to try to make sense of the German if they don't want to, they can just remember it as RAD. English translations serve the same purpose, but sometimes acronyms are sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images lack alt text, but its not an A Class requirement so its up to you if you want to add it [38] (suggestion only)
Presentation of numbers seems inconsistent, although I imagine you may have a reason for this. For instance you write: "Of the 145 awards made..." then in other places: "Heer members received one-hundred-three of the medals" (why not "Heer members received 103 of the medals..." per WP:MOSNUM?
Support I find everything to be in order for the list, as with the others, and I don't think any comments or questions on my part are necessary. —Ed!(talk)16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The list was informative and complete, and the summary (lead) provided the necessary info. I see no reason for the article not to be promoted. DCItalk22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another RAAF bio I took to GA a while back but which I felt could go the next level with a bit more work. This chap served in both world wars but, though he did achieve senior command in the second, never quite made it beyond acting/temporary one-star rank. An interesting character though, one of many IMHO of course in the annals of Australian military aviation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Is Port Morseby the same as Port Moresby?
The latter, tks for spotting the typo.
Harry Cobby is identified as a group captain in the caption, but as an air commodore in article text
The picture (and its description by the Australian War Memorial) have him as Group Captain but the official history I cited said Air Commodore. Consulting a further source I see he was Group Captain at the time he took over and promoted to Air Commodore after about 9 months in the job -- altered to effectively reflect this.
"sacked" is probably a bit colloquial
Well, many of the sources, even official histories, use this word -- would prefer to leave it if it's not too big a deal...
Both paragraphs in World War II are on the long side, you might consider splitting one or both
Yeah, was thinking that myself after I completed the pre-ACR expansion. Let me see what else needs to be altered during the course of the review and I'll revisit it then.
Support - article looks to be in excellent condition, I could find nothing wrong with it. Images all PD from Australia, no problems there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps. I guess my point is that Ed! should add this information to the other entries for consistency, rather than deleting it from the only one that has it for the same reason. Surely more bibliographic detail is better than less? Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is repetitive: "The North Korean People's Army's 7th Division effected a crossing of the river on August 31, and though the 35th Infantry was able to stem the North Korean advance, thousands of North Korean troops were able to exploit a hole in the line and surround the regiment." Specifically you say "North Korean" three times, so it might be possible to be more economical (minor point only).
It would be difficult to do so; vague pronouns cut down on the flow, and using just "North" or "Korean" would be inaccurate given the situation of the Army facing the UN. —Ed!(talk)03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion consider: "The North Korean 7th Division effected a crossing of the river on August 31, and though the 35th Infantry was able to stem the advance, thousands of North Korean troops were able to exploit a hole in the line and surround the regiment." Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent date format here: "Following the 25 June 1950 outbreak..." in the rest of the article you use month then day. Therefore (as much as I personnally dislike it) this should be "Following the June 25, 1950 outbreak"
Consider rewording this sentence also: "Following the 25 June 1950 outbreak of the Korean War after the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea." Perhaps "Following the outbreak of the Korean War after the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) on June 25, 1950, the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea."
"Suffering mounting losses, the KPA force..." You use the abbrev "KPA" here for the North Korean Army without having formally introduced that abbreviation earlier.
Some inconsistency in the presentation of North Korean unit names, for instance sometimes you write "NK 7th Division" and in others "North Korean 7th Division". Probably best to pick a style and stick with it.
Maybe I was a little unclear here. I have no issue with you putting "NK" or "North Korean" in from of the name of the division. My point is that you do this inconsistently. In places you write "NK 7th Division" and in other "North Korean 7th Division". IMO either is right as long as you use the same style throughout. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not specifically where you mention the 7th Division, its any division. For instance you still do it here: "North Korean 6th Division struck the 24th Infantry at Haman on August 31..." Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In the low ground between these two battalions at the river ferry crossing site, the regimental..." would work better as "At the river ferry crossing site in the low ground between these two battalions, the regimental..."
If possible try to wikilink I&R Platoon, as it will be unclear to the casual reader what this force element does. Either that or write in full as "Intelligence and Reconnaissance (I&R) Platoon".
I think you may have missed this one actually Ed. Fisher is mentioned only once, by his last name. Can you please expand by explaining who he is and including his rank and full name per WP:SURNAME? Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"which sealed off North Korean reinforcements" seems not quite right, consider "which cut-off the North Koreans from reinforcement..." or something similar.
"firing 105-mm howitzers, and one battery" should just be "105 mm" with a non-breaking space per WP:MEASUREMENT, so to with "which fired 155-mm howitzers" and " One 155-mm howitzer fired from Komam-ni" which should just be "155 mm".
this is awkward "was under much less North Korean pressure...", consider "was under much less pressure from the North Koreans..." or something like that.
Inconsistent date format here: "1 and 7 September behind its lines", should be "September 1 and 7" per the format you have adopted throughout the rest of the article IMO.
Not sure this is correct "north of the juncture of the Nam with the Naktong", specifically "juncture" - I think you mean "junction", IMO this would probably be more correct.
Not sure about the capitalization here: "In support of the Nam River Operations", IMO this should probably be "In support of the Nam River operations..."
Support Comments -- I continue to applaud Ed's efforts to make Korea less of a "forgotten war", at least so far as WP is concerned. While I always find a few things to copyedit or comment on, I generally find the prose in these things to be of a high standard, lively without being biased or over the top. A few things:
You start the North Korean infiltration subsection with In a counterattack after daylight, K Company and tanks had partially regained control of this area, but not completely. -- Given we're in a new subsection, and the last one didn't end with any mention of K company, I'm not sure what you mean by "this area". As I've mentioned in my copyedit, I think one should always start a new (sub)section by briefly re-establishing where we're up to, unless you're on to a completely new phase of the action (in which case you'll clearly be establishing that).
Under US 2-27th Infantry counterattack, it sounds a bit odd to say He ordered the 2nd Battalion, US 27th Infantry Regiment, to attack behind the 35th Infantry. given they're on the same side... Could it be expressed as "reinforce" the 35th Infantry? Or "move into position behind" the 35th Infantry?
I don't think we can say either of those, given the situation. The 35th Infantry was facing north and fighting attacks in that direction, but there was a substantial North Korean force surrounding it from behind. The 27th Infantry was attacking this force to drive it out and then withdrawing. It wasn't reinforcing or moving behind the 35th Infantry - just attacking the North Korean force. —Ed!(talk)01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I get that -- can we just make it clear in that sentence that they were attacking NK forces behind the 35th? I realise you've set the scene a bit in the previous subsection, and you mention the NK forces attacking US artillery in the next sentence, but it still sounds odd. Perhaps if you combined the sentence I'm questioning with the next or even just put a semi-colon between them instead of a full stop, to clarify the connection... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, structure and level of detail seem fine, as do references and supporting materials.
Spotchecks -- I checked the sole online reference, Appleman, in a few places and found no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Generally the source info was employed accurately, however in one case the article seems to be saying more than is apparent in the source, i.e. we have The North Korean 6th Division struck the 24th Infantry at Haman on August 31, and pushed it back after heavy engagements. The NK 6th Division and the US 24th Infantry Regiment remained locked in a bitter fight for the next week. cited to Appleman p. 440 but while the first sentence quoted seems to be backed up by the source, the second does not -- unless I've missed something...
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another long-standing Good Article that I felt had the legs for A-Class with a little more work, this focusses on one of the most remarkable RAAF aces of WWII, by virtue of the fact that his feats earned him not just the Distinguished Flying Cross (and Bar) but also the Military Cross. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Be consistent in whether you cite Dornan as 2002 or 2005
Tks, I actually used the 2005 edition so standardised to that.
Split lead into two paragraphs starting with "His achievements"?
Let me think about it as the review progresses...
"He was also the Victorian Schoolboys 100 yards athletics champion three years running" - appreciate the pun, but you might want to rephrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you got me -- I wrote it that way without thinking, then noticed it and thought I'd see who else did... ;-) Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Yet more great work Ian, but I think that a bit of tweaking is needed for this to reach A class:
The lead seems a bit short compared to the length of the article
Okay, I could put a bit more meat on and then break in two, as Nikki suggested.
"he was confined to No. 6 RAAF Hospital, Heidelberg" - do we know what illness he was suffering from? 'Confined to' also sounds a bit more dramatic than I think you intended.
Will recheck the bio.
Did he really 'retire' from the air force in October 1945? This seems an unusual phrase to use for someone who joined up during hostilities, and the AWM timeline of his wartime service states that his appointment was 'terminated' in October.
Fair enough, I might just say "discharged".
"After the war, Barr returned to Australia and to his wife," - the previous paragraph states that Barr had been back in Australia since 1944 and doesn't mention him leaving again
The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Images are all PD and have the required details (no action required).
Not 100% about the punctuation here: "The tour was however cancelled less than a day after the team arrived in the UK on 2 September, due to the outbreak of World War II." There might be a few commas missing here I think.
You rang? Opinions on the best use (or avoidance) of "however" are evolving; you may want to check your favorite Australian style guides. (IIRC, Hawkeye looked this up once.) Generally my style is to figure out if the sentence can work without a contrasting word, and if it can't, then I try to use some word other than "however" unless I really want to emphasize the contrast (per Chicago 5.206 and 5.207). If I do use "however", I will at least try to put it somewhere that seems least likely to require commas before it or after it, but sometimes a comma or two is necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is just a bit heavy on commas, for instance "captured by Axis forces, and incarcerated in Italy" and "saw action during the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, before returning to Australia". It's not a big deal.
"The tour was, however, cancelled ...": The tour was cancelled however [I made the edit]. My own style would be ", but the tour was cancelled ..."
"as a something of a rebel": as something of a rebel
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's my first strong MilHist GA and I'm hoping to take it to FAC in the future. The article discusses the Nazi invasion of Winnipeg, Canada, in 1942. It's got explosions and book-burnings and internments, and a liberal dose of painted sabre scars. All comments are welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a great article on an interesting topic, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class
"It was the largest military action in Winnipeg to that point." - have there been larger since? Calling this a 'military action' also seems inappropriate given that it was basically a propaganda exercise.
Who were E. A. Pridham and D. S. McKay? (were they military officers, or local notables?)
Is 'disc jockey' the correct term for radio announcers of this period?
Yes, at least two, depending on what you would consider a military action. I called this that because it involved large-scale organized troop movements and was considered by the army to be a training exercise. Is there a different term you think would work better?
'Military exercise' perhaps? A 'military action' is normally an operational deployment of some kind (eg, something where there's a good chance of shooting), when this was a propaganda exercise. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A fascinating story I'd never heard of, well told. Aside from a few minor things prose-wise, it all looked very good -- structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Nice job! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Features of If Day included a staged firefight ...": Anyone have a problem with "If Day included a staged firefight ..."? I don't see how that can be misinterpreted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the last point. As to the second, I'm not using the template and I do have a source, so I think it's okay, but I'm willing to hear other opinions on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Strictly on the inflation issue. I find comparative prices worthless. Wages, performance, durability, complexity, standards of living have all changed. A more revealling & valuable comparison, IMO, is one related to the Ford Model T: the time it would take for one of the workers making it to buy one. Or the price of comparable items contemporary with the one in question. Or even the annual wages of a typical worker. IMO, the inflation-adjusted dollar figure is next to meaningless without that context. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the figure in question is simply an amount of money (rather than, say, $45 million of rifles) using a straightforward inflation calculation is appropriate and the source which has been used to calculate it should be considered very reliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"today" is probably a problem per WP:DATED; I recommend "as of 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}}" if you use an inflation template that updates itself every year, or "as of 2011" in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. Readers will note a plethora of red links for flights, normally a unit too small for notability, but since these were the largest units of the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF of the time, I believe that they're notable. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Page ranges use en, not emdashes (–, not —)
"et al" is a foreign term and should hence be italicized
Sorry, it may be latin in origin, but it's common enough in English now that I disagree.
Be consistent in whether you include "England" after English publisher locations
...and a taste-based suggestion: since you use WP:CITESHORT, my recommendation would be to increase the number of ref columns as the shortened footnotes create a lot of useless white space when they're only in two columns. --Eisfbnore• talk18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty is referred to as just "Admiral Beatty" on first reference. Should be "Admiral David Beatty" or have a more complete title upon introduction.
Done.
Captain Wilmot Nicholson is referred to as "Captain Nicholson" several times after first reference. Should be just "Nicholson" each time.
Done.
"The first large through-deck aircraft carrier to join the Royal Navy, Eagle was assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet on 7 June 1924 after she commissioned on 26 February and completed her training." - I'm not sure if this is referring to final sea trials or crew training. Please clarify. —Ed!(talk)05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Since Brown makes no reference to the difference in size between Argus (labelled a "small" carrier in this article) and Eagle, I think the statement "The first large through deck aircraft carrier to join the Royal Navy" is not warranted. As an aside, during the trials Nicholson's appointment was described as "Naval Staff Representative", and he continued to hold the appointment after promotion to Rear-Admiral. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comprenhensive coverage and good referencing. The bit about the sinking seems brief, but I suppose it was.
Comment Support on A3: I think that the headings in the Career section need looking at. I think that the current system is firstly probably in mistake and secondly doesn't make as much sense as it could. At the moment it's:
Career
World War II
1939–41
Battle for Malta
I'd suggest that it should be like:
Career
Inter-war period (covering the bit at the top of the career section)
Comments' This is a very solid article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
" In early 1918 she was purchased by Britain for conversion to an aircraft carrier, although she was not commissioned until 1924" - the use of 'though' seems odd here as purchasing a ship under construction and commissioning it are quite different things
The extraordinary thing is the amount of time between purchase and completion, so I've substituted completion for commissioning.
"Almirante Cochrane was virtually complete up to the forecastle, although her side armour had not yet been installed when war broke out, and no work was carried out during the war until the British decided to complete her as an aircraft carrier for the Royal Navy. She was therefore purchased from Chile on 28 February 1918 to be converted into the carrier HMS Eagle." - the first sentence is overly complex and should be spit into two sentences. This wording also suggests that Chile was powerless to either ensure that the British completed the ship or retain the ship once the RN took an interest in it - is this correct? If so, it would be good if this could be explained.
Split as per your suggestion. Chile had zero leverage on deciding the fate of the ship, but nothing I have supports that so I'll leave it alone.
"on 21 October 1919 as Chile wanted to repurchase the ship and have it re-converted to a battleship.[7] The £2.5 million cost to do so would have been higher than the £1.5 million sale price and the Admiralty decided to retain the ship." - this is unclear: did the Admiralty have the right of veto over selling the ship? What's meant by '£1.5 million sale price'? (is this the price the Chileans would have had to pay in 1919, or the price they had already paid?)
The RN purchased her in 1918, presumably covering the original cost to the Chileans. The 1.5 million was the 1919 offer. The actual power of the Admiralty in this situation is a bit unclear, but probably amounted to a real veto as no government would want to spend more money than they were going to get. Rephrased to clarify.
The first paragraph of the 'Flight trials' section is a bit vague, and seems to be missing an introductory sentence or two
Ties in to ref in the previous paragraph.
"Her boilers were cleaned and her bottom cleaned in Durban, South Africa, in mid-December" - 'cleaned' is repeated, and there has to be a less awkward way to word things than "her bottom cleaned"!
Consolidated the "cleanings", but bottom cleaned is most proper nautical terminology, no matter what thoughts that might arouse in your dirty little mind!
The statement in the lead that " Whenever Eagle was not at sea, her aircraft were disembarked and used ashore to support the Army." doesn't seem to be directly supported by the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, this is getting close to the standard 28-day limit and appears just about ready to promote -- did you want to add anything following Storm's responses/edits? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalization of "royal" and such is hard for this Yank ... can someone tell me if "Royal dockyard" as opposed to "Royal Dockyard" is okay? - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think of a ship's hull as a hollow girder, the strength deck is the top flange of the girder, built to handle all the consequent stresses. This is not a concern for most ships, but for carriers it's a very big deal. Either the flight deck or the hangar deck is chosen as the strength deck and each had consequent advantages/disadvantages. This should really be a section in the aircraft carrier article under design considerations, but I don't know if I'm ready to write that section yet, so I just mentioned it briefly in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Larger aircraft like the Bristol F2B fighter, the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedo bomber, and De Havilland DH.9 bombers": I'm not getting why you're using the model name for the first two (which is singular in form but implies multiple aircraft) and then the plural for the last one; is the last one different from the first two in some way? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, fixed.
"faired": haven't heard this one
Past tense of what a fairing does.
"standard load": AFAIK, "standard load" was defined at the WNC, which ran from 12 November 1921 to 6 February 1922, which is about a year after this point in your narrative. This isn't necessarily an issue, because the time frames are close, but you might possibly want to say "what was defined a year later at the [WNC] as "standard load"". - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the stats are for when the ship was completed in '24 so standard load is OK.
"60 feet (18.3 m) radius": add "|adj=on" to the convert template.
Done.
"three at the stern and the remaining six were distributed the length of the ship on both sides.": nonparallel. How about this? "three at the stern and six all along both sides of the ship". (The "all" is optional.)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems a natural progression for the article, which recently underwent a peer review. Hoping to put it to FAC in the future as well. Keen to hear your thoughts. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 07:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
why's the UK spelt out in full while the Soviet Union isn't?
"Britainthe UK and France would" you either use Britain or the UK
"plans to attack aggressive submarines" whose submarines?
wikify Italy at first mention.
"although Italythe former did take" too many mentions of Italy.
"Meanwhile, the Iride unsuccessfully attacked the British destroyer Havock, unsuccessfully, This strengthened strengthening British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden's stance towards Italy." Sp33dyphil"Adastra"01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've acted on these things with the exception of the point about whose submarines they were, as this was not the subject of discussion at the conference (perhaps surprisingly). It was not intended to be a conference about particular nations' submarines, but those in general. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Italy would be allowed to join the agreement and patrol the Tyrrhenian Sea if wished" - if it wished, or if someone else wished?
"wished ships with a clear identifying mark to be excluded, this was impractical" and similar: check use of commas vs semicolons
Should use double quotations marks instead of single for quotes
Changed re: the first three things (I'll continue to check for further instances where a semicolon would be more appropriate). I've reordered the sources such that books are by (first) surname and journals, since two have no identifiable author, by date of publication. This happens to also be the order one may have chosen to put them if one were ordering them alphabetically by journal (if you chose "Bulletin, Bulletin, English and International" as the operative words respectively. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
You mention various patrol zones for each country. What and where were these?
In what way was Eden's stance strengthened? Pro or con?
I hope I've managed to sort the latter two points. Could you clarify the first? As far as I understand, the relevant passage is this:
It was decided that French and British fleets patrol the areas of sea west of Malta and attack any suspicious submarines. The division of patrols between the United Kingdom and France would be decided by their governments. They would patrol both the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries. The possibility of the Tyrrhenian Sea coming under Italian patrols was agreed. In the Eastern Mediterranean, British and French ships would patrol up to the Dardanelles, but not in the Adriatic Sea. In this area, signatory countries would patrol their own territorial waters, and would provide any reasonable assistance to the French and British patrols.
You say submarines are allowed to have "activity in certain areas." What are those areas?
You say the Italians ceased their pirate operations. Is this just them randomly attacking the Havock and the Soviets, or were they doing more traditional pirating? Also, do you know why they were being pirates?
The second agreement, was it just by signed by the French and British? If so, perhaps that should be mentioned. If not, then when did they go to Geneva. After all, you only mention British and French going to Geneva.
I'm a bit confused about this sentence: The British wanted the Spanish parties to be able to verify flags, thereby preventing innocent British shipping being attacked if Republican ships continued to use the British flag as a means of escape. Perhaps I'm foolish but can't they always verify flags??
You say that the Italians and Nationalists switched to air attacks? Perhaps you should say earlier that the clause against attacking aircraft was not effective or something.
Piracy in this context means acting 'without instruction' from a government (in this case, not making such a thing clear). The Italians simply didn't want to officially be attacking shipping in a foreign relations sense. They did this apparent contradiction - everyone knew they were doing but still denying it officially - on other issues as part of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
The second point is the wording of source. I think it's important to remember that, according to the other sources, the French and British were doing the drafting bit, and everyone else the agreeing - the official discussions - in other words, the British and French had 'camps', the other nations merely representatives. (E.g. 'Proceedings took two forms: discussions between the British and French, and formal situations.').
I'm no maritime law expert but the sources couldn't be clearer. Apparently "The first paper asked that both sides in the war be granted rights to stop ships at sea and verify their flags. Chatfield said that many Republican ships were hoisting the British flag to avoid capture and that as a result, innocent British ships were being attacked by the Nationalists. But in practice, to allow both sides to verify flags would have benefited the Nationalists greatly, and the French strongly opposed the proposal which was dropped." "Verify" probably means comijng aboard and asking some questions or for documentation, so perhaps that explains it wasn't legal ordinarily.
That conclusion is not drawn by the sources used and it would feel a bit synthy; one says there were anti-air clauses, the other that they used aerial methods after. It's possible, although I would agree that it's unlikely, that anti-air actions were effective but the Nationalists and Italy were prepared for losses. I don't know, so I don't feel happy going with it. Thanks, Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your explanation of the point about if non-French+British countries signed/participated (even formally) of the discussion in followup conference in Geneva. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have certified the signatories were the same. Who discussed what exactly is not in any of the sources and I do not consider it of much worth; the British and French continued to the driving fore, and, subject to a few changes, everyone agreed. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I think this article is pretty good and deserves a Support. DemonicInfluence (talk)
Support I reviewed this article at GAN a few months back, and it looks even better now. One nitpick though: You should be consistent in whether you include United Kingdom/UK after British publisher locations. Eisfbnore• talk07:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"- called Nyon Arrangement -": Hyphens in place of en-dashes? That's a hanging offense.
"Naval patrols were established – the United Kingdom ...": semicolon.
"plans to attack aggressive submarines, which would be counter-attacked by naval vessels.": probably just: "plans to counterattack [no hyphen] aggressive submarines at sea." I think readers are going to assume naval counteroffensives.
"would patrol ... would patrol ... would be allowed": I'd prefer "were to patrol", "were to be allowed"; otherwise, it's hard to know whether you're describing the terms of the agreement or future events (using "would" for the future-in-past tense). - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a significant control effort was the best solution, four of which were put forward, in response..." Maybe: a significant control effort was the best solution, and four plans were put forward in response ...
"This would be the basis for a Mediterranean meeting": Sorry, what specifically is the basis?
"A conference was arranged for all parties with a Mediterranean coastline, along with Germany, by the British on 5 or 6 September.": Was the conference or the arranging on 5 or 6 Sept? If the former, then: "The British arranged a conference on 5 or 6 September for all parties with a Mediterranean coastline, along with Germany."
"the Republican Spain": surely no "the".
"against such a plan. It was held at Nyon, Switzerland ...": "It" dangles.
"although Geneva would have been more usual, it was avoided because it was associated in Italy with the actions of the League of Nations over the Abyssinian Crisis.": I think you can get away with: "Geneva was avoided because Italians associated it with the actions of the League of Nations over the Abyssinian Crisis." That is, if they're avoiding it, it must be because it would otherwise have been a likely venue. And if this works, then it's better, per the copyediting version of the totalitarian principle.
That's all for now; I got down about halfway, to Provisions. If you have (or anyone has) a chance to correct these, skim the rest, and fix any similar problems, please mention that here, and I'll have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, think I've addressed these. I changed "The British arranged a conference on 5 or 6 September" to "The British arranged a conference for 5 or 6 September" since I wanted to remove the ambuity you identified in the original version, even if having two "for"s is not optimal (only two, after all). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been a stable GA for some time, and because I believe it meets the criteria. IxK85 (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It's great to see such a detailed article on this famous warship. I think that it's close to A class, but needs a bit more work to get there:
Some material in the 'Design' section isn't covered by citations
Given that the ship's pre-war service only lasted for four weeks, it doesn't really warrant it's own section - I'd suggest including this with the coverage of her wartime service
"She was now responsible for the hazardous task of escorting Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union, operating from Scapa Flow and bases in Iceland." is an over-statement given that she was one of many ships engaged in this. It also needs a reference.
Did Belfast take part in any operations between the Battle of the North Cape and Operation Tungsten, and between that operation and the invasion of Normandy? - I presume that she escorted convoys and/or undertook training
"On 6 August she sailed for the UK to pay off and recommission, and arrived back at Sasebo on 31 January 1951." needs a reference
Thanks for the comments. I think most should be straightforward to deal with:
Design - will check.
Agree pre-war service can be integrated with Second World War.
Agree as to the over-statement; was written with the implication in mind of joint responsibility rather than sole responsibility, but that can easily be made clear.
No significant operations according to Wingate, this gap can be quite simply filled in.
Sasebo reference - can be fixed by additional reference to Wingate p.81.
Notes - at the time I wrote them I wasn't aware of the template that enables references within notes, but I can sort that out shortly.
On re-reading the Design section and looking at the sources, I thought the text was a bit confused and unclear; have rewritten it. It ought to be adequately referenced now.
I think all the rest are now fixed, apart from the footnote about Admiral Higgins. As the identification of Higgins in particular is not essential, I think this footnote can probably be removed. (The nearest I've found to a source for the 'straight-shooting ship' comment is this November 1950 edition of the Naval Review.)
Support. I can think of a few minor points to improve the prose and a few minor things that could use a small amount of elucidation, and I'll try to return to list them, but I think it's A-class currently. The Land (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Please do not mix templated and untemplated citations as it results in different formatting
This is the core of an A-class article, but there's a lot on the technical side that is missing.
Very little info in the infobox is sourced. Either a cite needs to be added to the infobox or several paragraphs of description need to be added (my preference). Something along the line of the one in the HMS Jamaica (44) article would be perfectly acceptable.
The changes and additions of the light AA armament, fire-control equipment and electronics, w/ links, must be covered, including dates as much as can be ascertained.
The Watton book has a revised 2003 edition. I'm not sure what the differences are, but I have a copy of the latter if need be.
I have a query regarding the infobox and about what information is normally included for ships. Leaving aside the need for some more citations, which will be coming along shortly, how much information is actually needed? For instance, Belfast's weapons fit changes several times, and quite substantially, between 1939, 1942, 1945 (twice), 1948 and 1959. Her electronic suite also changes several times, the size of her complement varies by about 200 across her service life, and her physical characteristics change too. Looking at other good quality articles, most only give one set of armament (for example), but the FA USS Wisconsin (BB-64) gives 1943 and 1983. Would appreciate guidance on this. IxK85 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, but the 1944–45 refit needs to mention that her aircraft and their catapult were removed during this refit. As were two of the 4-inch gun turrets. Her torpedo tubes were removed during the late '50s refit. See Watton, pp. 15–16. Fix these things and my issues are resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I normally just list the armament as built and detail all the changes in the main body. Keeps things simple. Remember that the infobox is only supposed to be for a quick summary of the ship and her description, not chock-full of informative nuggets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - I think the points you raise (4-inch guns, aircraft and catapult, torpedos) are now addressed. - IxK85 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsHMS Belfast is a museum ship, originally a Royal Navy light cruiser, permanently moored in London on the River Thames and operated by the Imperial War Museum. I suggest changing the lead sentence to one that emphasise the ship's role during Royal Navy service. The current sentence gives me an impression that the ship only had a short service life with the RN, with the rest spent as a museum piece. If I'm wrong about this, please indicate so. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"09:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. As nominator, thought I ought to say I'm going to be away for a week, but will address the comments raised when I get back. About the comment above; I think it's best as is. Belfast is a museum ship at present, and has been a museum longer than she was a commissioned warship IxK85 (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick comments: there are some references in the lead to statements not so controversial that one would expect them to need referencing there. I think they're all covered in the main text. Secondly, I think the Design section could be expanded. There's quite a big list in the infobox and most of it is not covered in the main text. HMS New Zealand (1911) would be an example with lots more technical information; I wouldn't think you had to go that far but some idea of what the ship actually was would be better. For example, the size of the ship. The Admiralty's requirements sentence is a good start, but did the ship exceed 32 knots? That sort of thing. I say this all under the impression that such information is available, since I imagine it is. If not, obviously that's a different matter. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gist of your comments have now been addressed, but do point out anything you think requires further detail. IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed with regards to the technical detail; however, the lead still has several citations. Are you sure they're necessary? Now leaning towards support. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can probably all be removed, with the exception of the cite supporting the 'quarter of a million visitors a year' statistic, which is probably worth keeping due to its more contemporary and changeable nature compared to the more historical facts that are currently cited. Would you agree? IxK85 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree – a quick review of WP:LEAD by me ascertained that the article fits the general rule that the lead is considerably more vague and thus less likely to need referencing and the information is contained elsewhere. I think keeping that one reference is a good idea – it's very much less vague and may become out-of-date. I'll consider my position if I get some time. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for A1/A2/A3. I'd fully support, 'cept we haven't had much comment from copyeditor/prose examiners and I think it's important to get the nod from them. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In the 1939–1942: Commissioning, prize capture, mining, and repairs section you have the Second Cruiser Squadron and 2nd Cruiser Squadron - I believe 2nd is correct and it should be linked even if it produces a red link, which are encouraged etc Also later in teh article the other squadrons should be linked
Operation Hipper, is linked to the ship if anything it should link to the operation
Radar Type 284 is linked but Type 283, Type 285, Type 282, Type 273, Type 251, Type 281, Type 242 and Type 252 sets are not
Same with Type 270 echosounder
Naval ranks need linking Captain, Rear-Admiral etc
Tirpitz was the German Navy's last surviving heavy unit. needs a cite
Mixture of styles when using numbers - injured 21 of her crew and the strike force and later escorted by eighty fighters
An intervention by the King eventually prevented Churchill from going. Which King should be linked or named
to recover a crashed enemy MiG-15 jet fighter and Belfast was hit by enemy fire - Enemy is POV
Mixture of referencing style cite short used Watton (1985). p. 12. etc and long cites Imperial War Museum HMS Belfast. London: Imperial War Museum. 2009. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781904897934. even the last is not consistent as there are several examples like Imperial War Museum HMS Belfast. 2009. pp. 50–57. also Diprose, Graham; Craig, Charles; Seaborne, Mike is in the long format
Second vs 2nd Cruiser Squadron is now fixed, and linked to an article on cruiser squadrons in general, since that probably more informative than linking to List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy.
No article exists on Operation Hipper; linking to the ship seemed more informative and explains the name of the exercise.
Tirpitz now cited.
The King is linked in the previous paragraph.
Is 'enemy' really considered POV? In this case it strikes me as a useful distinction, at least in the 'hit by enemy fire' case, between being hit by enemy fire or accidental 'friendly fire'.
Naval ranks are now linked on their first occurrence.
Radar sets are linked where the relevant list has a section about them. Type 270 is not linked as there is no article on period Royal Navy echosounders; the article on sonar seems the next most relevant.
"Japanese Mogami and American Brooklyn class cruisers": Japanese Mogami- and American Brooklyn-class cruisers. Or, put "cruisers" somewhere else if you'd like to drop the hyphens. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a effective": an effective
"... Edinburgh subclass, being named ...": Edinburgh subclass, named
"Saint Patrick's Day, 17 March 1938": "Saint Patrick's Day, 17 March 1938," ... or at least, there's support for either two commas or none (for appositives in general) in US style guides (see WT:Checklist), but no one has told me yet whether there's support in BritEng style guides. I expect there is.
"four Admiralty three-drum oil-fired water-tube boilers ...": I'm not following; what's the name of the boilers?
"2-pounder 'pom-pom' guns": perfectly good BritEng orthography, but MOS prefers double quotes; see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.
"4.5 inches (110 mm) main armour belt": add "|adj=on" to the convert template.
"mounted either side": technically fine, and better in BritEng than AmEng, but "mounted on either side" is a little easier for Brits and a lot easier for Ams (don't quote me on "Ams", I made it up). - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments:
Have hypenated Mogami and Brooklyn
'An effective' - done
'subclass, named' - done
Saint Patrick's Day - more readable with two commas, I think.
They're Admiralty boilers, have re-ordered the sentence to hopefully make that clearer.
That's all for now; I got down halfway, to 1945: Service in the Far East. If you have (or anyone has) a chance to correct these, skim the rest, and fix any similar problems, please mention that here, and I'll have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
target tug - hopefully now clearer.
care and maintenance - have added a clause to say Belfast became Rosyth Dockyard's responsibility
My pleasure. I've started a conversation (I hope) over at WT:MHC about getting more people involved in copyediting; maybe we can find someone who will be interested in skimming the rest of the article, checking at least for the kinds of problems I've already found. I can check an article pretty quickly if there's not that much to do. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yet another German battleship article up for A-class review. The ship saw active service with the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet during World War I, including at Jutland. Like most of the other German battleships, she was scuttled in Scapa Flow after the end of the war, and ultimately raised and broken up for scrap. Thanks in advance to all those who review the article, I look forward to working with you to ensure that this article meets the project's A-class criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966 (talk·contribs), more to follow when I have read Hildebrand, Hans H. / Röhr, Albert / Steinmetz, Hans-Otto
"The ship disposed with the inefficient hexagonal turret arrangement of previous German battleships; instead, three of the five turrets were mounted on the centerline, with two of them arranged in a superfiring pair aft." What made the hexagonal turret configuration inefficient? I could not find the info in the article nor in the class article.
Citation "Staff Battleships, p.": shouldn't this be Staff German Battleships, p."?
link 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/45
Holtenau is in Kiel
Hundsort is the peninsula in the west north west of Ösel.
Why no footnote: "SMS" stands for "Seiner Majestät Schiff" (English: His Majesty's Ship)
I have to admit that I still find it difficult to distinguish between British and German units. How about adding a footnote that Arabic numerals denote a British unit and Roman numerals a German? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Heavy haze forced Kaiserin to check fire after two salvos, however" what does check fire mean?
Some facts from Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz volume 5
Speech during launch by Grandadmiral Hans von Koester, p. 70
christened by Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, p. 70
The Kaiser and his wife were also present, p. 70
17 November 1917 actions: Commander KzS Kurt Graßhoff was critized by the chief of fleet von Reuter and relieved of his command. I am trying to find out what he did wrong.
Be consistent in whether you link publisher locations or not
Regards Staff (2010): there is a 'volume' parameter in {{cite book}}.
Editors should be noted as such, also in citations.
'Footnotes' and 'Notes' are the same when both are at the foot of a text; I would recommend you to change the header title 'Footnotes' to 'Endnotes'. Eisfbnore• talk04:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, though it seems like you changed the wrong header; I ment to change the header of the footnoted comments, above the citations. I've been bold and done that. Eisfbnore• talk03:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
External links check out [45] (no action required),
Pre-dreadnoughts should probably be wikilinked at first instance (currently wikilinked but later on).
Probably should include David Beatty's rank at first instance here "...British 1st Battlecruiser Squadron under the command of David Beatty."
"On 18 August, Admiral Scheer attempted..." this should just be "On 18 August, Scheer attempted..." removing rank after the first formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
"The next morning, the Vice Admiral Schmidt..." Do we know Schmidt's first name? If so it should be included here I think.
Prose here: "Heavy haze forced Kaiserin to check fire after two salvos, however." However what? IMO this might work better as "However, heavy haze forced Kaiserin to check fire after two salvos." (fairly minor issue I agree though - suggestion only)
Citations and references look fine to me (no action required).
Images all appear to be PD with the appropriate infomation (no action required).
Thanks for the review. Everything should be fixed. I just removed the "however" from the one line (I think sentences shouldn't start with "however"). Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Fleet is overlinked in the service history section.
"The Kaiser removed von Ingenohl from his post on 2 February,..." should he be referred to as his title? I've been under the impression that just using last names is the most neutral writing.
I'm also wondering why some ship formations are linked and others are not. Even if there aren't articles for some of them and they are only redlinks for now (III and IV Divisions, II Battle Squadron, etc.) it's still noticably inconsistent.
Thanks for reviewing the article. Should all be fixed, except for ISBNs - as far as I know, the general preference is to use the first ISBN issued (which would be the ten-digit for those that have them, as thirteen digit ISBNs were introduced in 2007). This is at least the procedure at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"During trials the ship's turbine engines were damaged, which delayed final completion. As a result, Kaiserin did not join the fleet until 13 December 1913." Nate, would I be missing the point if I shortened this? I'm thinking of "During trials the ship's turbine engines were damaged, so that and Kaiserin did not join the fleet until 13 December 1913." - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"15 cm (5.9 in) SK L/45": Don't insert something in the middle of a name for something. In particular, don't insert a conversion in the middle of a link, per MOSNUM. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/45 guns": same here.
"The voyage required lightening, but in just under twelve hours Kaiserin exited the locks ...": It would be a little easier to understand what the "but" means if you inserted something like "which normally took several days". - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"on 5 to 7 March": I'm skeptical, but as with many MOSNUM matters, it's not my call.
"The eight Helgoland and Nassau class battleships": "The eight Helgoland- and Nassau-class battleships", or you can avoid the hyphens by putting "battleships" somewhere else.
"the I and II Divisions, I Squadron": the I and II Divisions in I Squadron
"after receiving false report": after receiving a false report
One new potential problem: "... Kaiserin's commander, Kapitän zur See Kurt Graßhoff ...". I'm too tired at the moment to dig up the previous discussions on when it's okay not to translate German, and when to use ß; maybe you can find them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating another Knight’s Cross list for A-Class review. Like all the previous lists, this list is similar in structure to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), (C), (U) and (V), all A-class at the moment, and (I), (J), (O) and (Q) which are currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: no major issues. Per my review for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Q), I think that the capitalisation of the work The owners of the highest award of the Second World War in the lead probably should be changed to The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War, so that it conforms to title case (apologies for not suggesting this on your other reviews). However, that is not enough, IMO, to hold up promotion to A-class (but please consider prior to FLC). Good work as always, though, MisterBee. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one comment: The ISBNs are not consistent. One is the 13-digit version, the rest are 10-digit versions. Please fix. —Ed!(talk)05:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Heer members received 74 of the medals, three went to the Kriegsmarine, 23 to the Luftwaffe, and four to the Waffen-SS.": I wrote out the numbers (seventy-four ... twenty-three). WP:ORDINAL says: "... 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Chicago agrees.
"This indicates that historian Veit Scherzer has expressed doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing.": I don't why he would care about the formal correctness of untrue information, so "and" doesn't make sense; I changed it to "or".
"Of these 104 recipients, eleven were later awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, one the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and seven presentations were made posthumously.": nonparallel. I went with: "Of these 104 recipients, eleven were later awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and one the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords; seven presentations were made posthumously."
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following extensive service in the Pacific theatre, this chap preceded William Brill, whom some of you may remember from recent A/FA reviews, as commanding officer of No. 467 Squadron RAAF during the air war in Europe. It's a bit shorter than Brill's article but, given Balmer lived an even briefer life, I don't think it's lacking in any detail and should at least have the legs for A-Class. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed this article for GA status, and think that the A class criteria are also met. I do have some suggestions for further improvement though:
This this a bit pedantic, but was 100 Sqn really "the RAAF's first Bristol Beaufort unit"? I would have assumed that an operational conversion unit would have been formed before the aircraft were issued to squadrons. On the other hand, things were rather chaotic at the time (the first P-40 squadrons seemed to have had to convert themselves across to the aircraft in a matter of days at about this time)
"which had been "cannibalised" from the base's resident unit" would probably be a bit unclear for people who aren't familiar with how military units are formed. It might be best to simplify this to something like 'formed by splitting the base's resident unit'. This would also allow the next sentence to be simplified, as at present it's a bit repetitive
Heh, think we discussed at GA -- I like "cannibalised" and it's a std term in such cases but will have another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting 100 Sqn's unusual genesis (eg, that it was formed around a nucleus of RAF personnel from the remnants of No. 100 Squadron RAF)
Do we know why Balmer was awarded an OBE in June 1942?
Heh, I always check the AWM's recommendations for awards and this particular one just says "records destroyed" -- so no luck... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The ship (often misidentified as the Tenyo Maru)" - what its actual name was isn't specified
I was curious myself but Gillison doesn't offer any suggestions, just that it was notTenyo Maru -- if you think it's confusing or annoying the way it is, I can drop mention of Tenyo Maru entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the unit delivered 17,000 pounds (7,700 kg) of bombs" - I'd suggest that you replace 'delivered' with 'dropped' here ('delivered' sounds rather bloodless)
Do we know anything about the preparations Balmer undertook before commanding 467 Sqn? - presumably he had to pass though a heavy bomber conversion course (which normally involved conducting some minelaying sorties and participating in raids on relatively safe targets) as well as some kind of indoctrination in Bomber Command squadron leadership procedures
Yes, forgot to mention earlier that I did search for his file while preparing the article but no dice, as you've found. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"From its new base at RAF Waddington" - I can't see where the old base is identified
"It was planned to be his last operation before going on to a more senior position" - do we know what position this was to be? Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't he go into practising law? Any idea if he intended to after the war?
Where did the nickname come from?
I wish I could answer these from my available references, as they're also the sort of things I like to know and explain, but no dice.
Why 'B' course and not "B" course?
This is how it appears in the source but I've had people occasionally ce such instances to the standard WP double quotes -- I'm not that fussed either way...
I'm assuming you mean the online refs -- with retrieval dates -- having full stops and the book citations not. While I'm not at this stage planning to take this to FAC, mainly because of a few gaps in personal details such as those you've noted above, the citation style is standard in every Featured Article I've done for yonks and has always been accepted. I've conjectured -- without having seen this written anywhere -- that citations are like image captions, i.e. brief phrases like author/title/page don't need full stops but more detailed online citations -- with retrieval dates, generated by the templates -- do. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was sorting by volume title within author, but you make a good point -- with the series name in the title as well it should be III before IV. Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review unsure if it meets the criteria. Unlike the other lists, this list only contains 7 entries, which makes this list rather small. However, the neighbouring lists (P) and (R) are rather large (+300 entries). This list is similar in structure to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), (C), (U) and (V), all A-class at the moment, and (I), (J) and (O) which are currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead - could you use brackets instead of an endash to introduce the English translation of Fellgiebel's book? Also, I'm not quite sure whether ′tis a good idea to have the full title with translation in the lead prose; perhaps shorten it and move the full title w/ translation to a footnote?
I was thinking of changing The bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The owners of the highest award of the Second World War to The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War as 'tis a title .Eisfbnore• talk03:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These 7,322 recipients" →"The 7,322 recipients" as it is quite obvious who you are talking about. Also, "these" would AFAIK imply that you should have mentioned them in the previous sentence.
Support: no major issues for me. I note (and support) Eisfbnore's suggestion regarding the capitalisation of the title above, though, but it is not major enough for me not to support. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another well researched, clearly written article. Support, with some minor comments below:
"Following the June 25, 1950 outbreak of the Korean War as a result of the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict in support of South Korea." It ight be worth reversing this sentence, so that it began with the UN committing forces (putting the active bit of the sentence first).
"the goal of fighting back the North Korean invasion" - can you fight back an invasion? You can fight back against an invasion, but I'm not sure about this construct. It didn't seem quite right to me. ("pushing back", "containing" etc. instead?)
"However, US forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing " - you probably need to have "the number" in here, to make it clear what had been decreasing (otherwise it could have been quality, etc.)
"began surrounding the Pusan Perimeter from all sides in an attempt to envelop it. " - I'm being picky, but if they surrounded it, surely they were enveloping it, rather than just attempting to do so?
Actually that's an interesting question. I've never heard of Pusan Perimeter referred to as a salient or a pocket; the purpose of the entire campaign seems to have been so the North Koreans could break through the lines and collapse them, but though the lines were deadlocked on land, the North Koreans never successfully enveloped the force and it always had naval superiority anyway, meaning it had free operation despite being engaged all across the perimeter. —Ed!(talk)17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"attacking the US 25th Infantry Division on multiple fronts, with main efforts aimed" - "the main efforts" (or "their main efforts")?
"Men who fought there called the eastern one Green Peak." - US forces who fought there called it this, presumably; your previous sentences suggest that the NK's didn't though.
"much more difficult from the east, the American-held side, than from the west, the North Korean side" - could this be "much more difficult from the eastern, American-held side, than from the western, North Korean side"? (removes the "the"s)
"The turnaround time for trains to Battle Mountain was six hours. " - trains? I was missing where the trains came into this (or where they came from, etc.)
"The wire men " - first time I'd really come across this term, and it didn't make sense until the end of the sentence.
"North Korean troops often did not have time to move dead and wounded from the peak at all, forcing both sides to bury casualties in shallow graves along the peak." - not clear that the two bits of the sentence match (i.e. how did the NK troops not having time to move dead and wounded force the US troops to bury their casualties along the peak?)
"emplaced in the valley" - strictly speaking, this is correct, but its a very specific use of the word emplaced, and would read oddly to a non-specialist.
" Officers could collect only 40 men to bring them back into position." - unclear who the "them" is here (e.g. the unit? the 40 men?)
"the American artillery and mortars fired concentrations" - again, a specialist phrase (some would ask "concentrations of what"?)
"24th Infantry troops continued to straggle from their positions" - the verb "straggle" sounded odd to me.
"Walker declined, feeling he couldn't afford to lose a regiment" - "could not", rather than "couldn't"
Comments
Overall excellent, but some minor things i found missing,
What was the name of the commander of the South Korean force that took part in the battle?
How many of the UN casualties were South Korean/how many were American?
My sources make no mention of ROK casualties. They were likely very light, owing to the limited role ROKs played in front-line actions. —Ed!(talk)23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is known as "Battle Mountain" was about 75m shorter than the summit Pil-bong and not far away. I haven't seen any other names for the mountain, and I would assume it didn't have its own name. Topographically speaking I think it would just be considered one of Seobuksan's several sub-summits beneath the "real" one at Pil-bong. —Ed!(talk)02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this article for GA a while back and think that it is very close to meeting the A class criteria. Just a few issues below:
No dabs, external links check out, and images all have alt text (no action required);
The citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required)
The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [52] (no action required);
Inconsistent presentation of 5th Regimental Combat Team in the 3rd paragraph of the "US 25th Infantry Division emplaces". In places you write 5th Regimental Combat Team or US 5th Infantry Regimental Combat Team, but in one you write 5th RCT and just "5th". The use of abbreviation is fine, however it must be formally introduced first and then used consistently from then on. For instance "5th Regimental Combat Team (5th RCT)";
Inconsistent presentation of North Korean divisions. In places you write "NK 7th Division" in other "North Korean 7th Division", probably best to pick one style;
These sentences are a little repetitive: "Upon reaching the bottom of the mountain those who had fled reported erroneously that the company commander had been killed and their position surrounded, then overrun by the North Koreans. On the basis of this misinformation, American artillery and mortars fired concentrations on C Company's former position, and fighter-bombers, in 38 sorties, attacked the crest of Battle Mountain, using napalm, fragmentation bombs, rockets, and machine guns. This action, based on erroneous reports, forced the company commander and his remaining of 25 men off Battle Mountain after they had held it for 20 hours." Specifically use of the word "erroneous" and "erroneously", perhaps reword?
Prose here: "heavy UN air and artillery volleys struck...", not sure what an "air volley" is. Maybe reword to something like: "heavy UN airstrikes and artillery fire struck...";
This seems a strange construction to me: "from the UN air, artillery, and mortar weapons." Perhaps reword to something like "from the UN aircraft, artillery, and mortars."
"400 to 500 North Korean men" might work better as "400 to 500 North Koreans";
Not in this case, since the North Korean army had a substantial number of forcibly conscripted South Koreans in it at this phase in the war. —Ed!(talk)20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation # 48 is inconsistent with the rest ("Hoyt, Edwin P. (1984). On to the Yalu. New York: Stein and Dry. p. 47.") as you use the short citation method for the remainder per WP:CITESHORT; and
Co-ord note: this review has passed its 28 day review period. It appears that the nominator may have addressed all comments. Could reviewers who haven't supported, please take a quick look to see if you are happy with the changes and state if you "suport" or "oppose" this article's promotion? This will make it easier for the closing co-ord (possibly not myself in this case), to make a decision. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article passed a GA nomination a few weeks ago, and A Class seemed like a natural progression. Whilst prose quality was brought up as an issue then (and rectified suitably), things like coverage, scope and referencing were stronger areas which lead me to some confidence about the article. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
1. No dabs [53] and external links check out [54] (no action required).
2. Images lack alt text, although this is not a requirement of ACR you might consider adding it (no action required).
3. The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [55] (no action required).
4. The citation checking tool reveals one error ("preston44" - Multiple references are using the same name).
5. The first sentence of the lead seems problematic grammatically, specifically I think it would work better using past tense. "The background of the Spanish Civil War is the series of events leading up to Spain's civil war (also known as "The Crusade", the "Fourth Carlist War", "The Rebellion" and "The Uprising") which began in Spain on 17 July 1936." This might be reworded like this instead: "The background of the Spanish Civil War included a series of events leading up to Spain's civil war (also known as "The Crusade", the "Fourth Carlist War", "The Rebellion" and "The Uprising") which began in Spain on 17 July 1936." Also I would consider merging the first and second paragraphs together as a single sentence really isn't a paragraph IMO.
6. The final paragraph of the lead could be improved. Specifically these two stubby sentences could probably be reworked into a single sentence. "Tensions rose in the period before the start of the civil war. The period between 1934 and 1936 is called the "black two years". As a suggestion consider something like this: "Tensions rose in the years before the start of the civil war, and the period between 1934 and 1936 became known as the "black two years"."
7. I'm not sure that the 2nd level headings you have chosen are appropriate under WP:HEADING, namely "During the constitutional monarchy" and "During the Second Republic", specifically "During the". You might consider altering them to "Constitutional monarchy" and "Second Republic".
8. The wikilink to General Prim is incorrect. Rank and name should not be combined in a wikilink and the full name should be used at first instance per WP:SURNAME. For instance this should be General Juan Prim.
9. "The UGT went from 8,000 members..." might work better as "The UGT grew from 8,000 members..."
10. In places the language becomes a little strong IMO, for instance "and other flagrant breaches" and "acted horrifically". This might unintentionally create the impression of a POV so you might consider rewording them (and looking for others) (criteria A2).
11. Some of the images lack detail in the descriptions which make it difficult to confirm if they are PD. Specifically: File:Amadeo king of Spain.jpg (lacks details like dates and author) and File:Primo-de-rivera.JPG (lacking image info altogether).
12. "Beevor, Antony (1982). The Spanish Civil War. London: Penguin. OCLC 9971204." is listed in the Sources section, without being used in any inline citations. Unless you use it for an inline citation it should be removed from the Sources section to a "Further reading" section per WP:CITESHORT.
13. Some inconsistency in the presentation of citations. Specifically "Fraser. pp. 38–39", "Lannon. p. 181" and "Vincent, p.122" which all lack the date of publishing, which you seem to use in the other citations. As such this should probably be "Fraser (1979). pp. 38–39" etc.
14. The majority of references seem to be from just two sources, which to me seems to be a little limited for such an important topic. I am not an expert on this topic but I think you may need to broaden your research base in order to more accurately reflect the body of published literature available (criteria A1).
15. Overall, I actually found this article to be quite well written, engaging and interesting. However, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted. Well done so far and I'm happy to discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3: no action required. 4, fixed. 5, changed; 6, changed (but not exactly how you had it). 7, 8, 9: changed. (Working on the others.) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10: toned done the first, and I've added an additional reference to the second. The article does provide some refernced basis for the word "horrifically" since it mentions the wholesale killing of women and children. I don't have Preston on me, but I've added a ref from Beevor, who says "looting, rape and the execution of prisoners... a savage repression". I'll keep a lookout for further instances.
11: I've replaced the pictures with similar ones with clearer licensing. 12: Since I've used Beevor, I replaced it with the edition I have. (Situation dealt with.) 13: I've changed.
On 14, well, I can't deny that the article is heavy on two sources. However, 10% of citations are to other works, and the sources themselves are from definitive authors (Paul Preston and Hugh Thomas who would be ashamed to have omitted something. I can [double] reference some of the article to Beevor, but it seems like it would be for the sake of it. What do you think?
Happy with your changes to date and overall most of my points have now been dealt with.
I think you should work Beevor in to the text a bit more to be honest. As I said above I'm no expert on the literature in this area so I'm happy with your explaination that Preston and Thomas are the key works in the area, however I think you will find this may become an issue at FA. Beevor seems like it may also be an important work on the topic so if that can be used to expand your research base then I think it may be the way forward.
IMO you should consider your lead further. I made the point above but I'm not sure if you saw it as it was tucked in amoung a heap of other comments. Specifically the first paragraph is a single sentence which in my opinion does not work well. (I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this though).
And do you have a reference for this comment: "This led to the military coup of July that started the Spanish Civil War." Seems like an important assertion which probably should be referenced. Anotherclown (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a lot more Beevor (now referenced 17 times out of 120 references) which means Preston and Hughes are about 75%, Beevor 15% and others 10%. I've done the others: whilst I continue to believe that a 1 line paragraph was a necessary evil, I've merged it anyway. I've changed that last sentence. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reduce the number of sub-headings under 'References', as 'tis cluttering up the TOC. You could consider creating bolded headings with a semicolon (just as I've done above).
Ref 43 needs a page number
Be consistent in whether you provide publisher information for journal articles
I've acted on the first two and last points. I've got to poke around the third because the only journal where the publisher is listed is because of a slightly strange setup where the whole thing is online, so there is one more actor. I'll see how easily publisher information on the other two is available. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've done that and there appears to be no useful publisher for the other two works. Removing the group that put the document online in the first instance would be one option, but this seems unfavourable, even in the name of consistency. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like the dense style of for instance the first paragraph, but many readers will want this to be a little less dense, with more explanation and context. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had real trouble cutting it down enough to be a reasonable length which providing enough of the information to be a meaningful summary. As regards to the first sentence, I agree it's not perfect and would welcome any thoughts on changing it because a better alternative does not spring to mind. Perhaps if the phrase "background of the Spanish Civil War" was dropped, then there might be an alternative? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the text below the lead is still dense but more leisurely; I like it.
"had 'ceased to be Catholic'; although": If you're headed to FAC, use double quotes per WP:MOS#Quotation marks.
The writing is good enough to survive at FAC; see you there I hope. It looks like you don't need my support to pass A-class so I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article has passed the GA Review, and has been peer reviewed prior to that process. Seeing as how Class A is has stricter requirements than a GAR, being elevated up to GA should assist in passing a Class A Review. It is the present POV of this editor that the references keep an appropriate style from reputable sources; that per the GAR the subject has been fairly presented, without bias; that there is a hierarchical heading structure, with a concise lead section; and is written in an articulate English, is clear, and withing style guidelines; and has appropriate images. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
The article doesn't explain what kind of unit this was and it's intended role. Was it a standard infantry regiment, or was it formed for special purposes? (for instance, to provide scouts and interpreters to other US Army units operating in the Philippines)
The lead doesn't need to contain references if the material is referenced in the body of the article
"Originally created as a battalion, it was declared a regiment on 13 July 1942" - was it actually of regimental size (3 battalions), or was this an honorific?
"Filipinos were strongly encouraged to volunteer for the regiment, and only those who did so were assigned to it." - it's unclear what this means, especially as Filipinos were also subject to conscription. What happened to Filipinos servicemen who didn't volunteer for this unit? - were they assigned to other combat units, or was this the only combat unit they were able to join?
"Formed in March 1942, the 1st Filipino Infantry Battalion was activated in April of the same year" - what's the difference between being 'formed' and 'activated'?
"Colonel Offley" - include his first name here
"Replacements from Hawaii, who were not allowed to enlist until 1943 due to the need for labor as argued by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association" - this wording is a bit awkward
"The regiment would later be reassigned back to the 8th Army, along with the Americal Division" - when did this take place?
"Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up" operations on the island" - which island?
The details of the regiment's combat history are very sketchy - can this be expanded? For instance, did the regiment fight as a single unit, or were its battalions separated? How many casualties did it suffer?
Was the regiment used appropriately? Its combat history seems unimpressive for a unit which had spent such a long time in training and was made up of what seem to be well motivated soldiers.
"By August 1945, operations came to a close" - you might want to note that this was because the war had concluded
"Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship." - this is a bit unclear
Per this reference "CAINF" the regiment was formed for "liberation of their former homeland". Otherwise, it was a regular infantry regiment.
That should be included in the article then
Most of the information in the lead is referenced elsewhere in the article, except for the segregated unit & California National Guard statements.
You can remove the other citations from the lead then - they look messy
On Battalion to Regiment unit change, it was due to size increase of the number of volunteers; how would you suggest this be integrated into the article?
Explain the regiment's structure (especially as this was more than the change of a name; it meant that the unit went from being one battalion to three battalions plus a headquarters and other odds and ends such as a cannon company). Did the regiment have any attached sub-units? (Shelby Stanton should cover this in his order of battle book)
It was suggested in the reviews that the statement of other Filipino American servicemembers, not within the regiment, is not required for the background context, so was removed. Would it be wrong to re-add that information, with its reference, which would go against the past reviews?
The current wording is confusing
The formed statement is a direct quote from the source, I believe what is actually meant is constituted per AR 220-5.
Please clarify this in the article
The question regarding COL Offley, do you mean within the article? It is already included in the infobox. Would you like this done as well for COL Hamby?
That would be good
The statement regarding HSPA, how would you propose that it be copy edited?
To active tense (eg, 'During its time at Oro Bay the regiment was reinforced with Filipino's from Hawaii. These men had not been able to enlist in the Army until 1943 as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association had successfully argued that their labor was needed in the sugar industry'). This also poses the question of why the regiment needed to be reinforced before it saw combat - is this known? (I presume that it was due to some combination of disease and men being posted to other units).
I have added the month and year of the reassignment.
The islands where the "mopping up" occured is listed following the statement.
My comment was in relation to the use of "the island" without specifying what island this was.
As stated in the reply to the GAR, unfortunately, I could not find any additional references that detailed the combat history of the reference, just passing references for the most part.
OK, that's a shame. It is a serious limitation to the article though.
It can be inferred through the rejection of Australian & New Zealand units, and reduction of credit given to guerrilla units, by GA MacArthur that he wanted the United States Army to have the primary credit for the liberation. However, such inference maybe not keeping with neutral POV.
OK, fair enough
War concluded in September 1945, however major operations within the Philippine Islands were what concluded. Even after the war it can be said that the holdouts, with their small part, continued an unofficial conflict, not knowing that the war officially ended.
All the major fighting finished within hours of the Japanese decision to surrender mid-August 1945 (the western Allies obviously called off all offensive operations, and quickly began spreading the news to the Japanese units who were out of contact with the national government). The current wording generates a bit of confusion for no gain at all, in my view.
Would expanding on the statement not violate the GAR requirement of clear and concise?
I don't see why
Is an article posted by a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization not be considered a reliable source? I can change it over to another published source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit of end of operations done. See change here.
I have expanded upon the younger soldiers renewed connection to the Filipino culture. See change here.
The DAV reference is a published source, an attachment to the Retired Activities Office Bulletin of July 2010. RAO are usually funded by the federal government, and can be found at many US Military bases as a resource to retirees (example), or areas were there were military bases (example). As such it is highly likely that it has been editorially reviewed by the publishing office prior to it being transmitted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What expertise do they have in this field? The author of the article isn't identified, and the article states that its source is 'Mil.com Jun 2010' - mil.com is a portal to US Department of Defence websites and contains no content. I've seen all sorts of inaccuracies in the newsletters of comparable Australian veterans organisations so they shouldn't be automatically considered reliable (they're generally written and edited by retired servicemen with no training in history and are focused on veterans' interests rather than history). The article contains some obvious inaccuracies (for instance, "Australia forces were scattered in Europe as well as throughout the Southwest Pacific" - given that Europe was entirely occupied by Germany this is obviously wrong, and the Australian Army's main fighting units were being transferred home from North Africa at the time, and MacArthur's headquarters was located in the most prestigious building in central Brisbane, not "Camp Tagrabalga, Beaudesert"). Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can place this reference in further reading, and replace it with other more reliable sources?
The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [60] (no action required).
You might consider mentioning World War II specifically in the lead, as this might improve the context of the article (suggestion only).
Grammatically I'm not sure about this phrase in the lead: "where it would first see combat as a unit." Perhaps "where it first saw combat as a unit."
This is a little repetitive: "The regiment consisted of three battalions, each consisting of a headquarters company", perhaps reword?
Use of the term "TO&E", although wikilinked, seems likely to confuse. Perhaps keep the wikilink but label it "establishment" or something similar the average reader might more easily understand.
The second paragraph in the "Deployment" section is a little repetitive. Specifically you overuse the term "the regiment", perhaps consider rewording a few instances of this. I have changed one paragraph as an example.
Inconsistency in use of "the regiment" and "the Regiment" throughout the article. As it is a proper noun (I think) I believe "the Regiment" is correct. Not 100% on this though...
"who had succeeded Colonel Offley as the regiment commander". "Colonel Offley" should just be "Offley" at second mention per WP:SURNAME.
Inconsistent presentation of the abbreviation for United States, in places you use "US" and in others "U.S.". IMO either is correct as long as it is consistently applied throughout the article.
The references were not capitalized in the manor found at the referenced sources. I have made the following changes to match that particular MOS; see changes below:
The reason for the citebundling was due to a past Review suggestion that stated that multiple references to a single point within the article made certain sections difficult to read, therefore, the bundling occurred. Would you suggest that I do not bundle them, and include each as a separate reference?
I don't think that you need to change anything. I just found it a bit disconcerting and troublesome to use if I was already knowledgeable about this topic. Forex, if I'm reviewing a British destroyer article, I look for cites to Whitley, Lenton, Friedman, and English, in that rough order of their desirablility, to see if the editor's consulted the fundamental references on the ship. If not, then there's likely to be problems. Bundling things like this makes that strategy harder to do, but certainly not impossible. You should be fine at FAC, if that's where you're headed with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made the change to that citation, see diff here.
To use CITESHORT, would be a great deal of effort, and the present citation style is consistent with all the relevant sources available to potential readers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that nothing more than a snippet is viewable, the google books link is worthless, which is why I generally never bother. So, yes, it needs a publisher location and you can delete the page #.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review (yet another one) because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), (C), (U) and (V), all A-class at the moment, and (I) and (J) which are currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Heer members received 52 of the medals, six went to the Kriegsmarine, 21 to the Luftwaffe, and three to the Waffen-SS." See the review on "J". - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable repeated links per WP:REPEATLINK - for instances the services of each recipient (e.g. Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine) and of some ranks. According to the policy "within each list only the first occurence should be linked". I know I have raised this issue in previous ACRs and I don't believe you have ever responded directly to these concerns (I could be wrong of course). Am I misreading our policy?Anotherclown (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted before (in the "U" ACR that the first occurence rule doesn't apply to sortable tables as the first occurence changes with each click of the sort keys in the table. The sentence in repeatlink seems to refer to tables in the main bodies of articles and not in stand-alone lists such as this one. It is certainly perfectly acceptable at FLC. Woody (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review (another one) because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), (C), (U) and (V), all A-class at the moment, and (I) which is currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz Jaquet Leutnant comes before the reserve officers and not with the Leutnants
There is a group of Oberleutnant zur See in the middle of the Oberleutnants
Kapitänleutnants in the middle of the Hauptmans
Major Friedrich Gustav Jaeger comes before the reserve rank and not with the majors
Regarding all of the above: An Oberleutnant zur See and Oberleutnant are the same rank, so is Kapitänleutnant and Hauptmann, and a Major and a Major of the Reserves are also of the same rank. Do you want a combination of rank and alphabetical sorting?
I thought you had it set for reserve officers to come fist must have just been coincidence. It would look better with officers from the same service being grouped together which has been standard in other lists albeit VCs not KnC.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look again please? I made some minor changes. The sorting is now done in the following order, rank: bottom up; in case of same rank level: Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS. This does not solve the officers of the Reserves yet, they still can be in the middle of each group. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf Johannesson Kapitän zur See splits up the Obersts
"14 ... two ... 15 ... Heer members received 85 of the medals, nine went to the Kriegsmarine, 42 to the Luftwaffe, and six to the Waffen-SS": It's impossible to apply WP:ORDINAL completely consistently, but I think it's likely some reviewer will say that this isn't in line with the advice to either spell them all out or none of them out.
I've replied on the "O" list but the essence of the point is this: the "first occurence" of a link in a sortable table is varied so it is acceptable at FLC to link all instances if so desired. Woody (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'd like to take it onto FAR, as I did with John of England, and it would be improved by further comments from the community before then. Stephen of England was one of the key military leaders during the Anarchy, and the article contains a lot of military, as well as political, history. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point but stylistically, the image of the sinking of the White Ship is 13th. or early 14th. century. The caption faithfully mirrors the original wikicommons file but it would be well to check another source of dating for this manuscript. Monstrelet (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a hard call to ask a writer to change prose that's accepted and even preferred by academics to something more accessible ... but won't more readers understand "by marriage" than jure uxoris? Perhaps you could link to jure uxoris.
Continuing. This is one of those articles where I'm not going to feel comfortable supporting on prose ... it's way outside my competence. But hopefully I can make myself useful.
"labelled by the Victorian historian John Round as the period of "the Anarchy".": I removed this from the end of the lead section; feel free to revert. My thinking was that either the term caught on, in which case it's only necessary to mention it once in the lead (as you do) without explanation, or the term didn't catch on, in which case it shouldn't be in the lead. I have no objections to any of this text appearing below the lead (I haven't looked for it yet). - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A big article in more ways than one, well done for even attempting it. Some minor concerns.
In the Bibliography some books nee ISBNs: Bennett, Matthew. (2000), Blacburn, Mark. (1998) ,Chibnall, Marjorie. (2008) Crouch, David. (1998), Dalton, Paul and Graeme J. White. (eds) (2008), Gillingham, John. (1994),Greeen, J. A. (1992),Helmerichs, Robert. (2001),Holt, J. C. (1998),King, Edmund. (2006),Round, John H. (1888) (or OCLC),White, Graeme. (1990),White, Graeme. (1998),White, Graeme. (2000) and White, Graeme. (2008)
I think these were all okay: Bennett is an article in an edited volume by Dunn; the listing for Dunn (ed) in the bibliography has the ISBN. Same with Blacburn, Chibnall, Crouch, Gillingham, Green, Helmerichs, Holt, King, Round and White. (e.g. "Crouch, David. (1998) "The March and the Welsh Kings," in King (ed) (1998)." corresponds to "King, Edmund. (ed) (1998) The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198203640.", which has the full details of the edited volume.) Dalton and White have already got an ISBN in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations number 1 4 and 9 King (2010), p.5 can be combined under ref name
Normally you'd be absolutely correct, but in this case they can't, because for citations 1 and 9 "King (2010), p.5" is part of a single, combined reference (e.g cit 1 is "Davis, p.1; King (2010), p.5.", cit 4 is "King (2010), p.5.", cit 9 is "King (2010), p.5; Davis, p.5.") Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
White is listed four times in the Bibliography 1990 1998 2000 and 2008 citation 174 does not have a year added, suspects its 2008 as that one is not used elsewhere.
Need to check refs for consistency. In refs but not notes: Abel, Bates, Browne, Dalton. in notes but not refs: Davies, p.27; Dyer, p.4; White (2000), p.78.; White (2000), pp.76-7.; Coss, p.81.; Coulson, p.69. – Ling.Nut01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above reply to Jim Sweeney, if you have a look in the refs, you'll note that Abel, Bates, Browne and Dalton are all edited volumes, and that the chapters referring to them are all in the article.
Davies - should have been Davis, fixed.
White (2000) is already in the biblio: "White, Graeme. (2000) "Earls and Earldoms during King Stephen's Reign," in Dunn (ed) (2000)."
First off, this is an excellent article, I just have a few nitpicks.
Some areas need citations. For example, "Eventually a truce was declared, and William Clito died the following year.", and the second and third paras in the White Ship section need citations. Please make sure the material in every paragraph is completely covered by citations.
"He was extremely wealthy, well-mannered and liked by his peers, but also considered a man capable of firm action." - this doesn't make sense to me - "but" implies a contradiction between being well liked and being capable of firm action (perhaps more clearly, all of those qualities appear to be positive for a candidate to rule a country, "but" should be reserved for contrasting positive and negative qualities). Should probably be "and" instead.
I've run out of time before I need to undertake some work-based travel; I'm back in a couple of days, but they'll be easy to find references for then. Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dabs [61], external links check out [62], and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Images lack alt text, but its not a requirement of ACR so its up to you if you want to add it [63] (no action required).
The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [64] (no action required).
I'm a little confused by this phrase: "Further attempted negotiations to deliver a general peace...", could you mean: "Further negotiations attempted..."?
Which ones do you think are overlinked? It's linked twice that I can see, but that instance is within the MOS, as there is a substantial gap between the lead and the first mention of him in the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is linked 4 times in total: once in the lead, twice in the body of the article and once in an image caption. I agree that it would be acceptable to link in the lead and at first instance in the article, but probably not 4 times surely? If you are having trouble finding them click the edit button and do a CTRL-F search for "|Henry Fitzempress]]". Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I impressively searched for "nowiki etc." before remembering to remove that bit! Dough... I'm removed one of them, which leaves the lead, the main text, and an image caption. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't Battle of Lincoln, forex, capitalized as a proper name? Similarly, why isn't King of England in the main body properly capitalized?
The capitalization on "king" is a tough one. I have tried in some articles to lowercase "king" or "president" consistently (except when before the name, of course), and usually I get reverted. OTOH, there are clearly some parts of the text where "king of England" is right. These days, I tend to leave it alone unless I've got a strong case either way. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look through on the Kings and kings! I don't tend to capitalise "Battles of..." though, as most of the academic works I read don't treat them as proper names. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize spelling of the name of Stephen's mother. The caption for the second image down from the infobox calls her Adelin.
This is just a suggestion, but you can handle collections of essays by adding |chapter=article title |author=article's author. That might cut down the number of entries slightly if you're only using a single article from a book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments - it's been a while since I did one of these, but I need a break from researching the Avro Lancaster for work.
Infobox and Lead
You convert the width of the torpedo tubes, but not of any of the other guns in the infobox. My gut says that both metric and imperial should be in there.
I shouldn't have done that since they were all linked. All of those conversions have been removed; readers can click on the link if they want to know metric equivalents.
Could the range figure in the infobox have a citation?
Added in the main body.
During 1913, New Zealand was sent on a ten-month tour of the Dominions, with an emphasis on the visit to her namesake nation. - "The Dominions" is a pretty general term (it covered 20% of the world's populace at the time); if the number is <5, could it be specified which dominions the vessel visited?
I'm going to have to check into more detailed sources. I do know that she visited South Africa among the others.
When she was back in British waters, did she operate as part of a NZ Squadron (in a fashion similar to RCAF Squadrons operating under RAF Bomber Command) or was she the sole NZ ship stationed in the British isles?
The RNZN had not yet been formed during WWI so she certainly wasn't assigned to a NZ Squadron because such did not exist. She was, for the duration of her existence, a ship of the Royal Navy.
Design
Given that they had obtained Von Der Tann's design specs when Australia and New Zealand started, were modifications made to the design of these two battlecruisers? If not, why?
Unknown, but probably because of cost. The Lion class was the real response to the Von der Tann/Moltke-class BCs.
I presume the purpose of the aircraft was to act as recon and fire spotters, but this should probably be mentioned in the prose.
I can source that the fighters were for anti-Zeppelin duties, but I'm not sure about the two seaters. I'll have to dig around for their intended functions. Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More since it popped up on my watchlist and I'm feeling guitly about not finishing this earlier.
Acquisition
Perhaps a bit more analysis as to why the British RN changed their position in terms of dominion defence being centralized would be in order. I recognize that it's fairly tangential, but even just a quick blurb as to why the decision was made (my personal guess is it had to do with the German Navy becoming more powerful and thus the RN needing more ships in Scapa to counter them. Am I somewhere near the mark?)
Probably, but that's getting way afield from a ship article.
In Service: Heligoland, Scarbourough, Dogger Bank
Which ships were in the 1st and 2nd BCS when New Zealand joined?
<Puzzled> Why does it matter?
Was Ariadne a British or German cruiser? The way it's worded right now, it's not exactly clear.
Added prefixes to the German cruisers. Is that clear enough?
She was being overhauled by New Zealand when Beatty received messages that Scarborough was being shelled at 9:00 a.m.. It isn't very clear what you mean by "overhauled". Could another word possibly be used?
It's linked.
Beatty ordered Indomitable to attack her, but the combination of a signalling error by Beatty's flag lieutenant and heavy damage to Beatty's flagship Lion, which had knocked out her radio and caused enough smoke to obscure her signal halyards, caused the rest of the British battlecruisers, temporarily under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Gordon Moore in New Zealand, to think that that signal applied to them. - this is a very long and convoluted sentence. Can it be shortened?
I'm not seeing a way, but how would you rephrase it?
Jutland
New Zealand was engaged by the battleship Prinzregent Luitpold from 5:08 p.m., during the 'Run to the North', but she was not hit, although she was straddled several times.[42] - maybe change the last part to "she was straddled several times, but not hit".
A1) Citations. I'd prefer the first paragraph to have a ref in the middle of it ("As a result, the Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the Invincible design; the ships were smaller and not as well protected as the contemporary German battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann and subsequent German designs." is opinion-ish statement, for example) perhaps split the ref page-by-page. However, as I'm sure someone would point out, it's not a requirement.
The cite at the end covers the entire paragraph. That's my language, Roberts' idea.
Is "Greenwich" the London/UK one (Conway Publishing)? If so, might be best to say so, given that Greenwich is not the best known of places here.
Good idea, done.
A2) Coverage. Seems to be really good, I can't think of any questions I'm really left with. As far as I can see, no unnecessary detail or bias. However, I have a small concern: "Jutland: The German Perspective: A New View of the Great Battle" sounds like it might have a point-of-view issue. If you've got the book in front of you, could you just appraise it for this? If you can, perhaps another citation for things like "The setting sun blinded the German gunners" since that could be construed as an 'excuse' (if you see what I mean).
You're right to be concerned, but Tarrant correlates pretty well with British sources on things like light conditions and visibility.
A3) I think the lead is brief, but satisfactory. Layout/headings are all fine.
Comment - You note that the ship was hit once during the Run to the South, but there are no details. Campbell, p. 48 gives the information on the hit. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I looked for that but must have skimmed over it. That was my only real issue, so moving to support. It should probably mention that the hit came from Von der Tann though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very solid article which I think meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions though:
It seems a bit simplistic to say that "The disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty required the destruction of New Zealand as part of Britain's tonnage limit, and she was sold for scrap in 1922." given that the RN considered her obsolete and had no use for ships armed with 12-inch guns even if the treaty hadn't existed (see the discussion of this at HMAS Australia (1911)#Decommissioning and fate)
Done.
"When the tour concluded, New Zealand was originally to remain in the Pacific region, the Admiralty requested that she instead return to the United Kingdom." - reads a bit awkwardly and should probably be split into two sentences.
Done.
"New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship of the 2nd BCS on 22 February 1915" - this is a bit confusing - did New Zealand move into reserve or undertake a major refit at this time? The normal terminology is that whoever the commander of the squadron was shifted their command (or 'flag') to the other ship. The same applies to "relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship" and "On 9 June, Australia returned from the dockyard and relieved New Zealand as flagship."
I've seen it done both ways. Ship oriented books tend to talk about the ship becoming flagships while more general histories tend to refer to admirals shifting their flags. Australia might have become the new flagship when Gordon Moore left the squadron, but I can't be sure.
I can't even confirm that her 4-inch guns are still on display outside the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I know that most of those guns were used after she was scrapped for coastal defence, and I even know where, but the source isn't RS. If you've know of anything that meets RS criteria let me know and I'll add it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"was attributed": it's not weaselly at all to say that something was thought about a ship if the thought clearly comes from the relevant part of the chain of command, but that's not the case here.
I'm not sure what your argument is here. The crew attributed the luck to the piupiu.
"QF 3 inch 20 cwt (76 mm)" Understood that there's a problem here, because we're not inserting conversions inside links, and someone may ask for the conversion anyway. Still, I think this probably isn't the best solution; some readers, not knowing what "20 cwt" is (I know there's a link but most people don't click), will think that the 76 mm is a conversion for 20 cwt.
Done.
If this is headed to FAC, you'll want to fix the single quotes (although 'A', etc., is fine).
In general, what do you refer to?
'Fleet Units', for instance. I fixed 'lucky ship'. - Dank (push to talk)
Something's missing here: 'When the tour concluded, New Zealand was originally to remain in the Pacific region, the Admiralty requested that she instead return to the United Kingdom." - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed a good article nomination and I believe it meets or is close to A-class standards. This action was the second frigate duel fought between the United States and France during the Quasi-War. Any input or advice is greatly appreciated. XavierGreen (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
Ship name: la Vengeance or La Vengeance? The first is the correct way in French; the latter matches USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente and your sources.
The infobox image probably needs to be replaced unless you come up with a different PD rational - its still in copyright. Kirk (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
In regards to the image i have in the infobox the exact date is unknown though it is certaintly well before 1942. It is possible that it was created before 1923, though the painting is in possesion of the Maritime Museaum as part of their Bailey Collection and despite their research they have no idea when it was made exactly. Originally they thought it was made by a different artist in the 1800's, though they eventually discovered that it was created by Irwin Bevan as part of a book that apparently never was finished. Do you think i can Fair-use it, since there arnt really any colour pictures available in public domain? Regardless of when it was made, it should be in the public domain by next year at the very latest.XavierGreen (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so since it appears to be a work that was either unpublished or never registered; I would put your summary of the provenance somewhere on the image page. Also, how was the actual .jpg file created - did you create it yourself? I'd put that somewhere on the page as well and you are good to go. Finally, list and link to the maritime museum you are talking about so we know which one its in! Kirk (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies - what appeared to be a 54-gun frigate flying British colours vs. the vessel chasing him was a superior 55-gun warship : I don't know what Palmer says, but I think this could be more consistent. Kirk
I dont see any inconsistancies. Both captains mistook the armaments of their opponents. Truxton thought that the French vessel had 54 guns, Pitot thought that the American frigate had 55.XavierGreen (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About la Vengeance: I see "colours" so I'm assuming this is BritEng, and I don't know what the British style guides say about this. American guides recommend either La Vengeance or Vengeance. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see I'm wrong, "maneuvered" suggests this is AmEng. Okay then, please go with La Vengeance or Vengeance, and fix "colours".
"Despite Pitot's attempts to flee, his frigate was drawn into a heavy engagement with Constellation. Despite ...": Avoid successive uses of "despite".
"in 'la Vengeance": typo, and see above.
"36 American prisoners of war and eighty passengers", "fifteen of her crew slain and a further 25 wounded of whom eleven", "twenty five": see WP:ORDINAL, and aim for consistency.
"if possible.[6][4]": If you're headed to FAC, reverse the order of the citations.
"foresails were shot away and as a result the frigate lost its maneuverability ...": "foresails were shot away and the frigate lost its maneuverability ...". This is a common mistake with Milhist editors. If the reader would assume that you mean "as a result", then don't say "as a result", because saying it implies that you're calling special attention to some causal connection that the reader wouldn't otherwise get, which I don't think you want to do here.
"hurled grenades and musket fire ...": I would think shooting them would be more effective than throwing the shot.
External links check out [66] (no action required);
The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [67] (no action required);
This sentence is problematic to me: "In order to prevent French attacks against American merchantmen in the Caribbean, the United states maintained four squadrons of United States Navy vessels in the region." Specifically you use 'United States' twice. Might it be more simply reworded like this: "In order to prevent French attacks against American merchantmen in the Caribbean, the United States Navy maintained four squadrons of vessels in the region."?
Maybe use the {{convert}} template here: "to within twenty five yards of his vanquished";
The second paragraph in the "Engagement" section seems a little long, so you might consider splitting it (suggestion only though);
This sentence has a number of issues: "Once the action ended, Constellation sailed towards Port Royal, Jamaica, in order to refit, having suffered heavy damage with 15 of her crew slain and a further 25 wounded of whom eleven later died of their wounds":
Numbers here should be "11" not "eleven" per WP:MOSNUM I believe;
Punctuation also, as there probably should be at least a comma after "further 25 wounded";
Also a little repetitive, specifically "25 wounded" and "died of their wounds", maybe reword like this: "Once the action ended, Constellation sailed towards Port Royal, Jamaica, in order to refit, having suffered heavy damage with 15 of her crew slain and a further 25 wounded, of whom 11 later died." Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think this is the best I can get it. All the important aspects of the Goblin had been neutrally presented, illustrated by freely-licensed images by the USAF. I hope, after this review, that the article can be nominated for FA. If you're wondering why the article's not as big as the other articles, I'd say it's because of the short flight test period, and because it is a prototype. Any comments will be appreciated. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've done some copyediting on this; these are my edits. I hope that helps, but we're past the 28 days with no comments, so this may need another round of review. I'll look again when it's at the end of the next cycle. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no dabs [68], external links check out [69], and the Citation error check tool reveals no errors (no action required);
The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [70] (no action required);
One of the images lacks alt text (not a requirement for ACR but you may consider adding it for consistency);
The lead is a little repetitive. For instance you use the phrase "parasite fighter" a few times. Perhaps replace the second instance of this phrase with "aircraft"?
Grammer here: "A second option was the technically-risky aerial refueling." Perhaps "A second option was the technically-risky process of aerial refueling."
Not sure about the use of the semi-colon here: "Although a number of aerospace companies studied the feasibility of such aircraft; McDonnell was the only..." A comma might be more appropriate IMO; and
Support - excellent work on the article. Before you go to FAC, you should try to find the exact online location of the images so you have something to point to when the image reviewers ask for direct evidence of their copyright status. The easiest way is to just do a google images search with the .mil domain specified (see here for the results). Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and (C), both A-Class and (U) and (V) which are also currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so, the German term is a bit ambiguous. A leader could be a leader of a single or more than one assault gun, tank, etc. while a commander is always used in conjunction with one single assault gun, tank, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this as the final of five lists for A-Class review because I feel this list may meet the criteria already. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Now completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently a featured list and MILHIST A-Class), 1942 (currently a featured list and MILHIST A-Class), 1943 (currently a featured list and MILHIST A-Class), 1944 (currently a featured list and MILHIST A-Class) and 1945 comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"Gruppenführer" and "Reichssicherheitsdienst" would be better in a footnote, maybe after: "SS group leader Johann Rattenhuber's men". - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the lead of this list has passed four different A-Class and FLC reviews. For uniformity reasons I would like it to keep the look and feel as is. Do we really want to add another footnote to this list? I am open-minded here and suggest asking what other reviewers think about this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've stopped copyediting to get some writing done, but as I recall, the issue here was minor. OTOH, I agree with all of Rupert's suggestions below ... and I'm embarrassed I didn't catch that stuff, maybe I was already on my copyediting break while I was copyediting this! - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: nothing major for me, seems to meet the criteria. I have a couple of comments and suggestions, though:
I hope it was okay, but I archived the peer review so that you can focus all reviewer attention on the ACR. Feel free to revert if you disagree;
no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
I didn't check all the images, but those I did check seemed to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
in the last part of the lead, it could probably be tightened a little as some of the details might not be completely necessary. For instance: "but was sentenced to death by Adolf Hitler and executed by SS-Gruppenführer Johann Rattenhuber's Reichssicherheitsdienst (RSD) on 28 April 1945 after a court-martial led by SS-Brigadeführer and Generalmajor of the Waffen-SS Wilhelm Mohnke. The sentence was carried out the same day. The death sentence, according to German law, resulted in the loss of all orders and honorary signs." This could possibly be reduced to "...but was sentenced to death and executed on 28 April 1945. As a result, in accordance with German law, he was striped of all orders and honorary signs". (suggestion only);
in the Background section, I think commas might be required here: "The first enactment Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573 of 1 September 1939 instituted the..." (after "enactment" and before "of");
not sure about the caps here: "and Luftwaffe (Air force)" - if "Air force" is a proper noun here (which the capital "A" is indicating), then I think "force" should also be in caps, i.e. "Air Force";
in the Recipients section, this is might be explained a little clearer: "for reasons associated with the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II". Possible solution: "...on the basis of poor record keeping associated with the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II";
in the Recipients section, you probably need to use a transitory conjuction here: "Veit Scherzer disputed the listing..." because it stands in opposition to the sentence before it. For instance, possibly: "However, Viet Scherzer has disputed..."
in Footnote 46, I think that a possessive apostrophe and an "s" is needed "Franz Sensfuß nomination for the Oak Leaves". I think it should be "Franz Sensfuß's nomination for the Oak Leaves" (I'm not sure, though, given the use of the German character);
in Footnote 47, same as above here: "Jospeph von Radowitz nomination for the Oak Leaves". Should be "Jospeph von Radowitz's nomination for the Oak Leaves..." AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another WWI German battleship, Ostfriesland served throughout the war and ended up the largest warship awarded to the United States; she is most famous for serving as the grand finale to Billy Mitchell's airpower demonstration in 1921. I wrote this article back in January and it passed a GA review the following month. Thanks in advance to all those who review the article, I look forward to working with you to ensure that this article meets the project's A-class criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote explaining SMS would be beneficial
Named after the German region Ostfriesland (East Frisia)
Christioned by the Fürstin of Innhausen und Knyphausen as a representative of the oldest east Frisian nobility. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, volume 6 page 200
Ostfriesland won the 1912/13 Kaiserschießpreis (the Kaisers artillery firing price) of the I. Geschwader. Gunnery officer was Kapitänleutnant Friedrich Beesel. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, volume 6 page 201
Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, volume 6 pages 203-204 talk about an extremely short period of sea trials. Do you know what might have been so unusual?
Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, volume 6 page 200: names all four commanding officers (Engelhardt, Natzmer, Herr and Windmüller)
Do we know what type of aircraft were used during the bombing tests? The German Wiki states Handley Page H.P.16.
Thanks for checking H,R, and S again, I'll add these in probably on Monday. Does it give the first names and ranks of the commanding officers? I'd assume they were all KzS, but I want to make sure. Parsecboy (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full info provided states:
KzS Walter Engelhardt, August 1911 – August 1915
KzS Ernst-Oldwig von Natzmer, August 1915 – March 1918
KzS Hans Herr, March 1918 – December 1918
KzS Karl Windmüller, December 1918
Another data point that I find interesting (H,R, and S page 201). The 2 8.8cm anti aircraft guns were referred to as Ballonabwehrgeschütze (anti balloon guns) MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll work those into the body as appropriate chronologically. The note about Ballonabehrgeschütze would be a good addition to the class article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed something. All of the other times I've included information from Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, it's been from volume 7 (including ships chronologically before and after Ostfriesland) - is there a mistake somewhere or did they not order the ship classes chronologically? Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"an ammunition fire": Would "a fire in one of the ammunition magazines" be accurate?
"The assault force, which included the eight I Squadron battleships, the battlecruisers Von der Tann, Moltke, and Seydlitz, several light cruisers, 32 destroyers and 13 minesweepers.": Needs a verb (and perhaps something else is missing, I don't know.)
Is there any real point in giving stats in lead when they're repeated in the main body?
No cites for # of propeller shafts, cylinders, boilers, crew size or armor thickness. Prefer to see this covered in descriptive paragraph rather than cites, but your choice.
Should all be addressed, save the stats in the lead - I like to put at least the number and caliber of the guns and usually the speed of the ship in the lead to give the reader a basic idea of its capabilities. I think I've done this in just about all of my articles. Parsecboy (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a nice small documentation of a unique prototype aircraft, the Northrop YF-23. I believe the article adheres to A-class requirements. If you're wondering about the article's size, I'd say it's because of the secrecy which naturally surrounds stealth aircraft/advanced technology. Also, it's only a prototype, so there is no history of combat or air force operations. I hope to get this article to FAC status following this ACR. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could help with the prose here, I'd appreciate it, my time is tight today. I see a number of problems in the lead section.
Per WP:SLASH, only use /'s in a few special cases, or when the sources support that the name of the thing is almost always written with the slash. For instance: "A number of companies, divided into two teams, submitted their proposals. The Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics camp entered the YF-22. The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas group promoted the larger YF-23." I might be wrong, but I don't think anything would be lost here by deleting the first sentence and going with: "Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics entered the YF-22, while Northrop and McDonnell Douglas promoted the larger YF-23."
"It was a finalist ...": The word "finalist" doesn't mean "the only one not to succeed", it means a final-round contestant that has won a previous round of competition.
"Two YF-23s were built ... The YF-23": Either use YF-23 to mean one of the planes, or to mean the design and proposal, not both (at least, not so close together).
"for the United States Air Force. It was a finalist in the United States Air Force's (USAF) ...": acronyms go at the first occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two were finalists. Proposals were submitted by each of the 5 companies before they teamed up and the selection of the final two made. This has been clarified in the article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is too vague for me to tell what issue you mean. I did correct some wording and add some detail to the Lead. Whatever, done. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but take your time. The article is getting a lot of editing, which is good ... some problems are getting fixed, others are popping up. I'll read it again in a couple of weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've started a break from copyediting so I can get some writing done, so I won't be able to finish this review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on a content level (closing person, use your judgement if I don't comment further). I think the scope of the article is right, and it covers the topic areas I'd want to see. (What is it with Minnesota, by the way?) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm still seeing some stylistic issues in the lead and the article itself. I took a whack at correcting some of them (and please undo if you don't think they work). Information is good, though. In the specs section is it possible to indicate which are estimated?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the section regarding design and development, the use of the word "discovery" when dealing with Soviet designs isn't correct English use in my view. Discovery implies that they were somehow unearthed as existing things. I don't want to get into a revert war here, so I'm suggesting that the word be changed to something else. "...emphasized when U.S. intelligence learned of the development..." is one possibility. If you feel strongly about it, whatever, but like Dank I feel there are still some stylistic issues here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some inconsistency in the presentation of United States Air Force - in places you use "United States Air Force" and in other U.S. Air Force. Abbreviation is fine at second instance. Likewise you use "U.S. Navy" and "US Navy" so these should also be presented consistently IMO.
is this a typo: "heat ablating tiles"? Should it read "heat abating tiles"?
Grammar here: "interim bomber appeared ended with the 2006", not sure about "appeared ended". Perhaps reword to "interim bomber were ended by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review" or something similar.
I have to agree that the evaluation section isn't up to standard as there's no discussion of why the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of source-vomit. See WP:OVERCITE. In general, you don't need to use multiple sources to cite a non-controversial point and you don't need to cite every sentence for the sake of citing every sentence with a different souce. If one source covers the content of three paragraphs, save the reader's eyes and just use that one source at the end of those sentences.
Does every sentence in the first graph of Design and development (D&D) need a different source? Surely some of those sourse cover the same territory and can be used for two or three sentences instead of a different ref for each one.
In the second graph of D&D, do you need three sources to verify that Northrop and Lockheed were selected to make prototypes? Is that particularly controversial?
In the third graph, do you need two sources to verify the definition of supercruise?
Three sources for the day it was rolled out?
Four sources for the first flight?
Two sources for the other AV's first flight?
Every sentence is seperately cited in the Evaluation section... again, is that really necessary? Do some of the sources cover the same territory? Citing every senetence really hinders readability.
Second graph of D&D - what does "switly eliminated" mean? That implies to me that there was something substantial deficient with their designs and begs the question "why were they swiftly eliminated?". Do any of the sources speak to that?
When you mention the fact that the YF-23 did not include thrust vectoring, maybe mention that the YF-22 did?
Earlier in the article "PAV-1" and "PAV-2" are mentioned, but the last paragraph of the D&D section drops that nomeclature and uses the serial numbers. Can you add the PAV-1/2 nomeclature in as well for consistency?
The Evalution section is very weak to me. The only thing this aircraft did was be evaluated so it woul dbe nice to have a slightly more robust section here. Specifially, it's a little jarring to me as a reader to see weapons firing mentioned right away without any introduction or description of the overall evaluation program.
Speaking of weapons firing... the implication in those first sentences is that the YF-23 couldn't fire a missile and that was counted against it in the evaluation -- is that true? Or did the test program just not include weapons firing from the YF-23?
The "Possible revival" and "Aircraft on display" sections seem to contrict one another. The Possible revival section states that NGC modified PAV-2 as a model of a proposed bomber, yet the Aircraft on display section states that NGC borrowed it for display purposes and then returned it to the museum (implying that it's still a YF-23, not a modified bomber model). Which one is it? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult enough finding detailed info on the YF-23. It took multiple references to cover the details in places. But I'm working on combining footnotes from sources I have and can check. There is no real conflict on the interim bomber use. The YF-23 was modified only for display use; believe only the cockpit was modified/updated.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re-interim use -- Ok, that wasn't clear to me from the article. I was picturing some heavily modified, large-winged variant for display. Then again, my imagination has been know to run wild from time to time... :) -SidewinderX (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these concerns as best as possible. Some of those I could not find, like about using only serial numbers in a section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. Unfortunately the last review effectively timed out but my opinion from that review still stands. I think it currently meets all of our ACR criteria. It is structured, organised, meets WP/MOS etc and it is well referenced and explained. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Woody (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with Woody's assessment, but OTOH I don't agree that the last one was closed simply because the clock ran out; some of the points raised by the opposers haven't been dealt with. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dan's assessment. Both FileFoo and AR have raised valid points that may be enough to block promotion if they remain unaddressed. On a procedural note, the previous review was closed on 11 July and was renominated the following day. It's usual to deal with outstanding objections from the previous review before renominating. Finally, although it doesn't relate directly to the article status, I'm troubled by the lack of civility in some of the nominator's responses on the original review. It's perhaps worth putting a marker down here that we expect all business to be conducted in a collegial atmosphere and such rudeness to our reviewers won't be tolerated. EyeSerenetalk14:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if you could list the points that you felt weren't addressed, particularly if you think there is anything outstanding from AustralianRupert given what transpired there. I think the reason that this was restarted was that the nominator couldn't see anything outstanding (that was certainly the impression I got). Fifelfoo's seemed resolved and I lost the point that AustralianRupert was trying to make in the tête-à-tête. If you have an issue with the nominator then it is customary to discuss it with the nominator on the talkpage, not here. Woody (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Woody. Regarding your second point, in the light of this and general concerns raised about review processes becoming ever more confrontational I felt it was worth breaking with tradition on this occasion, though of course I don't want to derail the review; you're right to point out that our focus here should be on the article itself.
Regarding the previous review, I see the following points remaining unaddressed:
From Filefoo: the four points marked "not done". MarcusBritish has responded to each of these in some detail, but because they involve A1 which is pretty much non-negotiable, and because MarcusBritish has asked questions of the reviewer in their responses, it would be useful to see Filefoo's replies before making a decision on those points.
From Australian Rupert: Obviously there's an unstruck "oppose" at the start of that section, and the following points are unaddressed and not marked as "suggestions only":
"the last part of the first paragraph in the Military career section needs a citation as it appears to be uncited"
"irregular capitalisation: "only faced Napoleon's Marshals" should probably be "only faced Napoleon's marshals" (as it is an improper noun, I believe)"
I'm trying to look at this as a neutral ACR closer and therefore making no comment on the points themselves, though given ARs experience in writing and reviewing I'm sure they're all spot on. I hope this helps explain why I believe there was more to the previous outcome than just a timeout. EyeSerenetalk17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo is on a wikibreak for at least three months, given that, and reading Marcus' explanations I saw them as resolved (and the actual refs compliant with our guidelines). AustralianRupert's oppose was effectively "struck" when he disengaged from the review. I agree that the first three points need to be addressed. The next three however I don't. All the info in the lead seems covered in the article to me, can you point out a specific area of concern? Footnote A no longer exists and each row now has a citation which negates that concern. Wikipedia isn't used a source in the article either. Woody (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments The article is really good work, well sourced and I am leaning towards supporting it. A few things that need to be addressed before I can do that:
Section "Commissions and promotions", third paragraph. You should also explain that not only that General Moore was killed but also the British were ousted from the Peninsula altogether and forced to re-embark; thus Wellington's proposition to resend an army to the Peninsula. Doneand referenced.
Section "Allied commander": phrase "Napoleon's [...] attempt to regain power" just doesn't sound right. He successfully regained power, had a new constitution approved by plebiscite. Could you please rephrase? Done?
Section "Generalship": "In April 1809, Wellington returned to Portugal with 28,000 British and 16,000 Portuguese troops under his command—the French Army of Spain numbered 360,000". That is true, but it can be misleading to an unadvised reader. Of these forces, most were tied down in garrisons, busy fighting the guerillos and securing the long supply lines. Only a fraction was available to fight Wellington in Portugal and western Spain. Done
Same section: "Wellington faced the French Grande Armée, an overpowering force..". The Grande Armee never fought in Spain. You could rephrase by saying, for instance that he faced many of the battle-hardened veterans of the Grande Armee.
I know that the respective article has a few issues and this is one of them. The Grande Armee actually never fought in Iberia. There were three Grande Armees (it was called that because it was the main French army) : 1st one created in 1804 and disbanded in 1807 ; 2nd in 1809 (styled : Grande Armee d'Allemagne - The Grand Army of Germany)fought against the Austrians (Fifth Coalition) and third created in 1812 and disbanded in 1814. The 1815 army, which fought at Ligny, quatre Bras and Waterloo was called the "Army of the North". Coming back to the Peninsula, there were various armies there, usually with independent commanders reporting directly to Napoleon (via Berthier) : Army of Spain (under Joseph and Jourdan), Army of Andalusia (Soult), Army of Portugal (Massena/Marmont), Army of the North (Bessieres/Dorsenne), Army of Catalunia (Suchet) etc. Doneas best I think I can.
Same section: "Napoleon only personally visited Spain once in 1808–09". I believe that you need to mention the months too, as he was there for a very short while between Oct. 1808 and Jan. 1809. Doneand referenced.
Same section: "Ultimately, between the battles of Roliça (August 1808) and Toulouse (April 1814), it would take nearly six years for Wellington to drive the French from the Iberian Peninsular." Sorry, I just cannot see the usefulness of this phrase and also I can't agree with it. When Wellington landed in Portugal in 1808 and faced Junot, his goal was not to drive the French out of the Peninsula. The British began contemplating the possibility some time after the battle of Vitoria in 1813. Moreover, the outcome of the campaign in the Peninsula was more determined by events in Europe (i.e. Russian campaign) than by Wellington's successes. You see my point.. I recommend eliminating altogether or rephrasing.
- I have some issue with this, again based in subjective historical opinion, and maintaining focus in the article:
• Agreed that Wellington's original intention was not to drive the French out, but to protect Portugal, and then aid Spain in ousting Joseph Bonaparte. Wellington's own offensive to drive the French out of Spain entirely does come as an objective late in the Peninsular War. But I don't think it can be argued though that it was "a military achievement" and did take 6 years of conflict to attain.
• I think the point you raise regarding the Russia campaign reflects more on Napoleon and his position as Emperor, than the Peninsular War, which he took no part in. Wellington fought the French, he drove them from Spain whether that was his intention or not. The Peninsular War only ended as a result of Napoleon's abdication, rather than any Decisive battle or logistical advantage, otherwise it is likely that Wellington would have been fighting battles all the way to Paris, possible with Napoleon intervening if not for his abdication. But in conclusion, I think the events in Russia were too indirect to mention here in detail and could lead to a POV fork issue.
I agree with your various points and I know that it's a nuance but high quality articles must get the nuances right, IMHO. May I suggest : "Ultimately, between the battles of Roliça (August 1808) and Toulouse (April 1814), the war against the French lasted for six years, with Wellington finally managing to drive the enemy out from the Iberian Peninsula". Doneand expanded.
"Wellington faced armies formed from the disbanded French Grande Armée, once an overpowering force, having conquered Europe and expanded the French Empire led by Napoleon and his marshals since 1804,[33] only to be reformed into smaller armies from October 1808, under the command of his marshals, to secure Portugal and Spain.[34" Grammatically, it sounds a bit awkward. Could you have another go at rephrasing? Done?
"to help bring peace to Europe". I can't agree with this. The purpose of the British presence in the Peninsula was not to help bring peace to Europe, but rather to safeguard British political and economic interests. Just as the French presence in the Peninsula was meant to protect French economic interests. I recommend that you just take this part out - way too POV for my taste.
The purpose of all war is to have peace, usually. Each side just wants to win first, though, before bidding for it. This is actually a minor rewrite of Fletcher (2005), p. 107, who writes: "Some veteran Peninsular battalions were present at Waterloo but only around a third was British and of Wellington's army there and it was a pale shadow of that which had marched, it is calculated, over 6,000 miles and had fought undefeated across the Iberian Peninsular, to help bring around the first downfall of Napoleon."
I would say that a country goes to war in order to secure political, economic or military objectives. A country usually makes peace when either it believes it has succeeded in securing these goals, when it is defeated or when it is exhausted and can no longer sustain the war effort or when circumstances change and the aims that seemed significant enough to justify going to war are no longer seen as essential. But, I think that we are moving away from the topic of this assessment. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reason I didn't quote him word for word is a) he wasn't 'undefeated' as the table shows, although he never lost a major battle (Fletcher's underlying point), b) as he never faced Napoleon personally on the Peninsular it seems a little strong to suggest he caused his downfall in those words, c) only Napoleon's downfall could ever have lead to peace, hence my re-wording.
What I see from the quote you have provided is that you equate achieving peace with the downfall of Napoleon. There is no clear causal relaon between the two. Please remember that the Napoleonic Wars started after Britain declared war on France and the British constantly encouraged and subsidised Russia and Austria, contributing to a prolonged war against Napoleonic Europe (France + spere of influence). Peace and status quo would have been just fine for Napoleon in 1807, 1809 and 1812, not for Bitain. I guess that you see my point. The Napoleonic Wars were much more complex than a Coalition of the good, fighting against an evil Empire. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, actually, Portugal and Spain had little to do with the main reasons why Britain declared war on France in May 1803. The reason was that France held a dominant position on the Continent and refused to open the controled territories to vital British trade. For a nation relying on an accelrated export-driven economic growth, such as XIXth century Britain, this was extremely serious and threatened vital interests of the country. So, there was more at stake than just commerce with tiny Portugal. The reason why the British chose to fight the French in Portugal and not elsewhere, was based on the fact that this country was a traditioal British ally, far from the French power base, that the population was strongly opposed to a French occupation (as opposed to Germany, Italy etc, where French occupation was accepted rather well) and that a British military intervention enjoyed obvious political legitimacy (the French had forced the legitimate Portuguese dynasy to flee). Secondly, I fail to see the parallel between Napoleon and either Hitler or Gadaffi. Third, I agree that Wellington and his Peninsular army contributed to Napoleon's downfal, but they were not there to fight in order to achieve peace; peace was a consequence of winning a war, not its goal. Fourth, no one can possibly disagree with your statement that Wellington fought a billiant campaign in the Peninsula, using rather limited resources to achieve great military and, indirectly, political results for his country and helping Britain move closer to securing the main objectives that determined it to start the war and carry on fighting form 11 years.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, going to strengthen my argument a bit further with a couple of extracts, with bold key points:
"At 5 p.m. that day Colonel Fredrick Ponsonby [...] found Wellington in his shirtsleeves, pulling on his boots. 'I have extraordinary news for you," Ponsonby said. 'Ay, I though so. I knew we should have peace; I've long expected it,' answered Wellington. 'No; Napoleon has abdicated.' 'How abdicated!' Wellington cried. 'Ay, 'tis time indeed. You don't say so, upon my honour! Hurrah!' Wellington then turned on his heel and snapped his fingers in a triumphal pastiche of a flamenco dance. The Peninsular War was over." - Roberts (2001), p. 117. Expecting peace: his reason to keep fighting and pressuring the French, with the original defence of Portugal long since attained, perhaps?
"It cannot be overemphasised that the Napoleonic Wars were not won by the British army: 'It was not the Spanish ulcer, but the Russian coronary which destroyed Napoleon.' The Peninsular represented a terrible drain on Napoleon's resources, but it was containable for as long as he did not get drawn into a war on two fronts." - Roberts (2001), p. 119. Reiterating my comment on resources leading to Napoleon's downfall, which resulted in peace per se. Cause and effect establishes Wellington's role in helping bring peace to Europe.
I've already answered this in my previous comments. To conclude, I think we can agree on finding an appropriate phrase to express your idea. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.. just to make myself clear - I don't compare Napoleon and Hitler in terms of their beliefs, ideals or as men in any respect - I don't even consider Napoleon "evil" - though he was just as fanatical and power-hungry - but not a maniac. He did order the executions of many enemy soldiers, which is never acceptable treatment, though. However, I compare them only in terms of their military methods - both were willing to keep pouring on fresh troops to succeed, regardless of casualties, rather than submit to defeat. Nothing to do with their politics. Neither of them cared about high losses to secure victory. They were both callous in that respect.
Moving on, I'm really looking for a conclusion to this ACR review - I've been working on this article for far longer than expected, and it is holding me back from focusing 100% other things, and becoming very tiring work. Won't be rushing to FLC it. I'm sure you understand. So, how about:
The war on the Peninsular was over. Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring peace to Europe.
Hi! I don't know what executions you are talking about (the incident in Syria in 1799, perhaps?). Furthermore, Caesar, for example, was himself willing to sacrifice a lot in order to achieve victory. But let me get back to the ACR review. I too would like to see this article promoted soon to A-Class. This is why I decided to respond to your invitation to review this article. I am adamant about staying neutral when talking about heated subjects such as the Napoleonic Wars, so this is why I am insisting on staying factual. I'd thus go for the factual "the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon/of the French Empire/of French hegemony in Europe", rather than your own, disputable interpretation of events. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't studied Roman history to have any knowledge that allows me to compare Caesar with Napoleon. Was referring to some revolt in Cairo, 1798 - he ordered all rebels with arms to have their throats cut, then to be beheaded and thrown into the Nile. As well as executions of many Spanish rebels. And yes, after Jaffa, he has 2,000 Turks shot. He was a murderous bugger behind his propaganda and shouldn't be praised too highly.. he was still a dictator, either way, and kept Europe at war for longer than WW1+2 put together, for his own inflated ego.
Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon, resulting in peace across Europe. — I think this is a balance of what you suggested, and what I have already. I can't concede to your opinion that my interpretation is that that "disputable". The war ended with peace, whether by his downfall or not, it is the only way any war ends, and Wellington's Army played a role in that. By focusing on Wellington's career it is inevitable that the wider scope of Napoleon's war in Russia is not included - I can focus on that a little more when I type up his battle record background, I only have his battles in a table at the moment - but this isn't a political article, nor is it about the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and Peninsular Wars - it just happens to be the bulk of his career. The point here is to briefly summarise the conclusion of the Peninsular War, not to analyse it in great detail or go off on a fork.
Egypt was a province under military occupation. Condemning rebels bearing arms to death was not uncommon in Europe and much less in Egypt. It was a brutal country at the time and could only be ruled with the sword. The execution of some 3,500 Turkish soldiers after the capture of Jaffa was not a noble feat of arms by any standard and not something Bonaparte could be proud of; but, it just happened that many of these soldiers had been taken prisoner before, released under parole and had broken their parole, so they could not be trusted, nor could they be taken prisoner, as the French were lacking the logistic capacity for taking prisoners at that stage; also the French envoy sent to negotiate the surrender of the fortress had been executed.
Execution of rebels bearing arms in Spain too was not uncommon and was unexceptional in any way you want to put it. If you are talking about the pillaging, much of the responsibility would have to go to Napoleon's commanders (Loison, Duhesme, Soult etc.). Napoleon can be blamed for not taking tougher action to sanction them. French rule did bring about good administration in some provinces (Catalonia), which were administered much better than the Spanish people could have dreamed under the useless Bourbon kings. This was not the case everywhere though. But again, nothing exceptional about the execution of arms-bearing rebels.
Throughout my 15 years of study of the Napoleonic Wars and dozens of books read on the subject, I have found no evidence that Napoleon was a "murderous bugger". Throughout human history, war was a bloody and messy business, not for well-suited for a humanist and made for men who were ready to make the toughest decisions, for which humanity will probably condemn them. Take Wellington's example. I quote Andrew Roberts, "Napoleon and Wellington" page 77, who is talking about the French advance and British retreat leading up to the siege of the lines of Torres Vedras in 1810: "Wellington's destruction of the olive and orange trees and burning of villages and crops in Massena's path had meant that the French could not live off the land outside the Lines through the winter. Some historians put the cost in terms of Portuguese lives lost to the starvation during the five-month siege at fifty thousand - 2 percent of the country's population - but whatever the figure a very high civilian price was paid for Wellington's victory". I believe that you should mention this figure in the article somewhere.
Going back to Napoleon, I agree that his regime was dictatorial or totalitarian. There was no real separation of power, the freedom of the press was reduced, there was no multi-party system in place. To be fair, I also think that a neutral historian should note that no 19th century country was purely democratic (not even Britain, where working-class mobs were casually fired at, something that never happened in Napoleonic France) and that Napoleon found some 100,000 political prisoners when he came to power - a heritage of the "democratic" Revolutionary regimes - while the number of political prisoners detained at the end of his regime did not exceed some 200. Furthermore, his rule was validate through wide popular consensus (plebiscite), a system that was not in place in Britain, let alone Russia, Prussia, Austria...
Napoleon's ego did play a role in the Napoleonic Wars. The man was arrogant and overbearing and led an aggressive foreign policy. He shares responsibility for the Napoleonic Wars with the leaders of the other Great Powers of the time, most of all Britain and Austria. Had Napoleon not existed, these wars would have probably taken place anyway, as early 19th century Great Powers had a lot to settle by arms, regardless of Napoleon. Granted, had Napoleon not existed, these wars would have probably been a bit less bloody. I can provide sources to mainstream historians to back this up, if you are interested in the subject.
Ok, back to the review, as I too have spent a lot of time discussing this and need to get back to my own editing. Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon, resulting in peace across Europe. It's historically accurate and neutral, so it's fine with me. You can easily add a phrase about the Portuguese civilian deaths following Wellington's scorched earth campaign in 1810, as this is highly relevant info. I will then provide support for the article. I have analysed the content and IMHO, the article is complete and accurate and summarises the subject rather well. I have not and will not look closely at referencing, phrasing and other aspects.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roberts quotes 3 different historians, plus I've come across this information in other sources, so one can't just dismiss this as a fringe theory or opinion. But, ok, point taken, I can agree that this information is not essential in an article about the Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; it belongs rather in a section of his biography. However, if you are thinking of further expanding this article in the future by adding a section on the historical assessment of the man's military career, you will need to address this and other skeletons in the man's cupboard. You will surely need to address this if you are thinking about nominating it for FA in the future. I am meaning this as a constructive remark for the future. As things stand, I am supporting this article for A-Class status. Regards and hope to see more of your articles soon, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, they've only just been added. There is only 1 now - in dispute.
The rank table does not format lieutenant-colonel coming after general, field-marshal coming after colonel and so on.
That's because it's doing it alphabetically, not by promotion order - C F G L M - for Rank order by promotion, you just sort by Date. ;)
Why are the months written as Sep, Oct and Nov etc and not in full.
Makes the column too wide, especially ranges like 19 September – 21 October 1812 would make the col huge or force it 2/3 lines deep spoiling the flow - it is not a MOS requirement to have full months - short versions are acceptable. Keeps the rows 1 line deep. All about maintaining layout.
I think you need to define what you mean by skirmish, as there would have been hundreds of skirmishes between troops under Wellingtons command during his campaigns.
Eh? A skirmish is a minor engagement/clash, a battle is pitched. Any military historian knows that, "skirmish" is a common English word not unique to military terminology - any minor fight between 2 people can be a skirmish.
Exactly a fight between two or more people why chose those ones and not the presumably hundreds of other skirmishes by Wellingtons army.
Read the paragraph directly before the table, it explains clearly enough: This is not about "Wellington's Army", it's about "Wellington" himself and the battles he personally attended and fought in as a soldier and commander. Chances are most of those "hundreds of other skirmishes" took place miles away from him, on his flanks, rear guard, advance guard, etc - I can only add a skirmish he personally fought in or commanded if it is made known to me.
The wars do not sort correctly by date starts at 1807 then the next on is 1794 for example. Unless the are in alphabetical order which I can see no need for.
Works fine for me. Only goes 1807 -> 1794 when you sort by "War", because that's grouping the Wars alphabetically. It's doing everything exactly as it should.
As it Wellingtons battle record I would expect to see the opponent listed.
The French. Lol! I know what you mean.. Not enough room to fit full battle details in per battle, sorry. If people want know the Battle Order per battle they'll have to go read up on those battles themselves. That's too much for me to want to do further.
Following the example adopted for the Kingdom of Mysore the Maratha Empire should be used for the Second Anglo-Maratha War battles.
Incorrect. "Kingdom" is a state, entirely within a single country, in this case. "Empire" covers a territory owned by someone and includes more than one country - it would cause confusion. Mysore is IN India, whilst the Maratha Empire "covered much of South Asia, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km²" - that scale would make your suggestion too broad and unspecific. "India" is more precise, therefore better suited as a location description - as both these campaigns were fought in India itself rather than elsewhere in South Asia. I also shortened the former from "Kingdom of Mysore, India" because of column crowding issues.
What makes: Association of Friends of the Waterloo Committee - historyofwar.org - 95thrifles.com reliable?
What doesn't? What exactly are YOU questioning about them? Since when do we question referenced web sources unless they're not relevant?
That's not the point you have to say why you believe they are reliable as your using them for reference. For example historyofwar.org is a military history encyclopedia on the web we do not use Wikipedia as a reliable source so why should we use them?
Instead of the Waterloo committee web site you can use this book
"As the great-great-grandson of the first Duke of Wellington and President of the Association of Friends of the Waterloo Committee I would like to welcome you to our official website. The Association is a non-profit making charity which was established in 1973 to preserve and protect the battlefield at a time when the Belgian Authorities were planning to put a motorway through the site. The secondary aim of the Association is to promote a greater understanding of the Battle of Waterloo and Britain's role in the Napoleonic era. It is my wish, and that of the Committee of the Association, that this website should encourage students and scholars of the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary wars and others who are simply interested in this remarkable period in British history."
What is wrong with the Waterloo Committee? See their "History" part quoted above. How is that any less reliable that a general "Book of Quotations" given the relationship factor?
Still have not proven reliability and as a relation they could well have an agenda to push. Where as the book as a reference no one would question.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I started this article by building up his record through many searches, and in many cases that website had skirmishes listed in detail, where no other sources did. As I went through and used new books I replaced several of their links with text refs. In the remaining few cases they serve to support refs, because some skirmishes are so little known, there is sod all available to reference from my books. Even the fairly large Battle of Tarbes - barely anyone acknowledges it, yet 3 battalions of the 95th Rifles fought in standard line formation there, not as skirmishers and lost ~93 men that day whilst beating back a larger French formation. Given that there were no books mentioning it, no wiki article and only that site - it was the best source. Building on research often requires you to take scraps of knowledge, however "unreliable" they may seem to you, and dig deeper. In time, more sources may come to light to replace those links altogether.
Citation 107 Howarth (1997) - Howarth is not listed in the references.
It is now. Moved up from Further reading list to References list. Thanks.
Why do some notes have years and others not (not all of them with years have two books by the same author in the reference)
When you see "Author (2001)" it refers to the ENTIRE book, hence lack of chapter/page details. Perfectly acceptable referencing style - there is no MOS policy to dispute this - citation styles are chosen by the author - this is my chosen style, but most ref styles use the same method, when quoting a full title to give the Author's surname (publishing year).
I would expect a battle record to list the opponents
No - They were INDIAN or FRENCH - there is NO ROOM for any more columns! The Lead Section covers opponents clearly.
The table does not match the prose - In September 1794, Wellesley experienced his first battle, against the French, at the Battle of Boxtel with the 33rd, before purchasing his final commission to lieutenant-colonel on 30 September 1793
That made no sense, because you did not use grammar to indicate quotes. Try being more clear, and less subjective - there is nothing wrong with the use of English in this article. The table is sortable - they are different entities.
It the table his rank is given as Lieutenant-Colonel but according to the above he was promoted after the battle.
There is nothing about his early career before Boxtel, unless never fought in a battle before then.
Correct - he didn't have one - the table makes that clear.
Also have concerns using the term skirmish as you clarify - Any military historian knows that, "skirmish" is a common English word not unique to military terminology - any minor fight between 2 people can be a skirmish. - There were presumably hundreds of skirmishes when Wellington was present and its a battle record not a skirmish record.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - there are very FEW skirmishes at which he was present. Look at the References. Read Smith's "Data Book". What you presume, and what is fact are TWO different things. "Skirmish" has been a military terms for decades - if it makes no sense to you, you shouldn't be reading military books. Should I use "Clash"? A clash could ALSO mean 2 people. To counter your own argument, "Battle" is not a unique military term either - "Battle of the Bands" - do guitarists shoot each other? I'm not rewording every word just because one person doesn't like the wording - nor is it an ACR requirement to do so. Nor am I renaming the article to "Wellington's sattle, siege, skirmish, clash, slap and tickle record" to suit every type of engagement.
Comments I know im a bit late to the party, but two things i noticed.
I do believe that for each battle the opponent of the british should be listed, for an uneducated reader it may be confusing that a battle was fought in spain without stating that it was fought against the French.
Rather than state simply india as the location for the battles in the Martha Empire, you should at the very least indicate that it was in Martha territory by stating Martha India or something similar. Simply stating India is to broad as there were quite a few polities in india at the time. DoneXavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no reason to believe historyofwar.org or 95thrifles.com qualify as reliable sources. What evidence can you provide that J. Rickard and Richard Moore are experts in their field?Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about reliability from an academic perspective. What are the credentials of the authors? Have they published books with well-regarded publishers (as opposed to vanity presses)? Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS to see what I'm trying to determine here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter D Antill, BA (Hons) MSc (Econ) PGCE (PCE) Co-author. Peter Antill has degrees from both Staffordshire University (BA (Hons) International Relations) and the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth (MSc (Econ) Strategic Studies) as well as a PGCE in Post-Compulsory Education from Oxford Brookes University. He was employed as a research assistant in the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis, Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham between 1998 and 2002 and is currently working at Cranfield University at DA-CMT (Defence Academy - College of Management and Technology). His interests are wide ranging, but include expeditionary warfare and force projection, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the World Wars and post-war / modern conflicts.
Tristan Dugdale-Pointon,BA(Hons) MSc(Econs) Co-author. Mr Dugdale-Pointon has a Masters degree in Strategic Studies where he specialised in intelligence and security issues. His areas of interest include terrorism and counter terrorism in which he was a lecturer, Japanese history and the Napoleonic period in Europe. He was also a member of the International Institute Of Strategic Studies (IISS). He is currently developing his own outdoor and survival skills company StormCrow Training.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Iranian Embassy siege lasted six days in spring 1980 and is the event that brought the SAS, previously a small, little-known unit, to the world's attention. Much to the displeasure, that is, of the SAS! The events of that week in 1980 are among the most talked-about in 20th century British history, and the raid is still referred to today whenever the SAS is mentioned. It's certainly a defining moment in the SAS's, and British, history.
So, having invested in a couple of books on the subject through eBay, I decided to give it the article it deserves. I've almost completely re-written it, and it now stands at over 5,000 words, despite the fact that it was conducted by one of the most secretive military units in the world. I would like to take this on to FAC, but I'm bringing it here first because it could do with scrutiny from fresh eyes first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN for Insight Team (1980). Siege!. London: Times Newspapers Ltd needs checking
So it says, but that's the ISBN as I copied it exactly from the book. It is an old book, maybe that's why?
Not sure about all the commanders in the inf box. Whitelaw was Thatchers deputy so he could go. And a case could be made for DLB to replace Rose. Maybe having just the police and army commanders who were at the scene would be best. Just a comment something to consider
I put Whitelaw in because he was chairing COBR; I agree DLB has a claim, but probably not at the expense of Rose who was the "on the ground" commander.
I like the table but should it not go at the end, giving the details of who was killed. wounded etc its seems a bit soon in the narrative.
I put it in the aftermath section, do you think it works better there? 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"the gunmen's leader" - isn't good grammar - this should be 'the leader of the gunmen' or similar
Fixed.
"The embassy was severely damaged by fire and did not re-open until 1993." - did Iran not have an embassy in London until that time? I think that you mean 'was not re-occupied until 1993'
Done.
"and was scarred from having allegedly been tortured in SAVAK custody" - this reads oddly - how could 'allegedly' being tortured have left scars? If this can't be confirmed it should be 'he claimed that he had been tortured while in SAVAK custody, leaving permanent scars on his body' or whatever the exact situation is. It seems reasonable that he would have been tortured though.
Not known. There's speculation that they were smuggled into Britain in an Iraqi diplomatic bag, but exactly where they were stashed, and where the terrorists went between leaving their flat and arriving at the embassy is something of a mystery.
That should be included in the article - it's an interesting mystery. The types of guns they had would be interesting to know as well. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was Frieda Mozaffarian released because the hostages convinced the terrorists that she was pregnant or because they became concerned about her being sick, or both? - the article claims both, but separately, at present.
Both, but clarified.
Some background on the SAS's role in Britain's counter terrorist arrangements at the time would be useful - the SAS teams presumably didn't move themselves to London without an explicit order to do so from the Government or military chain of command and had trained for this kind of operation
I added a bit to the background. They had trained for almost exactly this scenario, but they did slip down to London pretty much of their own accord, without any order from the government.
"the result of the security recommendations previously made after the SAS's review years earlier" - this review isn't previously mentioned in the article
Fixed.
Is is possible to identify the terrorists by name in the 'SAS assault' section? I'd imagine that this is public knowledge.
Let me consult the books...
I've tried and failed. The only one of the sources that explicitly states where each terrorist was killed is relying on accounts from hostages, some of whom are clearly mistaken while others contradict their fellow hostages, and even the author admits that it's a "best guess". In fact, if the "best guess" is right, a dead man spent 30 years in a British prison! Sorry, I don;t think this is do-able. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the SAS shoot Oan if he had been tackled? Did he still pose a clear threat?
He was still armed, added.
"Whitelaw recorded that "We in Britain had shown the world that we were prepared to take a stand against terrorists, and indeed to defeat them. There can be no greater deterrent to future action than that" - given that he was a key Cabinet minister involved in this, you'd imagine that he'd think it a success. What do more neutral parties think of the operation?
I haven't seen any source that considers the operation anything other than a success. Of the two books I've relied upon, one calls it a "complete success" and the other an "almost unqualified success". Considering only one hostage was killed in the operation, when DLB had told Whitelaw to expect a 40% casualty rate, it's not surprising nobody has a negative word to say about it.
I agree - everything I've read about this operation regards it as being a success. However, it would be better to quote the two books rather than just the self-assessment of one of the ministers responsible. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Whitelaw is a particularly bad source to quote. He obviously isn't neutral towards the performance of the government he was a minister in, especially when discussing something which was part of his portfolio. Given the widespread terrorism which continued in Northern Ireland (including bomb attacks in mainland Britain), his claim that "There can be no greater deterrent to future action than that" looks pretty dubious. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not allowed to call the IRA terrorists on Wikipedia. We have to use euphemisms like "guerilla". ;) But your point is taken, and I've removed the Whitelaw quote and replaced it with some other stuff about the Thatcher government. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia licencing-friendly map of the area in which this operation took place could be easily generated from Open street maps. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport Would be good to see this article promoted, however I suspect there's still some work to go.
The prose needs tightening up, e.g. this sentence amongst others, doesn't flow very well: "The SAS was not pleased with its new high profile as it had previously enjoyed its relative obscurity. However, the operation vindicated the SAS, which had previously been threatened with disbandment and whose use of resources had previously been considered a waste." (I'd recommend enlisting a copyeditor to help.)
That's quite patronising—I've made more copy-edits than you've made edits. I've tightened up those few sentences, did you have any other specific concerns about the prose?
It wasn't intended to be. The feedback was given based on the article content, not anyone's edit count, which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Appears I'm not the only person to have made this comment.
This controversial text is unreferenced: "One of the SAS soldiers dragged him away, allegedly with the intention of taking him back into the building to shoot him. He reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television."
There isn't a ref at the end of that sentence, but that doesn't mean it's not referenced. It's in the next reference. I reverted your fact tag.
The next sentence appears to have moved on so I didn't associate its ref with the above; also these two sentences particularly stand out in this section, so surely there's no harm in adding a ref?
I'm not sure it's really necessary, but you may have a point about it being particularly controversial, so I've ref'd it.
After this successful operation, did Thatcher make more use of the SAS? (e.g. I think she might have used them to quell a prison riot)
She did, but I'm not sure that's directly attributable to the success of this operation. I'll have a look for something, though.
I've done quite a bit of searching. There's plenty of material on the Peterhead riot and various other post-1980 SAS operations, but no source seems to draw a direct connection between it and the Iranian Embassy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did the Iranian government react to the outcome - did they thank anyone, award any medals etc?
What happened to the SAS man who was burned - was he in the pub drinking afterwards too, or was he hospitalised? Do we know if he recovered?
I've dug this up and added ti to the aftermath section.
The non-free image you've used is likely to be strongly challenged if this goes to FAC.
When this goes to FAC! ;) FAC reviewers have a way of keeping writers on their toes when it comes to justifying non-free images, but the image is the subject of discussion in the article, so I think it's justified.
Given the lack of free images of the event, is it worth adding an external link to a site like this?
I'm not sure. If there were an image gallery on a webpage (that didn't violate third-party copyrights) I'd gladly add it, but I'm hesitant to add something that requires new software and isn't in an immediately accesible format.
It's not part of the criteria for A-class or FAC. Most of the images are decorative anyway, so alt text would add little value.
You're not allowed to use non-free images for decorative purposes - ipso facto if you're going to keep any of these, you should add alt text. Socrates2008 (Talk)05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the non-free image and possibly the photo of the embassy (whose alt text would be "a big, white building"), the images are there to break up the wall of text rather than add to the reader's understanding. But alt text still isn't required for A-class or for FAC: A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate; 3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text to the non-free image for you.
Heading "The Special Air Service" to "Special Air Service" per WP:MOSHEAD
Fragmented sentence (and ambiguous as to who the sponsor was): "The DRFLA was undermined by its links with the Iraqi government, which, it emerged during the siege, had sponsored the training and equipping of the DRFLA members who carried out the operation."
"The embassy building was severely damaged by fire and was vacant for years after the siege ended. It was more than a decade before the British and Iranian governments came to an agreement." It's redundant, and possibly confusing, to use both the terms "years" and "decade" together like this.
Fixed.
""Operation Nimrod" might be better introduced earlier in the assault section than in the aftermath section.
Done.
Were there press cameras on the back garden as well as the front of the building? "He reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television" would not make sense if there were no cameras at the back.
Interesting story behind that. I worry it might be venturing into over-detail, but I've added it.
"The raid lasted 17 minutes and involved 30–35 soldiers." Might be better to mention the # of SAS when the red & blue teams are introduced.
I think it works better where it is. To move it up there would, I think, burden the reader with too many facts at once, but I'm open to discussion on this.
I don't have a strong view on this either.
Fragmented sentence: "At 13:40, Lock informed the negotiator that the gunmen had taken Abbas Lavasani—the embassy's chief press officer and cultural attaché, who, being a devout believer in the Iranian Revolution, had repeatedly provoked his captors—downstairs and were preparing to execute him"
I'm not sure what's wrong with this sentence; it seems the most intuitive way of phrasing it.
How about: "At 13:40, Lock informed the negotiator that the gunmen were preparing to execute Abbas Lavasani, the embassy's chief press officer and cultural attaché. Lavasani was a devout believer in the Iranian Revolution, which had repeatedly provoked his captors."
Another: "The events in Al Muhammara were, according to Oan Ali Mohammed, the group's leader, the spark that led to their desire to attack the Iranian Embassy in London, a plan inspired by the Iran hostage crisis"
Re-worded this one.
Do we know what weapons the "heavily armed" hostage takers had, other than grenades? (Handguns, rifles, submachine guns...?)
The identification of Fowzi Nejad by Sim Harris is repeated in two sections - suggest that this detail is consolidated into the assault section, with the trial & jail term left in the aftermath.
The lead says there were six hostage-takers, but in at least two other places the article says that there were seven.
Background
"In the aftermath of the Second World War, the people of Khūzestān rebelled, but the rebellion was defeated, remaining so until 1978, when Khūzestāni oil workers went on strike." What that's saying is that the rebellion remained defeated until 1978, which doesn't make sense.
Arrival in London
"Within a week, the housekeeper asked them to leave. They soon found another flat, claiming that they had been joined by other men and required larger accommodation." Who did they make this claim to? They'd already been asked to leave their first flat so had no need to claim anything.
The last paragraph starts off by talking about seven men, but by the end of the paragraph we're inexplicably down to six.
Day one: 30 April
"At approximately 11:30 on 30 April, the seven men, now heavily armed, stormed the Iranian Embassy building". Is it six or seven?
Day six: 5 May
"Tensions rose throughout the morning until 13:00 ...". That doesn't quite work, as obviously 13:00 isn't in the morning.
"Meanwhile, the police negotiators began stalling Oan, keeping him talking by offering concessions, in order to stall him while the SAS made its final preparations for the now-inevitable assault." There's one too many "stalls" there. They began stalling him ... in order to stall him?
Hostages
"Gholam-Ali Afrouz was the embassy's chargé d'affaires and was the member of staff at the embassy when it was captured." What does that mean? The member of staff at the embassy when it was captured? That implies that there was only one member of staff, which can't be right.
Here I am trying to evolve into a new and nicer me, and just my luck, I bump into one of these "General references"/Specific references" formats again. I will forego the obligatory hair-tearing rant. However, it is a nonstandard format, and it would put a serene smile on my face if you would do something standard with it. – Ling.Nut11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about it being non-standard with respect to FA; the concept of "nonstandard formatting" is completely irrelevant to FA. FA doesn't prohibit you from using grape candy-colored smiley icons and lemon drops to distinguish books from periodicals, so long as you do so in a consistent manner. What I mean by "nonstandard" is that AFAIK it doesn't exist out in the real world. Out in the real world there are Notes and References and Bibliographies and Other Sources and Further Sources etc. The history of this particular format (which I consider an aberration, but I am being nice nice smiley smiley happy happy Ling) is that someone or other got the bright idea to arrange the documentation of some citation template or other here on Wikipedia in this manner. Then folks... shockingly.. began copying it as if it were Holy Scripture. Now, I could be wrong in every thing I have just said, but I don't think I am. – Ling.Nut12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Must get me some smiley icons for my next project! ;) I'm sure this is a really stupid question, but is there anything 'wrong' with this format, and do we have to follow what other publications do? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deep breath. OK. Well. Now. You see. It's like this.. the universe is ordered like this: there are rules you have to follow on Wikipedia, and rules you have to follow out in the real world if you wanna publish things. And your format is emphatically not a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Therefore, you can quite safely ignore everything I say, if all you want is yet one more bronze star atop your user page. Now, having said that, I think it makes us look decidedly unprofessional if we just make sh*t up as we go. Now, you're gonna say, "But we are unprofessional." OK, but do we have to emblazon that fact in fluorescent paint right across our foreheads? Are we required to wear buttons that say, "Hi. I have no desire to look like the rest of the world; I'm on Teh Internetz! Lulz! Wikipedia iz serius bizmness, lol!"? That's my perspective. YMMV. – Ling.Nut12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perhaps missing something, or lacking some experience you have, but I just don't see what's unprofessional about this format. The source is the information is no more or less clear than if I used a different format, and I personally think it's much tidier than having a separate bibliography section, for example. I'm not in love with the format, it just happens to be (in my opinion) a tidier way of doing things than other formats I've seen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this: "Fowzi Nejad was the only gunman to survive the SAS assault. After being identified, he was dragged away, allegedly with the intention of taking him back into the building to shoot him. He reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television". He changed his mind about...letting himself be dragged off and shot? – Ling.Nut12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Who is the cultural attache: Abdul Fazi Ezzati, or Abbas Lavasani? Are ther two, or is one misidentified? – Ling.Nut12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently promoted to GA, this article follows on naturally from James Rowland. Dave Evans was the third and last RAAF Chief of the Air Staff to have joined up in World War II, Rowland and Evans being separated in their tenures as CAS by Neville McNamara. Unlike his predecessors, Evans doesn't appear to have seen combat in WWII, but made up for it as CO of Australia's Canberra bomber squadron in Vietnam. Since then he's been outspoken in his opinions of how Australia should be defended, which makes him good copy... I apologise for the quality of the sole image of the chap, but lack of decent PD images is the price you pay for tackling personnel who came to the fore in the 60s and after... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
I don't know what "personal standards" means in context.
"From 1990 to 2009 he was a board member and defence advisor to British Aerospace Australia (later BAE Systems Australia), and Chairman of the National Capital Authority from 1997 until 2003.": Seems nonparallel to me, but maybe it's okay. I'd move "from 1990 to 2009" to anywhere after the "was".
Comments I think I looked at this article once already, when it was up for B-class assessment. Some comments:
Selwyn Evans, known by his middle name of David Why do you not call him David Evans?
I think one has to acknowledge and cite what his first name was at birth, and then how he became known.
David was educated to Intermediate Certificate level Consider linking Intermediate Certificate, as many people will not know what this was.
I didn't know we had that link -- tks, will do.
His Air Force career should have finished then and there Was he really that bad?
Heh, I thought you'd like the directness of that wording -- no he wasn't bad, but as as a wartime inductee he was slated for demob at the end of hostilities, as I said.
was transferred to No. 38 Squadron, going on to fly C-47 Dakota transports on a regular courier service to Japan Did he fly the Dakotas with No. 38, or another squadron?
38 Sqn -- happy to try and reword if not clear.
During this period he was commissioned as a pilot officer Any idea when?
This is as good as it gets... ;-)
he married Dorothy (Gail) Campbell, the daughter of a Merchant Navy captain You have captain linked to the wrong article here; I think it should be linked to Master mariner
Roger wilco...
From there he joined RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift—which comprised crews from Nos. 36 and 38 Squadrons and was based in Lubeck, West Germany—and flew over 250 sorties in Royal Air Force Dakotas during the Berlin Blockade Who flew 250 sorties, him or the detachment?
Ah, I think grammatically it says what I mean, that he flew them. Without the paranthetic info between the emdashes it'd read From there he joined RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift and flew over 250 sorties, which seems clear to me.
his services earned him the Air Force Cross Which services were these: the Berlin airlift, the VIP flight or as a flying instructor?
VIP flight, will make more explicit.
Aren't you passing over one of his more interesting jobs in the early 1960s? Didn't he evaluate the B-47?
Yup, I know it, just haven't got round to reading it yet. I'm not planning to take this to FAC at this stage but if I do I'll make sure and check this out beforehand. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)e[reply]
backdated to 13 March I understand why promotions are backdated, but why backdate a decoration?
Your guess is as good as mine...
I quite like the air-sea gap bit. The real point is that he realised that he could co-opt the RAN's maritime strategy as an argument for the primacy of the RAAF. The whole thing blew up in the Navy's faces when their carrier got cancelled.
Yes, I think he (and most of the Air Force) was quite happy to see that happen...
The seat was held by the sitting Labor member Jim Snow Most seats are held by the sitting member. I think you mean retained
Well I meant held in the election but you're right, "retained" is better.
If you are a small force you cannot afford to wait, and otherwise you will be defeated Um, can you double check that quote.
Um, I think it's verbatim -- I know he didn't need the "and" before "otherwise" but it's in the source...
I notice you keep alluding to his religion. You might consider saying something more explicit.
Comments. Another concise and interesting article with very little to fix. One thing that's bugging me, though, is the prolific use of year ranges separated by an endash in the prose. "From 2010 to 2011" is preferable to "during 2010–2011", but I question whether you need to give the date range at all—why not just give the date or year he was appointed to a particular position? Also, at ~2300 words, I wonder slightly if you're getting all the useful information the sources have to offer. It's certainly a well-developed article, and it doesn't seem to be obviously thin on the details anywhere, but, for comparison, "my" two articles on British CGSs are closer to the 4,000 word mark (though obviously quality trumps quality). I'm not an expert on Australian (or any) CASs, so I'd just ask if you think it's a good reflection of the body of published knowledge on the man. If you do, I'll defer to your judgement. Otherwise, no issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that, HJ. Re. date ranges, I tend to do it to avoid too much "from/to", and also because just giving the start date of a longer posting may leave room for speculation about whether there was a whole 'nother position in between that and the next one mentioned -- but I'll have a look it. Re. quantity, heh, I've always been pretty succinct in my writing, going back to school essays -- truth to tell, I sometimes find writing a chore, but I do like having written something... ;-) That said, I think I've mined pretty well everything there is in those sources, particularly given only one (High Fliers) actually has a dedicated mini-bio on him, and comparing to other A-Class articles I've written I think it covers his life and career in sufficient detail. I wasn't planning to take to FAC in its current form, but once his autobiography becomes available I may use it to put more meat on and take to the next level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've read over this a couple of times and have only a few very minor comments:
no dabs, external links check out, images all have alt text and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required);
The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only wikipedia mirrors - see [75]) (no action required);
Spelling here I think - "that helped instill", specificially "instill" which I believe is AmEng, fairly sure AustEng is "instil"? At least my Macquarie Dictionary thinks so; and
Overall this is a fascinating article and is well written as usual. I was particularly happy to see you use Coulthard-Clark's official history of the RAAF in Vietnam which is an essential work for an article such as this IMO. The Vietnam War has always been of particular interest to me (mainly Australian Army involvement though), so it was really interesting to read about Evans' command of No. 2 Squadron during that conflict. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AC. Re. "instil", if that's what the Mac Dic says then that's good enough for me...! Re. CC-C's history, yes, it's an essential reference for any bio on an RAAF bod involved in Vietnam -- I also used it for CASs Scherger and Hancock, the latter of which is currently at FAC if that's of inerest... ;-) We do seem to be extremely well served in the Oz MilHist community by the official and semi-official histories of the wars. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and (C), which are also currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations: [76] (no action required);
there are no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
the images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
there is a slight inconsistency in your Notes section. Some end with full stops, while some don't. For instance compare Note # 1 with # 2. They should be consistent and my suggestion is to use full stops for all. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the link only once issue. Standard form at FLs is that multiple links are ok as the "link on first instance" rule does not and cannot apply to sortable tables. It's certainly something I've adhered to in the lists I've helped develop. Woody (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), which is currently an A-Class article. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a few minor fix-it suggestions (otherwise looks fine to me)
according to the tools: there are no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
the images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations online (no action required);
please check this quotation: "It has to be assumed that a few presentation have been made by the chief of the HPA General Burgdorf in the timeframe 20 April to 30 April." (In this case the word "presentation" should be plural (thus it should be "presentations"), however, if the quoted source makes this error, then it is fine to keep);
"...12 (12th pioneer battalion) on this picture" (might sound better as "...in this picture");
please check this here: ""formalities are not 100 percent correct." because the "" (if "because" is meant to be the start of a new sentence, then it should be capitalised). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, another Chief of the Air Staff ACR, and there's at least one more where this came from. It recently passed a GA review but, more importantly, did you know that this chap was the first CAS who:
Joined the RAAF in World War II?
Commanded the RAAF personally, rather than through a committee?
Became Governor of New South Wales?
The other thing that made him unusual was that he’d spent the vast majority of his career in the RAAF’s engineering branch, rather than in general (i.e. flying) duties. Of course he'd been a decorated bomber and test pilot but he can still lay claim to being the first engineer to command the Air Force. He also had to transfer out the engineers and back into the pilot stream before becoming CAS. Ironically soon after the requirement for CAS to be a pilot was relaxed, though there’s never been a head of the RAAF who couldn’t fly, and there probably never will. C’est la vie for the fine engineering officers out there, tally-ho as usual for the scarf-and-goggles brigade... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
You're always careful, so I assume it sounds right to you, but in "Having earlier attended RAAF Staff College, Point Cook, and been promoted ...", "been" sounds wrong in AmEng. Also, some style guides generally advise against successive past perfects in a narrative, and of course there are a number of workarounds. YMMV.
Thanks mate. Actually I'm not particularly happy with this sentence either but I had no precise times for the college and the promotion, only that they happened after his marriage and before ARDU -- so I might just leave it for want of anything better until/unless I find some dates I can use to nix it up a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the following, "kerning" is needed per WP:MOS ({{" '}}, {{' "}}), and I can't figure out who he's quoting, or who's quoting him, or why:
believed the new arrangements led to "'paralysis and arrogation of decision making', and empire building in the Public Service component". Though known as a strong committee member who enjoyed a good argument, he "found that the sheer time involved in attending meetings made it very difficult for him to run the Air Force 'the way [he] wanted to'". - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm afraid the way I've put it is pretty well as it comes through in the sources, so I've attributed it to the overall author/editor of the works they come from to try and address your point. Thanks for stopping by! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this looks ready to me, only very minor points from me:
no dabs, external links check out, and citation checker tool reveals no errors (no action required);
the Earwig tool reveals no copyright violations or close paraphrasing (see [77]) (no action required);
Images are all PD and appropriatly tagged as far as I can tell (no action required);
Some images lack alt text which you might consider adding (only a suggestion as its not a requirement under ACR);
"Rowland admitted that he didn't", should this be "did not" per WP:CONTRACTION?; and
Support: not much for me to comment on really. I found one typo, which I've fixed myself, only one other issue/suggestion from me:
in the References, the Dennis et al work should possibly be presented as "1st edition", given that subsequent editions of the The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History have been produced. (Suggestion only). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rupert. I got confused with the edition, first made notes on him from the 1995 one, but ended up using 2008 (no difference in the text, but looks better to use the latest version if possible I think and, yes, the pages number are correct for the 2008 edition)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support. I always enjoy these, because the articles are good enough that little fixing is needed and these chaps always seem to have had such adrenaline-filled (or fuelled!) early careers. This is no exception. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However:
It would be nice to know where he was based with No. 635 Squadron (if it's available)
I'll see. If nothing explicitly connects him to a locale, I may be able to find a source that says where the sqn itself was based at his time of service, as a "context" bit.
It would be fascinating to know more about why he was saved by the Luftwaffe pilots
This is an instance where a full-blown bio/autobio would be particularly useful but none appears to exist, and the sources for this unfortunately don't offer more detail.
Thanks for that HJ. By the way, I notice the insertion of comma between surname and first postnom and I see now that this is the guideline; interesting because the convention I've previously been aware of in WP -- and have applied in every bio -- has been not to do that. I wonder if the guideline changed recently, or just that no-one cared/noticed before now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's changed within the last few months, but I don't pay too much attention. It doesn't make much difference really when the subject has lots of postnoms, but it was fresh in my mind from Dannatt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well I started with Mike Jackson. We've had his predecessor as CGS and so it's fitting that I would finally bring you his successor. I've been working on this on and off since I got Jackson to FA and much of the last few days has been spent finishing it off and doing the requisite polishing. I'm pretty confident on this one and intend to take it to FAC in the near future, but I would welcome comments here to minimise surprises further down the road! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Support Just a quick run through
I am concerned by the addition of Cold War to the battles/wars section of the info box, as war was never declared and the term really covers a period in history.
I don't think it's a big deal, but I can remove it if you think it's necessary.
I'd prefer to see it go as well; the convention in military bios seems to be to only list specific actions that might come under the umbrella of the Cold War. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dannatt returned to the British mainland to take a platoon commanders' course this is unref but did he not do a platoon commanders course at Sandhurst ?
It's not unref'd, it's in the next ref (#8), and I don't know. If I were guessing, I would say it's a little more advanced than what one learns at Sandhurst (which presumably has to cater to the artillery and cavalry and engineers, etc etc and so perhaps only covers the basics of the infantry). At any rate, he wasn't too happy about it because the course is meant to prepare officers for their first operational tour, which he'd just done.
He and his platoon returned to Belfast in late 1972 just the platoon or the battalion
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"Stablisation": I've learned to live with British spellings, but please, if there is a God, let this be a typo.
"sation" isn't, but it should be (and now is!) "stabilisation! Thanks.
"in order to better man those in Afghanistan", "manning": It's better to substitute gender-neutral language for "to man", particularly for recent (2006) military campaigns.
I'm reluctant to re-write a sentence on the grounds of political corrrectness. I htink that's the most intuitive way of phrasing it.
"Sector South West": not Sector South-West?
Definitely unhyphenated, per source.
"In the event,": Almost no Americans will understand this. I'd go with "In fact" or "As it happened".
I don't think "in fact" works here and "as it happened" seems to conversational for an encyclopaedia. To be honest, it's intuitive (at least to a Brit) and I'm not sure what else it could mean, even if it's not a common phrase the other side of the pond.
"Serbian–Yugoslav forces": would "Serbian forces" or "Serbian-led forces" work?
The dash is meant to mean that the Serbians were Yugoslavs (as the Socialist Republic of Serbia was part of Yugoslavia), but I can see how it can be read as Serbians and Yugoslavs without more context than a biographical article can provide. Any suggestions for re-wording would be appreciated.
"Shortly after his arrival, a Russian armoured column moved into Kosovo and took control of Pristina Airport, as a result of which, Wesley Clark, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, ordered Jackson, commander of KFOR, to block the runways of the airport and prevent Russia flying in reinforcements.": When there are this many commas, it's generally a sign that the sentence is more difficult to read than it needs to be. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- A monumental article, you've put a lot of work into it. Aside from my usual copyedit (pretty minor considering the length of the piece), here's a few things:
First off, I'm always a little dubious about relying on autobiographies for the bulk of one's information, though there's no doubt they're a boon when you just want to get more precise dates for things, or to get the subject's personal perspective on something (so long as it's labelled as such). It's a bit difficult to know where to stop and while I can't see too much data that isn't of interest I'd probably be happy with something shorter but more balanced with third-party sources.
I can see your point, but I don't like to limit the use of the most comprehensive account of the subject, even if they wrote it. I don't think there's anything especially controversial sourced to his autobiography and anything controversial or on which an autobiography is likely to paint a rosier picture, there are other sources to back it up. I would also note that Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, an FA, relies almost entirely on the subject's autobiography.
As examples of what I saw as too much detail:
While it's normal to mention how many siblings the subject has if the info's available, the loss of a sister in 1988 doesn't seem to have particular bearing on his life based on what's here -- it's not like it happened when he was young and impressionable, and the article doesn't imply they were unusually close.
I think it fits well with the rest of the family stuff. The year is probably not strictly necessary, but it makes it easier to read.
I think "Dannatt attained general officer status" is a bit superfluous -- such clarifications don't appear to be required in most military bios of A/FA standard.
I think it's worth including (and I included it in Mike Jackson and most of the other generals' biographies I've written), as it's quite an important moment in his career (it also explains to a reader without knowledge of the importance of ranks and positions why it's in a section called "high command")
"Dannatt was later tasked by Jackson with briefing the assembled news media before he returned to the UK" -- the special significance of this is not clear to me, senior officers frequently seem to brief the media.
Re. changing tense back to present because he still suffers after-effects of the stroke, I still believe the tense should be consistent at the time it's first mentioned. I was going to say that you could add in Personal Life that he continues to feel its effects, but found you'd done that anyway, so I don't think the edit summary rationale is really valid.
Looks good -- you might just make the ISBNs consistent in the refs now. We may differ in our opinions re. the sister and the general officer status, but it's not enough to fight over... Thanks for looking at the level of detail again, that was more the issue of relying heavily on the autobio, rather than a feeling that it was a "rosier" picture (of course the pun was unintended, wasn't it)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's easily solved. I'm no longer citing Heathcote (since the fact it was citing is not really relevant to Dannatt and is so obvious it doesn't need to be articulated for readers who know the British Army fairly well) so I've removed him and his ISBN. Thanks again for the review—always appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is fruit of my interest for the 6th century, unfortunately a very unpopular century in wikipedia. My first major effort regarding the period has been my article on Alboin that thanks to kind help I was able to bring to FA status. This article can be considered a sort of companion to the latter, but differently from Alboin it has had the advantage of obtaining a lot of input from WP:PR, MILHIST and BIOPR, while other helped the English flow better. The major change for me has been to put a section dedicated to the discussion of primary sources: that's quite new for me, but it was proposed both in Alboin's FAC and during the peer review. Also it had been applied with success by other editors, thus I couldn't resist the temptation to try with it. Aldux (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: looks pretty good to me, but I have no knowledge of this topic, so I can't really give a full review, sorry. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
according to the Featured tools there are no dab links, ext links work and the images all have alt text (no action required);
"File:Paulus diaconus.jpg" - while I'm confident that it is in the public domain, I think it probably needs some sort of date added to the description page so it can be confirmed (e.g. when was the painting/drawing/etc created - even an approx date would probably do) [not a requirement for my support here, but you will probably get asked this at FAC];
the article doesn't mention when Thurisind was born, or what sort of family he grew up in (was he nobility, etc.) A brief sentence or two after the first sentence of the Rise to power section would suffice, IMO, if the sources mention it (suggestion only);
Not fixed, and really don't know how to: your suggestions make perfect sense, it's just that I (or anybody else) can't answer to these questions as his age, his family (sons excluded), his background are all completely unknown, sadly. At most I could write something like "nothing is known of his origins", do you think it would be better to add it?Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry - if its not known, that's fine. My suggestion would be in this case to add a brief clause stating this. For instance, something like this (in the Rise to power section - you could just tweak the second sentence of the first paragraph): "Although the details of his early life are not known, Thurisind is believed to have risen to power in about 548..." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this reads awkwardly and I think should be changed slightly: "Most of the army never reached the war zone, as they were diverted by a revolt erupted in Ulpiana" (perhaps try "...a revolt that erupted in Ulpiana...");
this reads awkwardly to me: "the third Lombard-Gepid war must have already by then ended" (perhaps try: "...the third Lombard-Gepid war must have already ended by then");
"circa": I substituted "c.", per WP:MOSNUM: "the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ..."
"his son": I substituted "the king's son"; it doesn't hurt comprehension and might help.
Is it Tate, Baldwin, both or neither who considers Procopius "the greatest historian of the 6th century"? One way to make this transparent would be to insert the supporting citation after "6th century".
"Gepid-Lombard": The Arbcom case concerning en-dashes hasn't finished yet, but the probable result will be to recommend an en-dash here. Ditto for "Lombard-Gepid" later on.
"the relations among Gepids and Lombards and their kings.": Do you mean how the Gepids got along with Lombards, and also how their kings got along with each other? If so, "between" is much better than "among" for pairwise relations.
"contemporary source": The word is absolutely blameless if you're writing a journal article targeted at historians, but since the word "contemporary" also means "modern", you can avoid confusion for a general readership with "contemporaneous source" or "source from that time".
"where" meaning "in which" is a little informal.
"Paul the Deacon was one of the most important Italian writers of the 8th century.": I'm guessing you're not saying that this is your idea, you're saying this is an opinion of a source or sources you agree with. Sentences that express (or seem to express) opinions should be cited sooner rather than later, ideally at the end of the sentence, so we know which opinions you're relying on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" it was to be observed for ten years, surviving both Thurisind and Audoin." - would suggest either "it was observed" or "it was supposed to be observed", thereby making it clear if it was supposed to be observed for ten years, or actually was observed.
"both kings secretly murdered their respective guests" - secretly as in no-one knew they'd been murdered, or secretly in that people didn't know the kings were the killers?
The latter you suggested. Changed in "both kings murdered their respective guests but kept secret their involvement in the act".Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" an heroic lay " - a lay? I didn't know what this was.
Support - I'm no expert on this topic but there is, as always, a lack or reviewers so I have read over it and have a few minor points:
The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Excellent use of WP:RS in my opinion, and you use a consistent method of citation throughout (no action required).
I made a couple of changes to presentation, re image placement, dashs and refs (please review and revert if you do not like).
Presentation of isbns in the references section is a little inconsistent I think as you seem to use hypthens in some but not others, should probably pick one style and use it for all.
"Jordanes doesn't explicitly" should be "Jordanes does not explicitly" per WP:CONTRACTION.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a bit of a hiatus, I'm back. I wrote this article in March, and it has since passed a GA review. I think it's close to our A-class standards, and that any problems identified can be remedied in the course of this review. I look forward to working with reviewers on the article, and welcome all constructive comments. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically a very sound and well structured article based on the well proven layout of many battleship articles here on Wikipedia, however I am inclined to opposesupport the nomination for now. I see the following mayor issues with the article right now: Some issues left that I would like to see addressed before this moves on to FAC but I am okay for now:
I am looking for information on crew structure (what else) such as how many divisions, what type of divisions, crew size of the main and secondary batteries, etc. All of this information is available from Von Müllenheim-Rechberg. I know that you feel that this info belongs in the battleship class article but currently it is neither in class article nor in this article.
The entire radar section needs more explanations. FuMO is the abbreviation for Funkmess-Ortungsgerät. Hohentweil should be Hohentwiel. Wurzburg radar should be Würzburg radar.
The discrepancies between Tirpitz and Bismarck should be made clearer. The most visible (to my knowledge) differences are: hoods/covers on the rear rangefinders, the larger upper deck between the rear masts which led to different positions of the cranes, the 2cm anti aircraft guns on turret Bruno and Caesar.
Tirpitz was referenced three times in the Wehrmachtbericht (9 July 1942, 4 April 1944 and 14 November 1944). This was a positive military distinction similar to the presidential unit citation which should be mentioned.
Regarding the loss of Tirpitz, I think you need to mention the errors made by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe to adequately provide fighter coverage. Heinrich Ehrler, a top scoring and highly decorated fighter pilot, was subsequently singled out and made responsible for the loss. He was put before court and initially sentenced to death for "his" failures.
Tirpitz daughter was Ilse von Hassell, who had married Ulrich von Hassell, executed for his involvement in the July 20 plot. maybe worth mentioning. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 243.
Maybe you could make use of [78]? It claims to be public domain
Inauguration speech was held by Adolf von Trotha and Hitler was present. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 239.
"Tirpitz was briefly made the flagship of the squadron" can we add under the command of Otto Ciliax please. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 239.
"Tirpitz then moved to the Fættenfjord, just north of Trondheim." The operation was called "Polarnacht" (Polar Night). The operation was supported by the German destroyers Richard Beitzen, Paul Jacobi, Bruno Heinemann and Z-29. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 240.
"Tirpitz and Admiral Scheer, along with three destroyers" The destroyers were Friedrich Ihn, Paul Jacobi (was later left behind), Hermann Schoemann and Z-25. The operation was also supported by two Torpedo boats which were also released early. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 240.
"The air strike caused significant damage to the ship and killed 122 men and wounded 316 others" According to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 243. 132 men killed; 270 wounded among them the commander KzS Hans Meyer
Couple of replies for now: does Von Müllenheim-Rechberg give information for Tirpitz specifically or just Bismarck? The former had a significantly larger crew (particularly in anti-aircraft defense armaments) so information he has for Bismarck wouldn't necessarily apply here.
As for the radar info, again, this is something else that should be addressed in more detail in the class article (or ideally in one or several stand-alone article(s)). Regardless, I don't think that deficiencies in another article should hold up this article from promotion - that sets up a precedent for a rather high bar by which we should judge our articles (and more the purpose of things like WP:FT to evaluate - i.e., the completeness of the coverage of an entire topic, as opposed to the quality of a single article in that topic).
Do you happen to have the text from the Wehrmachtbericht? I know you've been able to provide that information for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (and I think Bismarck as well). Parsecboy (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had assumed there weren't articles on them (guess I should have checked), though it appears Manxruler has gotten them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Wehrmachtbericht you can use the following
References in the Wehrmachtbericht
Date
Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording
Direct English translation
Thursday, 9 July 1942
[Die sowjetische Behauptung, daß das deutsche Schlachtschiff "Tirpitz" Torpedotreffer erhalten hätte, ist frei erfunden. Das Schlachtschiff ist weder beschädigt noch überhaupt angegriffen worden.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)[1]
The Soviet claim that the German battleship "Tirpitz" had received a torpedo hit is fictional. The battleship is neither damaged nor has it even been under attack.
4 April 1944
[Im Zusammenhang mit diesen Kampfhandlungen versuchten gestern britische Trägerflugzeuge einen norwegischen Stützpunkt der Kriegsmarine anzugreifen. Der Angriff wurde durch die eigene Abwehr zersplittert und kam nicht zur vollen Wirkung. Hierbei wurden durch das Schlachtschiff "Tirpitz" vier, durch ein Vorpostenboot zwei feindliche Flugzeuge abgeschossen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)[2]
British carrier based aircraft attempted to attack a Kriegsmarine base in Norway. The attack was broken up by our own defense and did not come to full effect. The battleship "Tirpitz" shot down four, a patrol boat two enemy aircraft.
14 November 1944
[Durch einen feindlichen Luftangriff wurde in Nordnorwegen das Schlachtschiff "Tirpitz", dessen tapfere Besatzung in den letzten Monaten zahlreiche englische Luftangriffe mit gutem Erfolg abgewehrt hatte, außer Gefecht gesetzt. Ein großer Teil der Besatzung wurde gerettet.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)[3]
The battleship "Tirpitz", with its brave crew which had repelled numerous British air attacks with good success in recent months, was put out of action by an enemy air attack in northern Norway. A large part of the crew was rescued.
Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 2, 1. Januar 1942 bis 31. Dezember 1943 (in German). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1985. ISBN3-423-05944-3.
Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 3, 1. Januar 1944 bis 9. Mai 1945 (in German). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1985. ISBN3-423-05944-3.
Comment (Dapi89)
Invited to chip in so I will on one point: The Luftwaffe. The failure to defend the ship from the air is an absolute must. Heinrich Ehrler was nearly shot for it. Even if it is only a very slight reference to him and JG 5 it has to be there. If it is added here, I can promise to update the Operation Catechism with some good sources in this regard to tell the whole story. Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point - I'm not sure why I didn't include that when I wrote it. I'll be out of town for a few days starting in about an hour, so it'll have to wait until next week. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sp33dyphil
Spotchecks:
"Kriegsmarine" – italicise.
"Named for Admiral..." Perhaps "Named after Admiral"?
"Figures for the number of men were killed in the attack" – remove "were".
"the repeated, ineffectual bombing attacks" – replace ineffectual with in-effective.
Only non-common foreign words should be italicized, "Kriegsmarine" is very frequently used in English-language works to describe the wartime German navy (FWIW, Kriegsmarine gets over 2 million ghits).
Fixed.
Fixed.
You usually only convert the first instance of a measurement and leave the rest. I noticed that the first instance wasn't converted and so switched it.
*Comments This is pretty good, but I do have a few suggestions:
"As a result of a series of wartime modifications she was some 2,000 metric tons (2,000 LT; 2,200 ST) heavier than Bismarck." - was this upon completion, or at a later stage of her career (the use of 'wartime modifications' is a bit unclear here as Bismarck was also completed well into the war)
Almost entirely before the deployment to Norway, but some modifications were made there (note, for instance, the radar sets were updated and augmented as late as 1944). Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did the loss of Bismarck affect the way in which Tirpitz was used? - I think I remember reading that Hitler ordered an end to long range raids by major warships after Bismarck was sunk.
The coverage of Convoy PQ 17 should note that the convoy 'scattered' due to reports of the German capital ships approaching, and that this was a major factor in it suffering such heavy losses.
The article would benefit from an assessment of the effectiveness of Tirpitz, especially during her last couple of years (the claim that she tied down British ships is disputed by H.P. Wilmott in his book Battleship in which he argues, from memory, that the British regarded her as being fairly ineffective and deployed their best battleships to the Med and the carrier attacks against her were used to prepare aircrew for more serious combat elsewhere - particularly for service with the British Pacific Fleet).
I'm having a bit of trouble tracking the book down - according to worldcat, the Columbus public library has a copy of the book, but I can't find it in their catalog. I am also temporarily unable to use OSU's library system. You don't happen to have a copy, do you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the book, but this wasn't in it (other than the material on the carrier attacks). I have read this viewpoint, but can't remember where... Oh well. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's always disappointing to be unable to locate something you read. I haven't seen it expressed in any of the books I've read on the ship, but will see what I can find. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything at all be said about the ship's crew? Presumably they spent most of their time bored silly.
What the Wehrmachtbericht is isn't explained and I don't see the need for verbatim transcripts it in German. No context is provided for this, and the Wehrmachtbericht article says that it was a Nazi propaganda program, though units named in its broadcasts apparently regarded this as being an honour. I'd suggest removing the transcripts and describing mentions (along with the notability of these) in the body of the article.
I agree that the Wehrmachtbericht needs motivation in context of the facts. Please note that the German text is the "original wording" the English text is the transcript (my very personal translation as a matter of fact). I would not recommend to derive facts from it, however simplifying the Wehrmachtbericht to just propaganda is doing it unjust. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line on the Wehrmachtbericht along with a note explaining the broadcasts aren't necessarily factually accurate. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement, though the material needs a citation. I still don't think that the transcripts are necessary, and if they're included they should be in the body of the article rather than a crufty table at the end. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the image. It is certainly not an Australian image (AFAIK no RAAF units were involved in operations against Tirpitz), so it's either British or German. It's more likely the former, but we don't know for certain. If we could prove it's British, we can use it, because Crown copyright expires 50 years after the work was created. But if it's German, it's still under copyright protection, no matter what the AWM says. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of RAAF airmen served with the RAF during the war (under the Empire Air Training Scheme and related arrangements), so it was probably created by an Australian government employee in 1942. The AWM clearly marks the images on its database to which it doesn't own the rights to (which are mainly images of recent conflicts). Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My above comments have now been addressed. I think that the Wehrmachtbericht material, as it's currently presented, would be a barrier to FA class, but it's OK for A class. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Since this appears not to be AmEng (armour, criticise), per my new standard disclaimer, I'll just make a few comments:
"Tirpitz acted as a fleet in being and forced the British Royal Navy to retain significant naval forces in the area to contain the battleship.": My understanding is that this is more or less the definition of a fleet in being. On that assumption, I substituted "a fleet in being, forcing the British ...".
"with work lasting from 1948 until 1957": Correct, but doesn't sound idiomatic to me. This isn't AmEng, so I'm not sure. Assuming the work was intermittent, I'd probably use "off and on" in AmEng.
"Figures for the number of men killed in the attack vary, with estimates ranging from 950 to 1,204.": I changed "vary, with estimates ranging" to "range".
"G." (with quote marks): "G". (For writers more interested in complying with Chicago than MOS, I recommend you follow WP:LQ on Wikipedia, and when you want to show your work to academics or others who are following American style guides, just search-and-replace instances of ". (except "...) with ." Works every time.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grammer here: "and the Germans sank 21 of the 34 isolated", IMO this should be "and the Germans sunk 21 of the 34 isolated";
Inconsistent hypthenation of "anti-aircraft", sometimes you write "antiaircraft" and others "anti-aircraft". Not sure which it should be in AmEng but should be consistent at least;
"On 21 February, Captain Topp" should be "On 21 February, Topp". Rank to be rm at second mention per WP:SURNAME;
Likewise "who had replaced Admiral Raeder in" should just be "who had replaced Raeder in" per WP:SURNAME;
Inconsistent presentation of names of operations. For instance you write Operation Source and in others Operation "Tungsten". IMO the former style is more correct and should probably be used through out;
"Admiral Dönitz ordered the ship be repaired" should only be "Dönitz ordered the ship be repaired" per WP:SURNAME;
"despite the fact that Dönitz understood Tirpitz could" might be reworded as "despite the fact that he understood Tirpitz could" to avoid using "Dönitz" twice in the same sentence";
some inconsistency in presentation of short citations with some using "&" and others "and" between authors names. I believe either is acceptable but again consistency is probably best; and
I've fixed most of these, with the exception of "sank/sunk" - I don't think sunk would be right. Thanks for reviewing the article and finding these. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy. I'm not sure about this anymore either, so I reached for my dictionary which was no help. Apparently "sank" is past tense for "sink" and "sunk" is a past participle. No idea what a participle is though! To me a ship "sinks", a ship "sank" (past tense), or a ship was "sunk" (again past tense); also ships (pluaral) "sink" or were "sunk" (past tense again), and the ships "sank". Where does this leave us though? No idea... so I'm happy to leave it as is. Good work on the article BTW. Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The past participle requires a helping verb (like you have there with "was sunk"). You could change it to "the Germans had sunk..." and while that would be grammatically fine, I don't think it sounds right to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Co-ord comment: This review will be due for closing in about three days. As it now has enough support to promote and I will probably have a bit of time tomorrow night (Sunday, Australian Central Time), I am intending to close it a little bit early (if I don't get to it tomorrow, I probably won't get a chance until the following Saturday). Does anyone have any objections to this course of action? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As no one has objected, I have closed this now. If there are any further comments/suggestions, please add them to the article's talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a lengthy hiatus to write about Japanese battleships, I have at long last returned my attention to Operation Overlord, beginning with the Canadian Sector of the Normandy Landing Zones. This marks the single largest (and most research-intensive) article I have ever written; it passed GA several weeks ago, and I believe that it meets the A-Class Criteria, and thus I respectfully submit it for ACR. Cam(Chat)(Prof)20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
there are no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
the images lack alt text. You might consider adding it in, but it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
"File:Canadian Soldiers Juno Beach Town.jpg" - if possible the description, permission and author information on the image description page should probably be translated into English (currently only in French);
otherwise images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
in the lead I think that there is a tense switch. For example: "Juno Beach is the code name" (present) and "the beach is situated" (present), then "The sector spanned" (past);
it might be possible to reduce the amount of whitespace between the lead and the Background section by placing a table of contents limit in the article, see Template:TOC limit (suggestion only);
I suggest wikilinking terms like "battalion" and "brigade" on first mention (and other military unit terminology) so that casual readers can learn more;
be careful of overlink. I found a few terms, e.g. "Benard Montgomery" and "Erwin Rommel" were linked a few times in the body, there might be others (per recent FAC advice, its probably best to limit linking to just in the lead and once in the body);
Its not really a major issue for me, but I removed one myself. I think if you want to take this to FAC, you will need to cast a keen eye over it for overlink. This issue has been raised a few times in recent FACs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in The Invasion of Normandy section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "After delays of both logistical planning and weather, the D-Day of Overlord was scheduled for 6 June 1944. Eisenhower and Bernard Montgomery aimed to capture Caen within the first day, and liberate Paris by D+90" (as it appears uncited);
in "Landing: 7th Brigade" section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "On the far right, C Company of the Canadian Scottish Regiment landed with little opposition, and discovered that their objective — a 75mm gun emplacement — had been destroyed by naval gunfire" (as it appears uncited);
in the "Initial attacks" section, I'm not sure that this is correctly capitalised: "while the eastern Companies of the" and also "from the Winnipeg Companies" (shouldn't it just be "companies"?);
"The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before are considered to have " --> "The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before is considered to have"?
Fixed. I'm not sure how sleep-deprived I must have been when I wrote that the first time. Cam(Chat)(Prof)
"Zuehlke (2004)" in the Citations is in a different format to the others which aren't presented with dates;
further to the above, in the Bibliography you provide "Zuehlke, Mark (2005)" - should this be 2004 or 2005?
Ah. Same problem. I originally had three Zuehlke books when I started out, so I used Zuehlke (2004) intending to use the other books. I never did end up doing so. Given that I have so many Zuehlke refs and will probably be adding 2001 ones in the near future, I'm keeping them for ease of editing (hope that's ok). Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to include the full bibliographic details for Zuehlke 2004 in the Bibliography. Currently you only have the 2005 book. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the citations "Wilmost, p. 276" - should this be "Wilmot"?
inconsistent style, compare: "Zuehlke, pp. 242-3" v "Copp, pp. 55-56" (one uses abbreviated range, the other full range numbers);
Generally if it's double-digit page #s I tried to spell it out in full, but only use abbreviated for triple-digits. I know that's inconsistent. I've gone through to see which ones I can find. Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
some of the References have publisher locations and others don't. If possible they should all have them for consistency (its not a drama, though, if you can't find them all);
Provisional support: most of my comments have been addressed, however my review is not a full review. I support the suggestions/comments made by Fifelfoo and Nick-D, so I would like to see these addressed before the review is completed. As I will be heading out field next week, I might not be back (not sure) before the review is due to be closed. As such I offer provisional support for promotion to A-class, based on the proviso that Nick's and Fifelfoo's comments are satisfactorily addressed. Sorry for any inconvenience that my absence may cause. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and Citations Generally of a high scholarly standard; want to hear the lead editor has exhaustively checked journal articles, other than that fixits. This may need a close paraphrase check due to the manner in which the citations run in sequence; I would suggest a second editor checking against Saunders (2004) which is a google book (not an accusation, of course). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I actually used the copy located here, since I can't stand using online books (something about reading on the screen drives me to distraction). That being said it's a fair precaution to take on your part. Cam(Chat)(Prof)05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
Publisher locations: All or none (Compare Barris 2004 to Copp 2003)
Scholarly journal articles? I couldn't find any, but have you exhaustively searched?
I couldn't find anything of significant quality. What I did find did not stand up to the books I used (and in some cases largely relied on the same sources I did), so I've stuck to published books.
OCLCs pass
Citations
Zuehlke (2004) in citations, no Zueklke (2004) in bibliography
n-dashes "–" for page ranges ie "Granatstein, pp. 13-14" ==> "Granatstein, pp. 13–14"
Comment:
The question on the talk page needs addressing Elements of the the 51st Highland Division landed on the beach in the afternoon: appears all mention of the division has been removed from the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one or two of the sources that I used even mention the presence of the 51st Highland Division, and none go into any great detail concerning the division's actions on the beach on D-Day (Van Der Vat simply mentions that they were part of the overall assault organization of Juno). From what I've managed to find on the 51st in general they did not actually land on Juno until 7 June, at which point it did begin to support the 3rd CID. Cam(Chat)(Prof)01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs more work to reach A class:
"while rough weather forced the first wave to be delayed by ten minutes — the first wave touched down at 07:35" - this is a bit repetitive
"With Churchill's "soft underbelly of Europe" proving too slow an advance to take significant pressure off the Eastern Front, Western Allied planners returned to the plans to invade Northern France, now postponed into 1944" - this isn't at all accurate; the Western Allies were committed to landing in France in 1944 before the invasion of Italy began. This wording implies that the western Allies intended the Italian Campaign to be a substitute for landing in France.
More generally, the background section seems inappropriate; there's no need to give a potted history of the events which lead to the start of the Normandy Campaign - as we've got an article for that. Rather, it should be focused on topics such as how Juno Beach was selected as a landing site and the planning process for the landing (was the Canadian 3rd Division responsible for planning this operation?). The command structure for the Allied landing force should also be explained.
I'm of the mindset that it's important to give some background into both. Someone coming to this article for the first time - and with no background whatsoever - isn't necessarily going to go to the grander article. I think I've given the information regarding the Normandy operations that is necessary to the uninformed reader. I think I've also dealt adequately with the 3rd CID stuff in both the background and "planning and preparation" sections. Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Montgomery is linked twice, and his position is explained on the second occasion
I don't think that Monty was "commander of group forces" - he was the commander of the 21st Army Group and commander of the landing forces. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance of the statement that the German Army included "superb armoured divisions"?
changed the wording slightly. I think it's worth noting that SS Panzer divisions were not your standard armoured divisions. I'm not sure how to remove reference altogether and maintain the flow. Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that changing the wording to "it remained a powerful fighting force with a strong cadre of junior officers and elite divisions." isn't an improvement - this implies that 'elite divisions' were the norm, when they most certainly were not and is still irrelevant to this article (the Canadians faced a third rate division at Juno). Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Removed the reference, though I do think that mentioning that the German Army was still a strong force works as a lead-in. If you can think of a better way to phrase this without the mention, feel free to fix it. Cam(Chat)(Prof)05:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How good was a "better-than-average static division"? My understanding is that the quality of these formations was generally quite low as they had men and equipment deemed unsuitable for the mobile units.
You're correct that they generally lacked the mechanized capacity present in German front-line divisions. I'm going to interpret "better than average" to mean that their infantry were generally of a higher quality than those of other static divisions, though that may be extrapolating from the source too much on my part. Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also note that these divisions only had six infantry battalions, versus nine in Allied infantry divisions. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rommel also deployed the 21st Panzer Division southeast of Caen to act as a counterattack against landings on what would be Sword and Juno" - this reads a bit awkwardly
"Air attacks on Normandy's coastal defences began in earnest on 5 June at 23:30, with RAF Bomber Command giving the order for bombers to target the chief coastal batteries" - this is a bit confusing - RAF Bomber Command's role in the landings was planned months in advance, so it's unclear what it gave an order to do
Clarified somewhat. They basically reverted from blanket-bombing tactics to specifically targeting coastal guns, and also did so with much more intensity than before. Cam(Chat)(Prof)23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A map of the beach showing the different sectors would be very useful
"Hitler had freed up the veteran Panzer Lehr Division and the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, both of which now prepared to head north to form the I SS Panzer Corps" - Hitler 'released' rather than 'freed up' these divisions, and I suspect that they were already units of the I SS Panzer Corps before the landing
Should the Panzer divisions which faced the British and Canadians really be labeled 'elite'?
The three Panzer Divisions of the I SS Panzer Korps basically held back the entire British Second Army for six weeks despite overwhelming numerical and air superiority on the part of the Brits. In my mind that definitely makes them "elite". Cam(Chat)(Prof)23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very Canadian-centric - can more be said about the experiences of the Germans who faced the Allied landing in the Juno sector?
I genuinely wish it could, but the simple reality is that there is virtually nothing written (in English) on those experiences. The only book I have that even touches on the German experience on D-Day (Army in the West) is a collection of communications between the division/corps and army level. To my knowledge, there is no reliable English source material on German soldier experiences on Juno Beach. Cam(Chat)(Prof)06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"most of the German divisions ... were either new recruits or rebuilding veterans": A division isn't a recruit, and what's a "rebuilding veteran"?
Rebuilding veterans - units that were badly mauled in Russia and were retraining and resting in France. The recruits were the composition. I've fixed this. Cam(Chat)(Prof)04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"manned by several platoons and mortar positions": nonparallel
"the most significant were the Amphibious Duplex Drive Tanks (DD Tanks) and the use of artillery to bombard the beaches while still on their landing craft.": nonparallel, and what is the last phrase modifying?
Continuing. "Several soldiers from B Company succeeded in outflanking the main pillbox and killing its gunners with grenades and small arms. One LCA's rudder from B Company had jammed, and thus deployed a platoon far to the left of the rest of B Company, enabling them to easily outflank and destroy the gun emplacements.": Are these two sentences talking about the same group of soldiers?
"The 50mm gun knocked out four of the Squadron's tanks, while the North Shore's machine-gun platoon flanked the position.": whereas, or at the same time as?
In future articles, consider rewording "in terms of", "meaning that", and sometimes "regarding". There's generally a more precise way of getting the point across.
I'm not really in a position to decide what the A-class prose criteria are, particularly for English other than American English. I can try to get a sense of FAC criteria (on average ... standards differ among reviewers of course), I can try to point at things that seem "wrong" in some sense, and I can point out spots where the meaning doesn't seem clear to me. If we can get some help here, it would be best if someone would either help Cam fix the text, or make an argument that the article either is or isn't good enough for A-class, given the points I made above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the nonparallels you brought up. I'm also planning a full self-copyedit once I find make the time to do so. Cam(Chat)(Prof)04:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To be clear for whoever's closing this, I don't have as much time as I used to. Someone else will have to make the call on prose, or not. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really minor stuff: Citations 143 and 150 are the same page; ditto for 8 and 10; and 118 and 125. For most citations you do not have the publication date, but you do for many of Zuehike (2004) while some of Zuehike do not have the date. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
The citation check tool reveals a large number of refs which need to be consolidated:
Granatstein, p. 18 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Copp, p. 47 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Saunders, p. 137 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Saunders, p. 138 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Stacey, p. 114 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Copp, p. 61 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Keegan, p. 141 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Copp, p. 52 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Van der Vat, p. 120 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Copp, p. 57 (Multiple references contain the same content);
Copp, pp. 55–56 (Multiple references contain the same content);
copp47 (Multiple references are using the same name); and
stacey93 (Multiple references are using the same name).
The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (see here) (no action required);
Not sure about the tense in the lead here: "Juno Beach is the code name for one of", would past tense be more appropriate? For instance "Juno Beach was the code name for one of"?;
I've debated this one back and forth. Originally it was past tense, but then we changed it to present given that it's still known as Juno Beach. The code-name hasn't changed since then (indeed, the name stuck). Cam(Chat)(Prof)
"The landings initially encountered heavy resistance". From whom? The Germans of course, so it might pay to include them in the sentence. Perhaps "The landings initially encountered heavy resistance from German troops" or something similar?;
"In August 1942 Anglo-Canadian forces attempted an abortive landing—Operation Jubilee—at the Calais port-town of Dieppe." Why? I think half a sentence to explain its aim or objectives might be required.
This doesn't quite work for me: "Within 24 hours the operational plan also called for the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers to be deployed to Juno as reinforcements." Perhaps reword to something like "The operational plan also required the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers to be deployed to Juno as reinforcements within 24 hours.";
This is repeatitive for mine: "As the bombing runs continued to saturate Juno Beach with ordnance, the destroyers and landing craft moved towards the beach and began saturation bombardment." (saturation used twice);
There is some inconsistency in how you label the Canadian sub-units, for instance you use "A" Company and A Company (and "B" Company and B Company as just two examples). Either is correct AFAIK but they should be consistently treated throughout. I started to change this myself but then realised the issue is quite widespread so I leave it up to you to decide which format you want to use and to apply it;
"A", "B" it is. Fixed them all, as well as Squadron references.
I assume that Major-General Rodney Keller was GOC 3rd CID but this doesn not appear to be explictly stated (as far as I can see). Might be best to spell this out (perhaps in the "Juno Beach" section where you first mention 3rd CID);
"taking heavy infantry casualties but clearing the positions.", perhaps better as "taking heavy casualties among the infantry but clearing the positions.";
Repetitive here: "While the D-Day landings in all five sectors managed to establish footholds in Normandy, many D-Day objectives were not met." (D-Day used twice in same sentence unecessarily);
In the references: Zuehlke, Mark (18 May 2006), Van Der Vat, Dan (2003), Goddard, Lance (2004), Fowler T. Robert (1994) and Hallion, Richard (1994) all lack place of publishing;
Fixed Zuehlke (didn't use source, removed) and Van Der Vat. Will look for Goddard and Fowler (I'm not the one who added those references, so I don't have their data)
Inconsistency with treatment of isbns, sometimes you use hyphens and sometimes you do not.
Overall, this is a very good article IMO. I will be happy to add my support once the above points have been dealt with/discussed. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), which is currently under A-Class review as well. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks pretty good to me and not much stands out to me. I have the following comments:
according to the Featured article tools there are no dab links and all the ext links appear to work (no action required);
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations: [82] (no action required);
there is a possible mix of English variation. For instance, "authorised" (British Commonwealth English) v. "motorized" (typically US English);
this seems a little awkward: "Heer members received 51 of the medals...". Possibly just say "Heer members received 51 medals..." or "Fifty-one medals were awarded to members of the Heer...";
the images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
you might consider adding some citations to the works listed in the Further reading section in order to expand the reference base, however, as the article content appears to represent the body of the literature available on the topic, it is probably not required (suggestion only). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Prose looks good and I support on other grounds, but I'd question the way that the first paragraph has been referenced. It uses a single citation, Fellgiebel 2000, pp. 113–460, 483, 485–487, 499, 501, 503, 509. While I'm sure that Fellgiebel does state the information contained in the paragraph, I don't think its helpful to cite 353 pages of a book this way without breaking the reference up amongst the separate sentences. In purely practical terms, if I wanted to confirm that "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry," I'm being asked to read all of those 353 pages looking for that piece of information, which might take a while, when I suspect it is really just stated on one or two of those pages... End of paragraph references can usually work well, but in this case I really think it needs tweaking. I'd be very happy to support if this could be fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trying to get back into the swing of content improvement and article promotion since the birth of my first child. I'd like to ultimately take this article to FAC but figured this might be a good intermediate step. Granted McCreary is better known as a politician than a military figure, but his military service does seem to have been an asset in his early politicial races, and was certainly an issue in his first run for governor. I welcome your comments and hope to respond in a timely manner, but I ask your indulgence if I don't get back promptly. Such is the way of things with a seven-month-old to attend to. Thanks. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use the same style for citations in Further Reading as you do in your Bibliography
Done.
No publisher location? Johnson, E. Polk (1912). I am aware works from 1912 may not have listed publisher locations, but double check
The book's title page listed both Chicago and New York. I'm guessing Chicago is more likely for this book.
"Biographical Directory of the United States Congress" may be worth formally citing in full to take it to FAC
Wonder why we don't just modify {{CongBio}} to match {{cite web}}? Seems to defeat the purpose of consistency.
Excellent encyclopaedia citation: Harrison, Lowell H. (1992).
Thanks!
" Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. " either always cite UPoK with location, or never cite with location?
Copied and pasted these cites way too many times. Eventually, I'll remember to check this.
"Burckel, Nicholas C. (October 1978)." page run for the entire article within issue 76 for the bibliography? Page runs for contained chapters generally in the bibliography? Some Wikipedians believe this is optional for style due to table of contents in issues and collected works. You may believe this too, but if you haven't thought about it, have a quick think and consider your position.
My position would be to provide it if folks think it's helpful, I guess. I've done so here.
Support - not my area of expertise but I have reviewed due to the lack of other comments to date:
The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
No dabs and external links check out (no action required).
File:James B Mccreary.jpg lacks alt text (although its not a requirement - you might consider adding it though).
I usually do, but I worked on this infobox so long ago I must have forgotten. Added.
The Earwig tool reveals no copyright vio issues (see [84]).
Missing word here I think: "where he remained prisoner through", possibly "where he remained a prisoner through".
Fixed.
Grammar here "future elections if the bill were not passed in the session", should this be "future elections if the bill was not passed in the session"?
I'm no grammarian, but I think this is an example of the English subjunctive. I'm open to correction on that, though.
Not sure either, might be the difference b/n American English and Australian English. Not a war stopper though. Happy to leave it as is. Anotherclown (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar again "Following these defeat, he resumed", should be "Following these defeats" I think.
Support: Looks fine to me, but I am also not an expert. I have a couple of minor comments, but nothing to hold up promotion in my opinion:
in the lead, I'm not sure whether this is an example of how US English differs from Australian English or not, but to me it seems like there are some missing words here: "Shortly after graduating law school, McCreary was chosen major of the..." (specifically perhaps this might be smoother: "Shortly after graduating from law school, McCreay was chosen as a major in the..." ). Additionally, the choice of words here depends upon whether or not "major" in this context is a rank or an appointment. For instance, "Smith was a major", or "Rupert became brigade major of the 11th Brigade". As such, the question to ask is, were there multiple majors in the 11th Kentucky, or just one?;
I believe "Shortly after graduating law school," is acceptable in US English, but I'm not opposed to adding the "from" if you think it helps. As for "McCreary was chosen major of the", I believe each unit had one colonel, lieutenant colonel, major, and one other rank which escapes me at the moment that formed its leadership. Since I primarily do politician articles, I can't be sure about that, though. I also believe it reflects the wording in the sources, but I'll have to double-check that too.
"Democratic party" and "Democratic Party" - inconsistent capitalisation;
All the missing second commas I see fit the pattern of "July 4, 1863" or "Richmond, Kentucky", both of which need commas at the end. Checking just the first two sections, there are 3 missing in Early life and 3 in Early political career. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have decided to renominate this article for review following the encouragement of multiple editors, who have praised the quality of this article. The last review failed, in part due to inperfect preperation, but also due to not enough reviewers issuing finishing conclusions of support or oppose, which meant the nomination went flat rather than an outright failure by opinion. Additionally, numerous copy-editing exercises have been carried out by multiple editors, as per recommendation in the last review. This will probably be the last time I disturb the MilHist reviewers with this article, if this time does not pass, I'll abandon efforts to proceed for further reviewing, such as eventual FA-level review. Now that some issues have been settled, I feel ready to take on new criticisms and suggestions. Kyteto (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional supportSupport Count this as a support, because I'd like to see alt text, which isn't hard to write considering the calibre of the nominator. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per last time. The last nomination was under-prepared, and the amount of work that was required was quite daunting. Kyeto and Fnlayson did an astounding job in addressing the majority of those concerns, but unfortunately the review stagnated a bit. Hopefully this one will go better, now that the vast majority of the concerns have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone find items that need correcting, go ahead and post them so they can be corrected before the 28th day of this review. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello again everyone, it's been a seemingly long time. This is the lead article in my quest to get all of the South American dreadnought articles to FA, so it has the juicy bits of a Brazilian dreadnought order -> naval arms race between them, Argentina, and Chile -> completely brought to a halt by WWI. I hope you'll enjoy the narrative. Constructive and thorough comments from anyone are very welcome, as I intend to take this to FAC. Thanks, Ed[talk][majestic titan]09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sudden stylistic changes and random unique turns of phrase manually checked: clear
Spotchecked all of Livermore (20 cites); issues.
Endnote [17b] Article: "The Argentine government made a last-ditch attempt to preclude an arms race by offering to purchase one of the Brazilian ships, but when this was rebuffed, they sent a naval delegation to Europe to solicit tenders from armament companies to build warships for Argentina." ; Source: "Argentina made a final effort to secure naval parity with Brazil by offering to purchase one of the dreadnoughts; when this proposal was rejected, an Argentine naval commission sailed for Europe to receive tenders for the construction of two dreadnoughts and a number of destroyers." ; phrase ordering is the same, "Argentina" "avoid" "ship buy" "refusal" "naval" "to Europe" "build" "plural vessels" ; this appears as close paraphrase: The main point of difference is that preclusion of an arms race is a fundamentally different meaning to security naval parity. However, in all other aspects the expression follows that of the original. How close is close? I'm particularly concerned by the similarity of clause "by offering to purchase one of the"
[84b] Article: "In the end, Chile only bought Canada and four destroyers in April 1920, all of which had been ordered by Chile prior to the war's outbreak and requisitioned by the British for the war.[84]" ; Source: "The Chileans, however, contented themselves with the purchase of a single dreadnought and a few destroyers, all of which had been ordered before the war and had been taken over by the British Navy in 1914" ; Again, the verb clause, "all of which had been ordered" and the common presentation order.
These appear to be slips, I would suggest that you reconsider how you write single sentence article facts from single sentences in the source, review your sourcing generally for this (you probably remember how you wrote it).
Spotchecked "British and Foreign News," Evening Post, 12 September 1908 (clear);
Spotchecked "Acorazado Almirante Latorre," Armada de Chile, archived 8 June 2008. (clear).
You need the location for Evening Post as there are many newspapers of this name ("Wellington, NZ")
Consistency of citation of volumes and issues of journals, "3, no. 27" versus "27: no. 3" (colons versus commas)
JSTOR links and OCLC links check out fine.
Thanks very much for all the work you put into this, Fifel. Both are rather large slips. I've addressed both of those issues and added "(Wellington)" after the Evening Post. Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and made some minor changes...double check them.
All the sources are from your previous articles, but citing foreign language texts kind of implies you translated them and since most readers aren't fluent in those languages you should try to minimize it when possible. I noticed some of the citations were doubled with English language citations so I would cut the foreign language citation if they are duplicated.
I added some language icons to identify the non-english works; when you review the above you should consider adding the icons in the footnote entries instead of in the list of references.
Some of the Brazillian citations say 'Navios' but don't specifically say 'Brazil'; I'm not sure what if anything needs to be done but if that was in English you'd be asked to clarify which Navy.
Consider adding some kind of relative power indication to the summary table, such as guns, tonnage and/or speed.
The lead is missing information from the background section; I think it would flow better if it was in three paragraphs (summary sentence/background; construction; decline).Kirk (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the foreign language refs add depth, and all are online = can be translated via Google Translate if readers want to. They're also free to only review the English sources. :-) I removed the language icons per some of my previous articles – readers can tell they are in a different language by the titles and/or publishing information. Also, Chicago advises against identifying languages. "Navios" means "ships" in Portuguese; the word for "navy" is "Marinha" (hence the Brazilian Navy's name "Marinha do Brasil"). I actually thought about adding that information to the table, but I was afraid of including too much information in a relatively small table. I'll try a few things and see if I can get it to work. I've added more to the lead – what do you think? Sorry to argue against most of your proposed changes... Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other editors think of the language icons; the icons are common WP FA articles but maybe its a different citation style. Citation 44 is an example of the duplication; its one of 5 citations for that sentence. Navios De Guerra Brasileiros (Brazilian Warships?) has been vetted before, but that was before it disappeared.
I mixed up ship and navy in PT (not a language I know very well!) but I think the citation for Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios should have the publisher as ...da Marinha do Brasil since that's the publisher for http://dphdm.mar.mil.br/. The lead looks good. Kirk (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all of the citations support parts of the sentence though! The publisher for that is "Diretoria do Patrimônio Histórico e Documentação da Marinha, Departamento de História Marítima", or something like the "Board of History and Documentation of the Navy, Department of Maritime History". Ie it's similar to the Naval History and Heritage Command. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the Chicago Manual of Style and I didn't see that explicitly but there is the option of putting unpublished foreign phrases into English in parens.
Martins Filho, João Roberto. A Marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895-1910. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2010. to
Martins Filho, João Roberto. A Marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895-1910 (The Battleship era of the Brazilian Navy, 1895-1910). Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2010.
Its still seems questionable to rely on previously reliable sources which have now disappeared; also, its not a best practice to have five footnotes when four (or one!) will do. Somethings to think about for FA.Kirk (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were up on a different site for a longer period of time, and Poder Naval assured me that they were working to get them back up. Also they were linked to from the Filho online article, albeit at a time when they were directly accessible. Also you are right regarding the title... it'd be silly to not translate only one of them. Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments As always, this is a great article Ed and this is very close to A class. I've got a few comments before supporting though:
"each ship marking a small increase in capabilities from the ship previous" sounds odd
"The growing dispute disturbed the British government, who had extensive commercial interests in the area." - was the British Government really running commercial operations? I think that you mean "The growing dispute disturbed the British government, as it had the potential to disrupt the extensive British commercial interests in the area." or similar
"Beginning in the late 1880s, Brazil's navy fell into obsolescence after an 1889 revolution" - what began in the late 1880s?
I'm confused by "Main articles: International reaction to the Minas Geraes-class battleships and International reaction to the Minas Geraes-class battleships" - this seems to be the same article, though one of them is a red link...
"A transition to a few large warships was finalized with the selection of Rear Admiral Alexandrino Fario de Alencar for the powerful post of minister of the navy." - this is really unclear
"heavily laden with seemingly underhanded tactics" - this is a bit over-written
"Even the British Times" - the 'even' isn't needed: the Times was the newspaper of the British 'establishment', and this is exactly the kind of stuff they published on a routine basis
"An option for a third Argentine dreadnought was provided for in the contract in case Brazil stayed within its contract obligations to order a third dreadnought." - seems needlessly complex (how about "An the Argentine contract included an option for a third dreadnought in the event that Brazil also ordered a third battleship")
"Chile, on the other hand, had a very predictable outcome." - this is a bit vague and needs some context
"and began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships so the profits could be invested internally" - were they really expecting to make a profit on second hand (and slightly outdated) warships? - 'revenue' might be the correct term
"Canada was sold for just £1,000,000, less than half of has been required to construct the ship" - needs to be tidied up Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these should be addressed. I used "even" with the Times because I was thinking of their normally-neutral articles, as opposed to their editorials, but of course you are correct. For the ones I did not address: @ship previous, can you think of a better way to word it? It's a weird thing to try to put into words, at least for me. @"Chile ... outcome", the context comes directly after. Is that too unclear? @Piping, it's a a bit more descriptive this way, I think. @Profits, actually yes. Think of the context – World War I was on the horizon, and everyone was frantic to buy armament or keep it away from a potential enemy in case war flared up (which it did, in August). For a similar case, Brazil would have made money from Greece's offer for Rio de Janeiro, and while I don't have statistics on-hand for the Ottoman offer, I can't imagine Brazil's government would sell the ship for less of a profit than that. Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My above comments have now mainly been addressed, through I've highlighted two which need a bit of work. Selling the ships for a profit makes sense in that context - I assume that the source uses the word 'profit' or similar? Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supportfor half of it on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. After "with the Baron of Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as Cuba", you might or might not want to add something like "[whose new constitution allowed the U.S. to intervene in Cuban affairs]." - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you back at A-class too. Finished my copyediting, now supporting the whole article, except the last subsection, which is tagged as being under construction. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support: nothing much sticks out to me. Good work as usual. I have a couple of minor observations:
no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
"and its variants were the highest award" - should this be: "and its variants were the highest awards" (varients meaning that there are multiple, thus requiring a plural "awards")?
some of the language in the Notes is a bit awkward; I'm not sure what the FL standard is, but before taking it there you might consider trying to smooth them out a little bit;
SupportComments - looking pretty good, just some minor comments:
In my current browser (Chrome, 15" monitor) the table goes far enough to the left that I need to scroll to see part of the notes column and all of the image column. Not sure if there is a way to change this. Not a huge deal, just a little annoying.
Note #22, "and decided: Knight's Cross yes, 9 May 1945." Perhaps reword this to "and decided to award the Knight's Cross, retroactively effective 9 May 1945." or something similar.
It is disappointing that there aren't images of more of the men, but I suppose there's not much you can do about it.
The German Archives keep releasing more images. But these are all those released to the public domain that I know of. I am open for ideas. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really any ideas, other than to keep adding them in as the GA releases them.
Lead, "and its last hand out on 17 June 1945." "hand out" seems rather informal - any way to reword this?
Recipients, "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht" Perhaps give a translation of this? From my (admittedly limited) German, I would think this was something like High Commander of the Armed Forces, but a solid translation in the article would be appreciated.
Is there a possibility of adding to the Recipients text section a sentence summarizing how many of these men were later awarded higher grades of this award? I see that this is listed in the notes column, but it would be nice to have a sentence like "later, 8 of these men (or however many it is) were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Old nomination (from March 2010) here. Time to try this again!
This was the first GA I wrote from scratch and it's one of only a small number of high-quality articles to which I added almost all the content, so it holds some sentimental value and, for some reason, I find the bloke fascinating. Anyway, the first ACR failed on comprehensiveness just over a year ago and I barely touched it since until a few weeks ago. I've re-written parts and hugely expanded the material on his service in Kosovo and early service in Iraq, which is where much of the criticism was directed last time. I think it's ready for A-class now and I'm pondering the prospect of taking it to FAC, so I'd appreciate comments in that general direction. Thanks for reviewing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comments
"His first tour was in Germany, with the British Army of the Rhine in 1971," --> West Germany, as Germany wasn't reunited then.
I'm leaning to support, but was wondering about one or two things:
do we know where he lived when young, or which school he went to;
No idea. It's not even in Who's Who, which is the usual source for such things
"In early 2003, he was appointed the British representative ... following the invasion, and one of three deputies to American Lieutenant General Jay Garner." really needs a citation;
Ref'd before I saw your comment (a legacy from it being taken to pieces in my sandbox)
the two refs immediately before that are in the wrong order;
Fixed already
is the weighting on his religion fair? I'd be tempted to cut about a sentence off that, or add one (if one exists) that gives the reader some handle on how it affected his command;
I only make a big thing of the religion because he does—one doesn't appear on a series called Belief or on the Christian Broadcasting Network if one doesn't want to talk about it. I think I've mentioned how it affected his career, but there's another good quote or two I could find
has he received any special mentions/awards when a soldier?;
A CBE, but nothing else. The highly decorated officers usually come from combat units
"married" is mispelled in the lead;
No it's not
I'd cut "Having always wanted to be a soldier, Cross applied to join the army at the age of fourteen, but was rejected due to his age." from the lead, doesn't seem to warrant inclusion;
Snipped
in the early part of the "high command" section, are these part of UN, NATO, or merely Army operations, might that be worth a mention.
I added that they were NATO operations, but if I keep saying it, it gets a bit repetative, and it is in the first senstence of IFOR, SFOR and Kosovo Force.
None of that alone warrant opposition, but given the article's previous failings it might be worth addressing some – I would support once progress had been made. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I didn't expect the list to be so long. I now support accordingly. (Not wishing to make a mountain out a molehill, but "married" was misspelled, and you corrected it. So it's dealt with. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Another succinct and well-written article, little to copyedit as far as I'm concerned. Prose, content, structure, references and image look fine. As I suggested in a previous ACR, if you could find one or two free "contextual" images (not necessarily of him but representing actions in which he was closely involved) it'd be great, but nothing stopping this being promoted IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I see you fixed a few typos, so thanks for having a sharper eye than me (despite the three times I read the whole article just before I nominated it and the two since)! I've struggled to find any images that are at all relevant and freely licensed. I've sent an email requesting permission for another image of him on the Cranfield University website, but I think almost every educational establishment in England is off for the next week, so any response could take a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - only a few minor comments:
Probably should be careful here. "Following his retirement, Cross attacked US foreign policy on Iraq, calling the plans "fatally flawed"..." Do the sources say he was attacking US foreign policy, or is this wording editorialising? If this is what the sources say then thats fine, however to me this sounds more like a criticism of operational planning than strategy.
Well he's criticised Donald Rumsfeld (then-US Defense Secretary) personally and almost all of the planning was done by the American departments of State and Defense, so I think it's probably fair.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it's ready for A-Class. This is the first article I've submitted for A-Class review, and I believe it meets all five criteria. This article on a battle between Egyptian and Israeli forces during the final days of the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, is my first nomination for an A-Class review. It has recently passed GA and I hope to get it up to FA status eventually, so I'd really appreciate any additional constructive comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance for your input! Sherif9282 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A1, A2, A3Oppose on completeness of research other wise A1 A2 and A3 are Supportable: Structure is good, neutrality is good, citations style is good, citations used are good. Sourcing is incomplete: Journal Articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Authors do not take titles as part of their names, "Gawrych, Dr. George W."
Fixed
No journal articles? Check scholar and other indexes, for example:
Mason "'The decisive volley': The battle of Ismailia and the decline of British influence in Egypt, January-July, 1952" The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1991. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any journals that deal with the topic. The journal you cited is of another battle; the article being nominated is on a battle that took place in 1973, not 1952, and involved the Israelis not the British. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the referencing should be a little more thorough. Whilst the one-ref/paragraph is met, there are paragraphs with three different references at the end, some covering up to four pages in a given ref, and so tracking down exactly what cites what is difficult. A couple of other small things: I think "Operation Abiray-Lev" should be linked in the lead, and Ismailia described as a city there as well, it's not clear whether we're talking about a small or large settlement, or even something more different, like an area of some kind. I also think "One of them has the Soviet-made RPG-7 by his side, normally used by the Egyptians." needs citing. Other than that, looks good. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'll see what I can do with those refs. Unfortunately no article exists so far for said operation; it'll only be a red link in the leade. I'll also perform the other edits very soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've done that. I've also removed that part of the image caption since I can't find a ref for that specific claim. I've looked over the refs. Mostly, refs grouped at the end of a paragraph are reference for all or most of what is in the paragraph. In the background section, I'm using the ordinary, detailed accounts to provide a summary of the war's timeline, which is why refs in that section have a lot of pages in them. I'll try to replace them with pages or sources that provide short summaries instead, when I find them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BritEng or AmEng would be fine, but I'm not sure which this is; "reorganizing", "armor" and treating "battalion" as singular suggests it's AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some hyphens that MOS says should be dashes, but I'm not touching them until the hyphen and dash rules have been clarified as a result of the current Arbcom case, which will take a month or two.
"Several measures decided upon were not implemented however.": Vague. I'd remove this and move the contents of the note to the main text. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've quickly skimmed over the edits and they look fine, might need some tweaking. I'll be giving a more comprehensive answer as soon as I'm free. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I've done some changes, the rest of the edits are good. Will you be continuing on the article from where you stopped? --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The village was then occupied by a company of the 73rd Sa'iqa battalion, and the defenders received a platoon of reinforcements to compensate losses" is that an Egyptian brigade?
Yes. The prelude section describes the unit, and points out that they are Egyptian.
"Sharon only sent five tanks, and the attack by Raviv's brigade failed with heavy losses. Gonen and Bar-Lev were joined by Lieutenant General David Elazar, and ordered Sharon to renew the attack, this time transferring Reshef's brigade. Sharon opposed this however, and argued that if he succeeded in his mission, the Egyptian Second Army would collapse, thereby eliminating any Egyptian threat to the Israeli corridor and bridgehead. He claimed he could have already encircled Ismailia had it not been for Southern Command's hesitation. When his superiors remained adamant, Sharon bypassed the chain of command and contacted the Minister of Defense, Moshe Dayan, who called off any further attacks on the east bank. As a result, Sharon would be able to concentrate his attention and the efforts of his three brigades in the final push to capture Ismailia." - Raviv? Reshef? Who? "He claimed ... hesitation" did he claim this at the time or after the war?
I've removed any mention of Raviv (not being important to the article). Reshef had been mentioned several times before so the reader should be aware who he is by the time he reaches that section. I thought it was self-evident he made that claim during his conversation with Southern Command. I've tweaked it nevertheless, and do improve on it if you can. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found another source to that story at all, not even a passing mention, but the book used is a reliable one for sure. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Co-ord comment: this ACR has been open for 41 days now. This well past the 28 day limit that is normally applied. As such, I intend to close this review in the next 48 hours. Currently there are only two clear supports. Unless there is another clear support, it will need to be closed as unsuccessful (per the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review a minimum of three clear supports is required for promotion). In the interests of achieving a successful outcome, I will wait 48 hours and will post a request on the main talk page asking for more input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this review as successful because it has achieved the minimum three supports and is past the 28 day review period. If there are further comments on the article (as indicated below), please add them to the article's talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – no obvious reason for otherwise, although I can spot a few minor imperfections here and there. Does the nominator want to know what they are? Sp33dyphilReady • to • Rumble09:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not many A-class articles on British generals. Many are deserving of high-quality articles. But Boy Browning would probably not be the first to come to mind.
Did you know that he:
Claimed to have been born in the piano department of Harrods?
Well, there may be better-known British generals but few more interesting to write about I think, so don't blame you for taking it on...
Prose/content-wise, generally looks good although there were a fair few typos and writing was a little bit choppy and samey, plus I was left wanting more context in places; performed usual copyedit but a few points:
I don't think his status as a guards officer and bobsleigher really belongs in the first line. I'd suggest simply "...was a senior commander in the British Army" or something similar, then launch into your current second sentence re. "father of the British airborne forces", etc.
Done. A little queasy about putting his being an Olympian further down. He is unusual in that his wife is more famous than he is, but he is not famous as "Mr du Maurier". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least you still have it in the first para... ;-) I think it reads really well now, improving on the wording I suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like to see the field narrowed a bit re. the "some" who saw him as "a ruthless and manipulative empire builder who brooked no opposition". Don't need names if it was no-one famous but were they subordinates, peers, politicans or who?
Added a bit from Gavin, naming some prominent generals, although this gets split from the initial comments to keep things in chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, reckon if it's prominent people they may as well be named. I think we've lost the original comment/quote though, which even if it were an historian would still serve as a useful intro to the generals' quotes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored quote from William F. Buckingham. He wrote his PhD on the airborne forces, but is not famous enough to have his own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're left hanging re. Torch; after he agitated so strongly to get his his troops involved, how did they go in the end?
"On 16 April 1944 he officially became commander of I Airborne Corps, a title he had already assumed" -- I don't think the last clause works unless you can put a date to his unofficial assumption.
Again in Market Garden, I think we need a bit more context/detail, say a few more sentences between his famous warning and the bit about his teddy bears -- what about him overriding intel warnings of German tanks at Arnhem for instance, and/or some other tidbits from the planning stage?
Added a bit on the intel and drop zones. Not sure about the teddy bears. I think it had something to do with his three children, but cannot find a source to explain it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"His use of 38 aircraft to move his corps headquarters on the first lift has been criticised" -- I don't doubt it but why exactly and by whom (i.e. contemporary observers or historians or both)?
Images are good and nice to see some colour in an article mainly focussed on WWII. Licensing generally appears appropriate but the one of the shoulder flash appears contradictory to me -- product of the British government yet being released by a user as his own work...
Yes, there is a common belief that the war was fought in black and white. I also have a colour print of the main photograph (right), Boy Browning but decided not to use it because it i smaller. Annoyingly, although both prints come from the IWM, they have different dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that with AWM images too. I do like the colour one but not sure how good it would be at the infobox's larger size. At least you have colour elsewhere -- I think the only bios I've done with even one colour image are Dicky Williams and George Jones so you're doing well with this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the Early Life section is only one para, you could afford to combine it with First World War.
You could afford to, but much as I hate to disagree with Ian, I think the article looks tidier with the section as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
I'm not a fan of Honours and Awards sections and this one seems especially unnecessary given it pretty well repeats the list in the infobox, while the dates and citations are already in the main body, as they should be.
Reckon the last section could stand to be called Legacy rather than Media, especially since the current title isn't really appropriate for the barracks and museum. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, happy to support now that all comments on text have been addressed. Re. the shoulder flash, while it may not be an image you uploaded, I think you should still look at resolving this apparent contradiction in the licensing as I'd expect it to come up again at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working my way through here and will post any thoughts as they come to me. I have to say, I'm looking forward to this one—it's not often I get to review an article on a British general. Also, worth pointing out that this will be (as far as I can see) the only A-class British general biography when it passes (and we only have two FAs on British generals, so it's a pleasure to see more). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Institutions like Harrods and Eton are likely to be alien to readers from outside the Empire Commonwealth. ;) Perhaps a little explanation might be worthwhile?
I'll try... I had a vague feeling that to a British reader "Harrods", "Eton" and "the Guards" conjures an image of a certain kind of officer... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have a redlink to Henry Streatfield? Did he make Major General later or is he notable for something other than his eventual rank? Since the bloke doesn't have an article, a very concise explanation of why he's notable would be nice.
Any idea if he met Churchill or had any particular interaction with him? Might make for an interesting titbit if it's documented somewhere. And if Churchill was a major, wouldn't he be the company commander, and so Browning would have served under him rather than alongside him?
Did he serve in theatre with any of the people from that list? It's quite a long list and I'm not 100% sold on the encyclopaedic value of a list of his notable friends.
He served under O'Connor and Dempsey in NW Europe and worked with Dempsey in SE Asia. I mentioned Chink because he appears later. People interested in military prospography always like those bits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a way to gently introduce the reader to the sport stuff? The article seems to move quite abruptly from his military career to his sport.
Support. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this, but having read through the rest of the article, I don't see any issues that should prevent promotion to A-class. Hopefully you'll take it to FAC when this is wrapped up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - only a few minor comments:
No dabs, external links check out and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
The Earwig tool (here [88]) reveals no copyvio issues or close paraphrasing (no action required).
Some of the images have alt text and others do not, so you might consider adding it for consistency (not required though of course).
Images seem appropriately licenced where required, although [[File:Sosabowski Browning.jpg]] seems to lack author and source details etc. Can these be added if available?
There were a couple of dashs that needed to be fixed (done now so no action required).
References look good to me other than some minor inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs. Particularly sometimes you use hypthens and in other instances you do not.
Tense here I think: "There is no satisfactory explanation for why he did it, but a ramp has to be provided for the horse to return..." should this be "but a ramp had to be"...?
Ooops. Misunderstanding here. I wanted it to say that Browning needed no ramp in order to emphasise what a feat of horsemanship it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word or grammer here: "the newly formed division as it underwent a prolonged of expansion and intensive training..." probably "a prolonged period of expansion"?
Overlinking of Brigadier-GeneralJames M. Gavin (i.e. " Brigadier-General James M. Gavin recalled" and "Brigadier-General James M. Gavin, the US 82nd Airborne Division's commander"). Should only be linked once and at second instance should only use his surname (i.e. just Gavin) per WP:SURNAME.
Some inconsistency in the presentation of ranks. By and large you hyphenate but here you don't "Browning had an American deputy, Major General Horace H. Fuller".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article covers the voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts between Singapore and Japan in early 1945. The notable features of this operation were that a) the Japanese evaded no less than 26 submarines as well as dozens of aircraft b) all the warships, and especially the battleships, were heavily loaded with drums of oil and other supplies and c) the six warships were among the last Japanese warships to safely reach port from the South West Pacific.
The article was assessed as being a GA a few weeks ago and I've since improved it. As such, I think that it might meet the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' comments on this. I'm considering taking this to FA standard, so any comments on how the article could be further improved would also be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a clearly written article, with some detailed suggestions below.
General points:
If the sources have them, it would be good to have the Japanese commanders' names in the article. Only having the Allied names gives a sense in places that the article is focusing on the allied response to Operation Kita, rather than the Japanese operation itself.
I've looked for that, but haven't been able to find out who commanded the force.
Yes, it's frustrating. The amazing thing is that no-one ever seems to have written a comprehensive English-language history of the IJN. The histories which do exist tend to cover the period after Leyte Gulf in a short chapter, and provide little detail about the structure of the navy and its leadership in this period. I'll keep searching as this will be something FA reviewers look for. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
"to return both Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from" - it's minor, but the "both" could mean either two carriers, or both the carriers and the escorts. If you said "two", the meaning would be precise.
Replaced with "the two" as suggested
Background:
"the reserve of oil" - "reserves"?
Done
"attempted to increase oil imports through loading drums of it on freighters" - what was the alternative to oil drums?
The infobox should probably have the number of aircraft. The body is pretty specific about the USAAF strike forces, so it shouldn't be a problem to come up with a good estimate (or range).
Done - the best I can do is 'more than 88' (the force employed on 13 February)
(belated) Thanks for that. None of the sources provides the exact locations, and the map I used to develop 'my' map in Clair Blair's book appears to be an approximation of the route. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources mention why no surface ships were sent to engage the IJN convoy? I know that the Allies were focused on Iwo Jima and the Philippines at the time, but this doesn't really preclude a couple of ships being spared.
That's a really good question. Samuel E. Morison's official history of the USN says that there were four US battleships in Phillipino waters until 14 February, but these were used solely for defensive purposes. From some further digging through DANFS histories, it seems that these had all sailed from the Lingayen Gulf area by 10 February, bound for Hawaii and other locations (and so were well out of the area). I think I know where I can reference this from, though it will take until the weekend.
The miss rate on the torpedos seems high (100% of 17 fired) seems high, even for WWII standards. Is this expanded upon at all in the refs?
Not explicitly. The reason seems to be that none of the submarines got very close to the Japanese force, meaning that the torpedoes were fired from long range, and that the Japanese ships were sailing fast through bad weather, but none of the sources pulls these threads together unfortunately.
That's a shame, because we can't very well add SYNTH, but perhaps you could mention the distance when discussing the engagements, so the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Aftermath" section only has one sentance about the impact to the Japanese war economy, and it's pretty general. I'd like to see something specific to this mission's success, i.e. it allowed some kind of other mission to happen or a new ship to be completed, if possible.
None of the sources say more than what's in the article (eg, that the supplies contributed to an improvement to Japan's stockpiles). There doesn't seem to have been any special purpose for the mission other than to return the battleships to Japan while taking advantage of their deck space to carry cargo.
Hm. I kind of got the impression that the mission was dreamed up as much to allow safe cargo transport as it was to recover the ships, with the mention on how transports were getting sunk/intercepted. Maybe tweaking that a tad to clarify would be in order, if my impression was wrong. bahamut0013wordsdeeds14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Aftermath" section suggests that there were other convoys of warships carrying supplies. Were any of them organized in an operation like Kita, and shouldn't there be mention of them (or at least redlinks) if there were?
I'll dig through CombinedFleet.com and see what I can find. English language information on Japanese convoys is extremely limited, which is a shame as lots of them were really interesting.
Support on citations, bibliography, sourcing OCLC tested. Gill (1968) has a corporate author (Australian War Memorial) listed as a second author in the OCLC record. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My hard copy lists him as being the only author. The AWM published the official history series, and had relatively little to do with writing it (as some trivia for you, they actually kicked the official history team out of the AWM's main building, forcing them to work out of a temporary building in what's now the grounds of the Australian National University). Thanks for your review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, bloody amateur librarians at OCLC, hard copy always trumps adhocery. Oh for truly professional information professionals, there is nothing like a good librarian, archivist, curator or records manager. Poor Official Historians, what year did they get the boot to ANU? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the year, but it wasn't very long after they started work (so probably the late 1940s/very early 1950s). At the time the ANU was a paddock with a creek running through it ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this at GA and after the improvements that have been made I am satisified that it now meets the A class criteria as well. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the commanders, it appears that Rear Admiral Chiaki Matsuda was commander of the Fourth Carrier Division until March 1945, so I think you could list him as a commander and use the Ise TROM at CombinedFleet.com as the source. Also, it appears that the group was under the overall command of Vice Admiral Kiyohide Shima while assigned to the Fifth Fleet in the southwest Pacific area, again using the TROM as the source, but then moved into the 10th Fleet on 5 February under Shigeru Fukudome. For the Allied commanders, perhaps you could list James Fife, Jr. and whoever his boss was (I assume the Southwest Pacific area had a naval force commander).
Thanks for that - I'll double check the sources and add it in.
The Completion Force's speed appears to have been an important factor in their being able to avoid damaging torpedo attacks from the submarines. So, the question is, how fast were they going? If the sources don't say, I guess we'll have to table that for now.
None of the sources provide a speed, though the shortness of the voyage (Singapore to Korea in about 8 days) speaks for itself.
You appear to have used all the sources available in the West that have information on this event. The only other source I can think of with perhaps more information is the Senshi Sōsho. If I can ever get up there to the MoD War History Office I'll see if it's feasible to get photocopies of the pages dealing with this operation. Of course, I assume they would still need to be translated into English so we could mine them for more information. Also, there are probably some mooks out in Japan on Ise and Hyuga for modellers and other interested parties that may have information and I'll keep a look out for those.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article deals with the controversial leader of one of the largest-scale Byzantine civil wars. It was just promoted to GA without particular problems, and I think it qualifies for A-class status. I would also like to raise again the questions originally posed in the rather unsuccessful peer review. I definitively aim to take this to FAC, so please be as thorough as possible. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A1 A2 A3 Source check, highly impressed. This is how to do it. Appropriate HQRS, appropriately cited. Please note I don't do biography, and I don't do pre Moderns; but, I'm jumping in because nobody else has. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lemerle, Paul (1965). is a book in series, not a Journal, correct? Does it have a series title, or is each book merely Series title, 1 etc.?
No journal articles on Thom? A possible source of content. From scholar (excuse the poor quality of the citation, I don't have the time to render at the standard high quality, because scholar is a bit silly in presenting data to paste):
Olster "The Byzantine Revival, 780-842." Speculum, 1990 - JSTOR
Cite 42 Bury, pp. 90, 92–93. Lacks Bury's date per your style. Citation link to bibliography broken (probably due to date missing) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for the review. On Lemerle, the Travaux et mémoires series includes collections of articles by various authors. The volumes of the series are numbered 1, 2, etc. Olster's article is a review of Treadgold, while useful in correcting some of Treadgold's faults, it does not really impact on the narrative, on which Treadgold is practically the only detailed recent account. The main scholarly examination of the issues surrounding Thomas and his revolt, on which modern scholars are based, is that by Lemerle. Fixed citation #42, thanks :). Any comments as to prose style, readability etc? Constantine ✍ 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger about the lack of journal articles, you seem to have command of the literature. Sadly, I find prose reviews extremely difficult and extremely time consuming, I've discovered I can do footnotes and sourcing in an achievable human time. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: this looks very good in my opinion. It is well referenced and illustrated, and I believe the prose to be of a good standard. Only a few minor comments/suggestions from me:
according to the Featured article tools, the ext links all work (no action required);
images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
the Featured article tools report one disambig link: [91]. Please see if you can fix this;
images lack alt text. It is not a requirement currently, but you might consider adding it in: [92] (suggestion only)
in the lead, "from the Pontus (now north-eastern Turkey) who" (should this perhaps be: "from the Pontus region (now north-eastern Turkey) who")?
in the Early life and career section, "a view accepted by a few other scholars" - perhaps it would be best to list a couple of these scholars here?
inconsistent capitalisation: "Iconoclasm" (in the lead) and "iconoclasm" (in the Background and motives section);
"had his young son Theophilos led a procession" (probably should be "lead a procession");
"He departed the rebel camp headed west and sent a" (I think this sentence requires a comma - "He departed the rebel camp, headed west and sent");
"some 40 km west of Constantinople". You might consider using the {{convert}} template here to help readers who prefer miles;
in the Aftermath, "Some scholars, however, have disputed this". Again, I think it might be a good idea to list an example of a scholar here;
in the References you have "Kaegi 1982", but in the Sources the date of publication is shown as "1981". This should probably be made consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"whose troops caused severe casualties to Thomas's army": after Thomas's troops ran away, or was this the battle before that? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: with a reference and two prose reviews in, I'd be comfortable promoting this, but would you like the opportunity to find another reviewer or two first (so you get more reviews now rather than at FAC?) Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert in this area but have completed a review due to the current lack of reviewers at ACR at the moment. Overall this article looks good to me with only a few minor issues which I have listed below.
The citation error checking tool reveals 3 errors with the consolidation of citations: "{{harvnb|Bury|1912|p=84}}" (Multiple references contain the same content), "{{harvnb|Treadgold|1988|p=233}}" (Multiple references contain the same content), and "Bury84" (Multiple references are using the same name);
grammar here: "where he remained there for 25 years before...", "there" seems superfluous as you already say "where", perhaps reword to "where he remained for 25 years before...;
"like J.B. Bury or Alexander Kazhdan", should this be "like J.B. Bury and Alexander Kazhdan"?
Over linking of patrician (in "Early life and career" and again in "Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor" sections);
I really like this aticle a lot; all the same, there are some small things that could be possibly changed, wanting (I won't express myself on the language as while seems fine to me I'm not very good in dealing with prose issues).
Starting with the sources, let me say that their selection is absolutely excellent: they are all of high academic quality and include even Lemerle's article, especially relevant here. In the future it could be useful to use also the first volume of the PBE, as the entry to Thomas is quite extensive and covers all viewpoints.
Regarding the notes, I wonder if it isn't better to keep one ref note for every single source, as I've seen done generally in the articles that are FAC; but apart that this isn't a FAC review, I'd call it quite a minor thing that can be lefte to the preferences of the main editor.
Concerning the ODB refs, maybe you could add that p. 2079 is the entry for Thomas: in other words instead of "Kazhdan 1991, p. 2079.", it could be "Kazhdan 1991, s. v. Thomas the Slav, p. 2079." Also, in the bibliography it may be OK to add the authors of the specific entry used.
Going to the lead, it states: "After the murder of Leo and usurpation of the throne by Michael the Syrian, Thomas rose in revolt, claiming the throne for himself." Now, as you clearly explain in the main text of the article and as the ODB does too it would seem to be a more complicated issue than that; and why I'd personally tend to agree on a suspicious stink of official propaganda, it may be well to mention in the lead also the idea that it was possibly a revolt against Leo V. This mostly because while Bury is quite an old authority Kazhdan is more recent.
Always regarding the lead, there's a possibly ambiguous passage, at least for me: "he pretended to be Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), but the validity of this claim is questionable." Maybe it could be made clearer that questionable isn't that he was Constantine VI, but that Thomas ever pretended to be Constantine VI.
This is really a tiny thing, always in the lead: for better precision instead of saying "According to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium", one could put it "According to Anthony Cutler and Paul Hollingsworth in the ODB"
Going to the main text, I'm a bit weary of the regular use of a word like "most" regarding scholarship: unless a scholar explicitly states that his is the major perspective I think it would be better to mention clearly in the text which scholars support said poistion: so in the first section you say: "The French Byzantinist Paul Lemerle and other modern scholars however consider it an unreliable later tradition." "The more recent Byzantinists Paul Lemerle and Warren Treadgold however consider it an unreliable later tradition" (not great English, I admit).
Similar issue with before in the same section with "a view accepted by a few other scholars like Alexander Vasiliev and Romilly James Heald Jenkins"; "few" is another word in my opinion to treat with care: maybe shorter is better, say "a view accepted by scholars Alexander Vasiliev and Romilly James Heald Jenkins".
Going to the second section, first subsection, the phrasing: "Most recent studies follow him and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes", as before, it makes me a bit uncomfortable; the ODB cautiously just puts "others follow" and maybe putting "other scholars like Treadgold and Klapidou follow him and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes" would be more simple, as among very recent works the ODB doesn't take sides and only two studies can be mentioned for "most".
Regarding Constantine VI "Most modern scholars follow Paul Lemerle, who dismissed this too as yet another later fabrication". This is OK as Klapidou clearly puts it as the majority interpretation; but maybe a mention could be made that an alternative possibility is that it was just "an informal rumour".
"In reality, this exaggerated account was yet another piece of hostile propaganda." OK, I know I'm waaaayy too fastdious but maybe it should be put clear that this is Lemerle, so "According to Lemerle this exaggerated account was in reality yet another piece of hostile propaganda." could be also possible.
"In exchange, Thomas is said to have promised to cede certain unspecified territories, and to become a tributary vassal of the Caliph, but it is impossible to say how much of this reflects the true terms or later propaganda" This passage tends to follow to closely Lemerle, I believe: the ODB accepts as fact that territories were given to the Caliph and Treadgold tends to agree on a tribute, so it should be made clear that it's Lemerle postition alone that "it is impossible to say how much of this reflects the true terms", and countered by the other scholars.
A small note: I've given a look at the PBE at it openly states that Thomas was crushed by the Bulghars and that the fleet surrendered as a result of that. Just to observe that maybe some more caution on who won the battle could be better.
I've really done my best to find a pretence of fault elsewhere, but honesltly the pieces on the siege and on Thomas death seem just perfect to me. Only the very last concluding sentence leaves me a bit weary: "More recent scholarship, however, has disputed this, citing other reasons for the Byzantines' military failures during these years." First, it should be observed that only one scholar seems available for the claim; second, Treadgold is pretty cautious, as even he doesn't at all exclude that the events involving Thomas may have had an impact, only he disagrees it was decisive.
Well, that's all. As I said previously, a really fantastic work. Hope I've given something useful, but there wasn't much to mend in the first place. Bye, Aldux (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review! I've addressed your concerns point for point: on 1) & 13), I have the CD version of the PBE, but I have to say that I am not thrilled by it. Unlike the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit for instance, it merely reports the primary sources and has little in the way scholarly opinion and analysis on them. Thus, when it says that "in the ensuing battle Thomas 7 was completely defeated and his forces scattered", it merely summarizes the primary source. Given that the prevailing opinion tends to follow Lemerle's well-founded scepticism (see for instance the newest English edition of Skylitzes), I've sided with that. I'll re-check it and see if there's anything that can be added, but the primary narrative is already given pretty well by Bury and Treadgold. On 2) it depends (if I understood our question correctly), I myself use both patterns. There isn't really a guideline, but especially in cases where several sources are used, I think that it simply looks better to bundle them in one reference rather than append them singly at the end. 3) & 6) I've changed the reference for the ODB. I usually don't put in the authors because I quote several entries from it, but here that isn't the case. I've also rewritten the part in the lead to read "According to his entry in the ODB...". 4) & 5) have been addressed, I think. 7) Well, as I said above, the impression I get from Kiapidou, but also from the other recent books that treat Thomas and his rebellion in a more general fashion is that Lemerle's reconstruction of the events is pretty much standard, and Treadgold follows that consensus. So I feel that it would be wrong to explicitly limit the opinion to Lemerle and Treadgold. 8) similar to the previous, along with Kazhdan, some general histories on Byzantium still follow the older tradition that Thomas did indeed flee to the Arabs. I cannot now enumerate them, but it would be inaccurate to imply that only Kazhdan and Jenkins support this view. 9) changed to "some". On 10) Lemerle absolutely refutes the claim that he presented himself as Constantine. The "rumours" that he considers as possible are only that he was pro-iconophile. That aspect is treated below. 11) rephrased acc. to your suggestion, and 12) likewise rephrased. I tend to agree that Thomas most likely made concessions, but Lemerle has a point too. I hope the new phrasing is satisfactory. On 13), I've rephrased it a bit, and intend to work on this passage before FAC. I'll draw on Ostrogorsky to support Kiapidou on the negative impact of Thomas's revolt, but most recent works I've come across seem to refrain from explicitly linking the loss of Crete and Sicily to the rebellion, and prefer terms like "the disaster was followed/compounded/etc by the loss of Crete" etc. Constantine ✍ 11:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point regarding the PBE, there's not much critical analysis. You've well adressed all the other points and explained very well why not to give undue weight to outdated views; I believe it's in the right shape to pass without great difficulties the FAC process. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous A class review (here) which closed a few days ago was inconclusive, suffering mainly from a lack of reviewers. Thus, I'd like to garner some more input. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Piotrus
The article is steadily improving, good job. But there are still items that should be fixed.
The article doesn't use Google Book links to pages. This is not an objection, just a comment as it makes verification extremely cumbersome. That said, I believe that removal of Google Book links (for example, the one I added here is gone) is damaging the article and making it less helpful, not to mention wasting work of mine and other editors who spent time providing those page links for the refs. I am sure this was done to standardize the refs, but is should've been done by improving them, not dumbing them down. And it can be done easily ("Oakley 1993, p. 26" is hardly difficult to do)
In the way I just showed above. The very policy you cite says "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed". You removed the links I and others added, and I find this unhelpful (please note this is a criticism of a minor item, not your overall positive and welcome work on the article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't follow. This edit (above) introduced a full citation. The referencing system employed throughout the article at the time was for "Name (Year) p. #.", so I shortened it accordingly. At the moment, it employs syntax like {{harvnb|Frost|2000|p=76}}, which does not seem easy to link to individual pages. It would need reverting and then linking, but we'd lose the added functionality of "harv"-templates, whereby the shortened citation is linked to the full one. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the template, then. It should have the functionality for direct links. As I said, I am not opposing on this technicality, I do however believe that you chose an inefficient template (which does not support Google Book links). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a cite for the following sentence: "In 1576, the Transylvanian prince Stefan Batory became King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania after a brief but violent civil war with the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian II". In particular, I'd like to see a quoted justification for "violent". The war was brief, but was it more violent than others? Also, this section should mention that the war ended with Maximilian's surrender at Battle of Byczyna. death in 1577.
Removed the word "violent", unnecessary for the article scope, and referenced. On the Battle of Byczyna, I don't think it's inside the article's scope. It's one battle in a largely unrelated war: the leadership of the Commonwealth makes up only a small part of the Livonian War as it is. In reality, mentioning the war was on gives the right impression to the reader in terms of how it affected the Livonian War. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many sentences still lack references. For example, "Batory accelerated the formation of the hussars, a new well-organised cavalry troop that replaced the feudal levy". Batory is remembered for introduction of hussars, this is one of his key achievements in Polish history - and one of many items that should be referenced. The next ref is in the middle of a later sentence (and why does that sentence lack a ref)? Or consider this sentence: "This was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he requested the truce in the first place" - tsar's humiliation needs a ref. I could go on with dozens more sentences lacking refs. I cannot support till each sentence is referenced.
Did the one you pick out. The "tsar's humiliation" part, I added one since it's probably among the more controversial things in the paragraph. I was under the impression that three to four of the same reference per paragraph was the maximum the MOS allowed one to demand, I might be imagining this. You are welcome to use any preferred "citation needed"-esque tag if you'd prefer to demark them that way.Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAC reviewers occasionally complain about over-referenced articles. I'm not sure, but I think the thinking is that it looks somewhat artificial not to reference any two successive sentences to the same source. (And of course, if the same source supports two successive sentences, one reference is usually enough.) OTOH, the readers shouldn't have to read your mind to know where the information is coming from. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues from the FA review have not been addressed. To requote:
Why the term Dominium Maris Baltici is present only as an external link? I think it is important enough to deserve a mention.
The aftermath discusses the Polish-Swedish struggle up to 1629, but the Danish-Swedish one till 18th century. Why? Pl wiki article discusses the P-S angle till the Treaty of Oliva (1660) and I think so should this article
Aftermath: I put a mention of Oliva. Is that sufficient or are we to discuss the relevancy of other conflicts to Livonia? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
images lack alt text and although it is not a requirement, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
the images look correctly licenced to me, but you might consider translating some of the information on "File:LIVONIAE NOVA DESCRIPTIO 1573-1578.jpg" if possible;
in the lead, should this "the union (later commonwealth)" be capitalised as "the Union (later Commonwealth)"? The question to ask is if it is part of a proper noun group;
there is some inconsistency in date formats, for example "30 August 1579" and "September 5, 1580". These should probably be consistent;
this might need an extra comma: "The transfer of Riga, and the surrounding entrance to the River Dvina troubled" (I suggest adding it after "Dvina");
"Unfavorable conditions" (probably should be "Unfavourable conditions" - the article seems to mainly use British English spellings so it should be consistent throughout);
All suggestions followed (thanks for the attention, by the way) with the exception of ALT text, which I will look into. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this "Tsardom of Russia" again? Muscovy was the country called back then, the name "Russia" became to use only at the time of Peter the Great in the 18 cen. This "Tsardom of Russia" is a later invention that has also somehow creeped into wikipedia. I mean go to google scholar: "Tsardom of Russia" 43 hits vs. Muscovy 20,900 hits. An A article should use names that are adequate I think, not some invented names like the "Tsardom of Russia".--Termer (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand what "is just more easily understood by the modern reader who exactly are they talking about", but the term of Tsar of Russia seems to be universally used by reliable sources to describe Ivan's title after 1547. For example, EB: Ivan IV, grand prince of Moscow (1533–84) and the first to be proclaimed tsar of Russia (from 1547). (my emphasis). This is matched by the Wikipedia articles on the Tsardom of Russia, Ivan IV, List of rulers of Russia, and many others. If you disagree with what is a sizable number of Wikipedia articles, then this discussion must be had elsewhere, probably a RfC, where the evidence on both sides can be put across. Until that happens, I think the best thing is use the name used in the RS used as references in the article, which consistently refer to Russian forces with one or two exceptions (within works, not entire works). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there this needs to be sorted out elsewhere on wikipedia at first. regarding the name Russia is just more easily understood by the modern reader compared to Muscovy, than there's nothing more to it: If you say Russia, an average reader has an idea what exactly are you talking about. If you say Muscovy an average reader may be lost with it, people may have not heard that historic name before and may not know where and what this Muscovy is all about. So using Russia/Russians therefore may work better in the context.--Termer (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"tsardom" by itself is certainly fine (it's in Merriam-Webster, and Ivan was a tsar), and any challenge that some place wasn't called by the modern name at the time can be answered by saying "in present-day" or "of present-day" (whatever). I've read "Russia" in modern sources to refer to the time, but don't quote me on that, I'm no expert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
This article looks very good to me, although I am no expert on the topic. Normally I would not review such an article, however there seems to be a lack of A class reviewers at the moment. After reading the whole thing there are only a couple of minor points that I can see:
Some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs (some have hyphens and others do not); and
The citation check tool reveals one error ("{{harvnb|De Madariaga|2006|p=130}} - error is "Multiple references contain the same content"). Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article up for FA again (I'm in the cup, and I need to complete in a month's time). I don't know whether the article can be up for both, but if not, I ask for some common sense to pass the article. Of course, it lacks the technical 3 supports (two-and-a-half, I suppose), so you'd be within rights to fail it. I hope not. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, although this is the first article I've submitted for A-class review, I feel it meets all the relative criteria. It recently passed as a GA, and I would like to see it promoted to FA eventually, so I am submitting it here. Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources:
Cohen, Maynard M. (2000) needs a publisher location Done
Current Biography Yearbook. New York: H. W. Wilson. 1940.. Article title, author of article / editor of whole work? page run of article cited
Given editor. Not sure about the other bits, it wasn't my citation and I can't find the details online.
Dahl, Hans Fredrik (1999). publisher location Done
Galtung, Johan (1997) Title of chapter cited, publisher location
Done latter, hopefully Eisfbnore can comment on the chapter issue.
Hayes, Paul M. (1971). Newton Abbot isn't a great publishing city, requires the US State or International State. If you're going to put the state location, it might need to be added to all locations
I added "Devon, United Kingdom". I can't help thinking that attempting to standardise the exact level of location detail on each would be overkill.
Shirer, William L Terminal period on the initial Done
Yourieff, Alexandra Andreevna Voronina; Kirsten A. Seaver (2007) last, first for your second author like in the other multiple authors cited. Publisher location. Possible use of a primary depending on how you use it and which bits you use, check your useage (if you're using a Primary to illustrate with quotations of material already demonstrated with secondaries, it is fine). If it is a biography primarily authored by the academic / other author, it is fine.
Done for the first two. It is a biography including sections recounted virtually verbatim from the subject mixed with secondary material. All citations to it are appropriate in this regard, IMHO.
Terminal period consistency in the citations, you use it sometimes, other times not
The only ones with are cite webs, and I can't get it to remove the final punctuation. Any suggestions?
Comments -- a fine effort for your first ACR, particularly on a potentially contentious subject. Prose is generally excellent and the language balanced; structure, citations, coverage and supporting materials also look good. A few points:
Quisling left Norway once more to become an intelligence officer with the Norwegian delegation in Helsinki, a post that combined the diplomatic with the political and the personal -- I think I get your meaning but it reads as though at least a word is missing; reckon you need to say "the diplomatic field" or "his diplomatic interests" etc Done
Final return to Norway -- Perhaps I read the preceding too fast but his return with political plans seems a bit sudden -- did we really go into what brought this on and how the plans had gestated?
What brought what on? And I'm struggling to find any detail on how the plans gestated, sorry.
I'm looking for something (even just a sentence) on his motivation/impetus for developing this plan for Norway. It seems to spring up quite suddenly the way it's presented here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a dull but efficient administrator who remained constantly in the headlines -- Seems odd to be so popular with the newspapers if you're that dull; is this really what we mean? Done Reworded.
Your use of parenthetic dashes is inconsistent -- sometimes they're endashes, sometimes emdashes, sometimes with spaces and sometimes not; most acceptable seems to be emdashes without spaces so pls check and fix throughout Done (I used endashes, other editors changed some to emdashes, I've now changed the rest)
He misrepresented the truth on a handful of occasions and the rest of what he had won him few advocates in the country at large... -- I removed "of" after "truth" but "the rest of what he had won him..." still doesn't make sense and I didn't want to second-guess what you did mean so pls take a look and re-phrase. Done
Given the subject is well known, I wonder at the relatively short bibliography; perhaps the net should be cast a little wider to include at least a few more works/authors of World War II literature. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure about expanding the number of quoted sources. At the minute, I'm fairly confident we include the best biographies, but as you say, there are probably more MILHIST-y books out there, I just don't own any :( If you have any suggestions, though, I'm happy to look into it. (This is also the timestamp for many of the resolutions listed above.) - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]21:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I think this is a very good bio detail-wise, so not looking to make it much larger. Also it's the story of an individual, not World War II as a whole or the events leading up to it. However he is a significant figure in the conflict and a few observations from some of the major WWII historians such as Taylor, Bullock, Gilbert, Keegan, even Churchill, might be useful. Feel free to leave this for a bit and see if anyone else comments similarly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'm only reviewing what's between the first word and the last word (not sources, images, footnotes etc). A read through didn't throw up any real issues and it looks comprehensive, but I'm not really qualified to judge that. The bibliogrpahy is realtively short, but if a comprehensive article can be written with just those sources, I don't see it as a huge problem, though (to paraphrase Dank's expression) other reviewers' mileage may vary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on the bibliography issue: As noted on the article's talk page, I have in my disposition a few biographies in Norwegian on Quisling and other NS-members (Sverre Riisnæs, Jonas Lie and Johan Bernhard Hjort), and I'm also able to borrow some more bios of Quisling at the local library. At some point, I will add all or some of these to the bibliography with corresponding inline citations in the body text. As for the Galtung issue: It wasn't me who cited the book in the first place, but I managed to find the title through Amazon.com. However, Galtung is not a biographer of Quisling, and his writings are fairly left-wing biased (he's an eminent sociologist though), so I'm not sure whether his analysis should be given too much weight in this article. I'd recommend adding something more about his biographers' (Dahl, Høidal, etc.) and other NS-members' assessments of him (Hjort considered him a mediocre leader, and thought he would be better used as a mathematician). Eisfbnoretalk11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: looks pretty good to me, but I'm not a subject matter expert. I made a few minor tweaks, please check that you agree with my edits. I also have the following comments/suggestions:
according to the Featured article tools, there are no disambig links, ext links work (no action required);
according to the Featured article tools, "Universism" appears to be linked in the article, but it is a redirect back to this article - perhaps it should be turned into a stub? [95]
images lack alt text. You might consider adding it in, although it is not a requirement anymore (suggestion only);
the images mainly appear to be correctly licenced, although I am a little unsure of "File:QuislingOslo1942.jpg" - I'd suggest asking an expert to take a look if taking this article to FAC;
Regarding Universism, the page is currently a redirect back to the Universism section of the Quisling article, which seems appropriate per WP:Summary style.
"Quisling proved himself an able military cadet, joining the General Staff in 1911 ...": I don't think of a "cadet" as someone who would join the General Staff; is there another word? - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are differences of opinion on whether to include audible pronunciations at FAC, in part because of WP:NOICONS. But they don't bother me and I'm pretty sure they're not a problem for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No quibbles with your copyedits.
I have reworded the "cadet" sentence to read "Before going into politics, Quisling proved to have strong military potential before joining the General Staff in 1911 where he specialised in Russian affairs", and left the audio pronunciation issue unchanged. Presumably FAC would demand not the removal of the audio, but the icons? - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"One of three boys and a girl": He was one of four children, or one of three boys. Done Reworded
"he did not stand out from the crowd.": In what way? Done Just removed
"He considered that, by granting too many rights to the people of Russia ...": "He considered that" doesn't sound right. Also, why is this particular opinion of his important to the narrative?
Reworded. It's useful evidence of his emerging political philosophy centred around control.
"personal skills": Diplomacy skills cover most skills that could be called "personal", and you could probably leave this out, unless you want to get more specific.
There used to be a reference to a love affair in the next sentence, and it's something along those lines I wanted to convey (not sure how best to, though)
I made an assumption that the claim that he spied for the British was never substantiated; correct that if it's wrong. Done Tweaked
"bringing with him a military style plan for change": In what sense? It doesn't seem like a military plan to me.
In the next sentence there is reference to military hierarchies and designations / command structures i.e. it's a militaristic plan rather than bearing similarity to a military plan.
"the equivalent of approximately $1.6 million in 2010": This figure will need a cite, and may not be valid; see the warning at the top of Template:inflation.
Now vague in line with Dahl.
I don't think "a substantial amount in today's money" is going to work at FAC. A conversion to dollars valid at that time with a citation showing where you got the exchange rate would help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded (I thought Dahl used words to that effect, but I can't find that passage now). For the moment, a references to treasures should imply a large dollar amount.
"though Quisling seems to have had no attachment to the term": Does that mean Quisling said he didn't want to be called fører, but allowed it anyway? Why?
I've reinserted the word "particular" i.e. he neither wanted it nor minded it
"unlike his previous plans, was a counter-revolutionary body.": A body isn't like (or unlike) a plan. Done reworded
"Some time during the period 1930–1933, Quisling's first wife, Asja, received notice of the annulment of her marriage to him.": Personally, I'd leave it out, unless it's important to know it because of something that happens later. It doesn't have any connection to the paragraph it's in.
I kept moving it around; still not sure where it would be best.
"pepper-wielding assailant": Sounds like a Monty Python skit.
Ah yes. I don't know how you'd disarm someone carrying pepper, mind.
"a massive scandal broke when Quisling and Prytz were accused of using diplomatic channels to smuggle millions of roubles onto the black markets. This much-repeated claim would later be used to support a charge of "moral bankruptcy", but neither it nor a similar claim that Quisling spied for the British has ever been substantiated. ¶ The harder line now developing in Russian politics ...": Okay, I prefer "a claim" instead of "a similar claim"; my concern is that the reader will stumble trying to figure out in what way smuggling roubles is similar to spying for the British. Unless you want to clarify the similarities, I think it's better not to bring it up. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a clean up of public finances through easing of the agricultural debt burden": usually "cleaning up" ... and in what way did one affect the other?
"he was referred to as "man of the year",": occasionally, this will get through FAC without some reviewer requiring attribution in-text (in cases where the secondary sources are agreeing that he was widely known as "man of the year"), but usually it won't.
Done for now. Okay, I got halfway through, down to World War II. I've recently started copyediting just the first half of each A-class article. If someone copyedits the second half, I'll review it to see whether I can support. Anyone who wants to help out, please see my edit summaries for things to look for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the first. Dahl is quite ambiguous on the issue but I've tried to make it read better anyway. Re: "Man of the year", Dahl gives no extra information about who said it so I'm struggling. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ed. What's missing? The first para of the lead covers the second half of the article, and the second para covers the first half of the article (by design). Regards, - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Silly me. :-) Are you sure this is the best way to cover it? If so, that's fine with me (I see it as an organizational choice, and I think those should normally be decided by the article author), but I just want to be sure, as you'll probably take some flak at FAC for it being backwards. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. I prefer it backwards at this moment in time, because this way the information most people is looking for is right at the beginning. Certainly, it removes the need for a notability sandwich (most important details -> early life -> later life with repeat of most important details). I could be convinced to put it the other way round, but for now I'm happy. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has undergone a successful GA-class article assessment, and I think it's ready to be an A-class article.
Here are the criteria one by one:
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
I believe this criterion is met. I personally wrote virtually the entire article and used only sources that I believed were reliable, and when there was doubt I stated that "(source) claims that ..." to distinguish the line between what Wikipedia considers true and what that source says is true.
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
This article is virtually as in-depth as it will ever be. I have scoured every possible source that I have had access to, and I'm pretty sure that this article is now the largest collection of information about the Siege of Vyborg that there is today. I would have to admit that me being Russian and having access to Russian sources but not Swedish ones, I may present this from a Russian point of view, but I have tried to make it as unbiased as possible and there is nothing obvious. I guess this is where independent reviewers come in. As for unnecessary detail, there really is not much information out there about this topic anyway, so that really isn't a concern.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
This is an easy one. I think there's an acceptable lead section and I am pretty sure that the headings are done correctly.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
This is also pretty easy. For this article, I had to translate some sources from Russian to English, so there may be some awkward syntax somewhere, but that is easy to resolve.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
All the images here are either my own work or public domain, so no copyright issues. I think there is a sensible mix of text and images, and it looks comparable to other A-class articles.
If you are the reviewer, please let me know what you think. I am ready to fix/improve this article in order to get it to A-class status. --Interchange88 ☢12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really comment on the content, sorry, so I have focused mainly on technical issues to get this review started:
ext links all work (no action required);Y
the Earwig copyright violation detector reports no copyright issues (no action required);Y
according to the tools, there are a few disambig links that should be fixed if possible: [97]; Done
images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in but it is not a A-class requirement (suggestion only); Not sure
"File:Siege of Vyborg 1710.png" might need the description, source and author information translated (this might be an issue at FA); Done
"File:Vyborg.gif" probably needs a date of creation in the Summary section, it might also need some information about what sources were consulted when creating the map (I'm not sure about this, though); Done
in the lead there is a typo: "The Seige of Vyborg took place in" (should be "Siege"); Done
in the Number of artillery section, there is a sentence fragment here: "In most sources."; Done
the citations should be position outside (after) punctuation per WP:PAIC. For instance, in the lead: "waited in vain for Finnish assistance[1]," should be "waited in vain for Finnish assistance,[1]" (there are many examples of this in the article); Done
there is some inconsistency in your presentation of dates. For instance consider "March 15" and then "16 March". The date format should be consistent, although either way (Month Day, Year or Day Month Year) is fine; Done
"only set around 9 PM" per WP:MOSTIME this should probably be presented as "9:00 pm" (with a non breaking space in front of "pm"); Done
in the References some of the web links are bare urls. For A-class these really should be formatted, either with {{cite web}} or some other way of your choice; Done
in the References at Reference # 11 you have "Vasilyev, M.V., Op. cit. p. 29", but this appears to be on first use of the citation. What are the full details of the source? Done
Hi, good work so far. I've had another quick look at the article and have a couple more suggestions:
I've placed "citation needed" tags where I feel they are needed. If you could replace them with citations, I think that would improve the article;
the issue of the needed citations is the only point remaining from my perspective. If these could be dealt with, I would be happy to support this article for promotion to A-Class. Please note, however, that as this review has now been open longer than 28 days, it is due to be closed whenever an uninvolved co-ordinator finds the time. It seems to me that you may have addressed most of the concerns raised by other reviewers, so you might like to see if they would be happy to take another quick look at the article to see if they also think that it is up to scratch (to be successful, the review needs a minimum of three clear "supports" without offsetting "opposes"). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair effort as far as telling the story goes but I'm a little surprised that it got though GA with its prose and commentary issues. I've fixed the most obvious things but a further copyedit may be needed.
I think you can take care of that (or someone else) because I find it difficult to scrutinize my own writing. As I have mentioned previously, because a lot of this content was translated from Russian and the Russian language has a very different syntax, there are some very awkward phrases or sentences. Hopefully this can be fixed. --Interchange88 ☢12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some inconsistency between the naming/formatting of sources as they appear in the body and as they appear in citations -- I don't have the time to correct these but the names should be the same, and book titles should be italicised while articles should be in double quotes. Done
Not quite. One example (there may be others, pls check again) is "Peter the Great's Magazine", also referred to in the main body as Peter the Great's Magazine (no quote marks) and in the References section as... what? Is it Journal or daily account of the blessed and eternally worthy memory of the Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great from 1698 to the Treaty of Nystad? I can only assume and I shouldn't have to do that. First off, the formatting must be the same each time you use the title in the main body. Secondly, it should clearly relate to the title in the Notes and References sections. If Peter the Great's Magazine and the Journal are one in the same, you could call it Peter the Great's Journal in the main body, for instance. "Report on the capture of Vyborg", "The Life and Affairs of the Great Sovereign", and "The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress," also need to be checked that they match the titles in your referencing section and also that the formatting (quote marks or italics) is appropriate for each. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to sources, it would improve things considerably if you listed all your book and journal references once in their own References section, and cited them in a Notes section using say Harvard referencing.
Please explain what you mean by "once in their own References section, and cited them in a Notes section." I'm not sure what you mean by that.--Interchange88 ☢12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are inconsistent; sometimes d-m-y style and sometimes m-d-y -- either is acceptable here but it needs to be consistent. Done
A lot of overlinking; Peter the Great or variations thereof must've been done half a dozen times. It's acceptable to treat the lead section as self-contained regarding links but in the main body of an article this size, it should be enough to link on first use only. I fixed examples where I found them but the article really needs inspection from top to bottom for this alone. Done
Except for the lead section, there is only one link per topic unless the topic was first mentioned in the very beginning and later only mentioned toward the end. --Interchange88 ☢13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations missing; examples include second-last paragraphs of last two subsections -- every paragraph must at least end in a citation that covers the preceding material. Done
I can't really comment on content/accuracy as it's not my area of expertise, however overall detail and structure seem reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn lean to opposition as most of my points have been addressed one way or another, but not ready to support until the one I just commented on above is addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences shouldn't begin with numerals (in the lead). Done
There are no maps that place Vyborg and St. Petersburg in relationship to each other, or showing Vyborg in context of the theater of war. Done
Please say a little more about Vyborg's historic strategic importance. It is also probably worth mentioning that St. Petersburg was sited on recently-conquered territory. If Peter placed it as a direct threat to Sweden and Vyborg, this should also be mentioned. (I don't know this history, so Peter's reasons for St. Petersburg's location may not be relevant.) Done
There is no discussion of aftermath. What happened to the Swedish garrison? Where did the Russian forces go next? What was the impact of the event on the course of the war? Did anything interesting happen to the generals on either side because of their conduct? Do any sources discuss civilian casualties or the impact on the town of Russian occupation? What was Vyborg's history afterward? Done
The aftermath that has been added adequately addresses that concern, so I withdraw my opposition on that basis. I still think the article needs a theater map, but that's not enough to oppose. If a map like File:Great Northern War Part2.png is added, I can support. Magic♪piano16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of sympathy with the problem of translating from Russian into English (lots...!), but I'd lean to oppose at this time. I went through the Background section and noted some of the issues I picked up on, which were:
Background:
"The selection of the command staff destined for the siege of Vyborg led to some surprises." - why? Or do you mean "...the siege of Vyborg was surprising."? Done
"the main fort at Vyborg consisted of five frontal bastions named Holtz, Neuport, Klein-Platform, Wasserport and Eleonora, connected by a stone wall. The other part of the fort, connected to the main section, had three bastions named Valport, Panzerlachs, and Evrop. In front of the connection between the last two bastions, there was a ravelin and two caponiers, and in front of the connection between the Evron and Eleonora bastions there was another ravelin. Both ravelins were, apparently, earthen, but inside the main fortification, all structures were stone. Most of the structures in the secondary fort were wooden, with the exception of the stone guard tower, named the Petersburg tower." - I'm really sorry, but in the absence of the diagram I simply couldn't visualise this at all as text. Perhaps if you included some north-south-east-west indicators as well? Or made reference to the shape of the river and the city? I couldn't see the Evron bastion on the map by the way - I was wondering if this was a mispelling of the Evrop one. Done
"In 1702, however, some repairs completed" - "were completed"? Done
"B. Adamovich and A. I. Dubravin put the number at 4000" - worth explaining if there were contemporaries, or modern historians. Done
"as named the commander of the infantry division at Vyborg" - is this the same as the infantry garrison, or different? Done
"After the bombardment, Russian forces retreated back to Saint Petersburg after commanders realized that a siege cannot be carried out without naval support and larger cannon." - after they realised that "the siege could not be carried out"?
"Part I. Saint Petersburg, 1770 (Peter the Great's Journal). p. 150.</ref> " - formatting Done
Glancing through it, the the research looks good, but there's formatting and copy-editing like this to fix throughout the article. Grudgingly oppose at this time. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its looking really good. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing in detail but here are a few things I noticed.
The lede has a couple inline citations. Generally the lede doesn't need these since it just summerizes the article and the infomraiton within the article should be cited.
Can we reduce the huge space between the lede and the rest of the article?
I'm afraid that space is because of the Table of Contents, and there's nothing we can do about it. It's fairly normal to have such a space there. --Interchange88 ☢19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under Previous attempts. I don't think we should use the Main article template to a red link. Done
A couple of the references appear to be in Russian (or something like it). I would recommend telling the reader the language of that reference. Done
Under the references section I do not think we need to identify the specific page. We only need to identify the specific page for the inline citation in the notes section. Done
In the Notes section. Usually when we refer to one page we say P. but when we refer to multiple pages we say pp. Done
"It is possible that Peter the Great himself would be present (and would thus command forces) at Vyborg, so that he would not have to change the commanders already busy defending familiar areas.": The verb tense is wrong, and maybe for that reason, I'm not sure what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
"Since 1702, the commander there had been Zacharias Animoff, who was not young and in poor health. For that reason, in February of 1710, Colonel Magnus Stiernstråle was named the commander of the infantry garrison at Vyborg; he also headed the efforts to fortify the city.": I'm not following; was Animoff something different than the commander of the infantry garrison? If it was the same position, it would be tighter to say that Stiernstråle replaced him, rather than repeating the name of the position. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
Thanks for your input; the copy-editing was really needed because a lot of this was translated from Russian, which, as I have said prevoiusly, has a different syntax than English and results in mangled sentences. I will help out with the copy editing, and hopefully that (among other things) will help convince the other commenters here that the article should be promoted. --Interchange88 ☢11:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed past where I stopped, and still can't tell if this is British or American English. Also, a first name is needed for Bergholtz. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Bergholtz's first name was not indicated in any of my sources, as in Russian names are traditionally written [first initial] [patronymic initial], [last name] unless the first name is absolutely necessary. As for the dialectal confusion, I see no need to correct this as either way the text is fully and completely understandable, but I will try to convert it fully to American English. --Interchange88 ☢19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two initials would be a big improvement over just "Bergholtz", and no, the text isn't completely understandable to Americans; few Americans know that "in the event" is British for "in fact". On top of that, I don't make the rules; there's a fairly broad consensus, especially at FAC, to aim to at least make the article look right to readers of a particular nationality. Now that I know which way you're going, I can fix it. Btw, per conversations at WT:MHC, I'm going back to trying to copyedit all rather than half of the A-class articles, while we work out some new procedures; I'm working on it now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I was about to write that I was having trouble spotting any obvious British English expressions, and I, myself, do use American English and always have. I suppose there are some subtle things that may be changed, and that's probably where editors like you come in; spelling/grammar aren't my specialties. Another thank you for fixing the article for me - that would've taken me ages! --Interchange88 ☢19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing. "In most sources, including "Peter the Great's Magazine", "Report on the capture of Vyborg", "The Life and Affairs of the Great Sovereign", and "The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress," it is said ...": It looks like the first three are articles or chapters in a larger work, so the quote marks are right. The last one is cited to The Vyborg Fortress: Chronicles from 1710 to 1872. The quote marks are right if that's the name of a chapter in that work, but if you're referring to the whole work, call it by its real name, in italics. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Regardless of which source is more accurate,": There's no black-and-white way to talk about the sources, but this feels too much like "meta" information, information about information. Probably "In either case" would be better. (And btw, you may get resistance at FAC about "this source said this, but this source said that" ... there's probably too much of that ... but I'm not the expert on that so I'd rather not say. This is just a note to be thinking about that in case you need to make adjustments.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
Yes, I changed it to "Either way." The reason I put "this said that," etc. is that I did not want to put information that may only represent an opinion (be it professional) as a fact. Perhaps I may have to change that later, for example saying "Estimates range from 4000 to 6000" instead of "He said 4000, but this other guy said 6000". --Interchange88 ☢12:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress mention ...": same here, italicize it and use the official name if it's the work listed in the bibliography. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
"There are also records that show a Swedish fleet arriving at Vyborg and being beaten back by the Russians.": Wasn't this mentioned before?
"Vyborg demonstrated its importance as a first-class military base from 1712 to 1714. Thus, in effect, the capture of Vyborg and Karelia served to determine the outcome of the Great Northern War.": Too vague to be useful. Please say something tangible, or omit it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
"The similarity in the number of shots fired between the first and second barrages compared to the disparity in the results (the second one being highly successful), was due to several factors.": I don't understand. Done
A lot of work has been done to improve this article, and the general consensus appears to favor promotion. There are still improvements that have been suggested but not made, and I will try to get to those. Anyhow, someone has to now officially promote the article, perhaps Australian Rupert, as he was the first to comment. --Interchange88 ☢00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to clarify the process an ACR needs at least three clear supports (without offsetting opposes) for promotion, also it needs to be closed and the article promoted by an uninvolved project co-ordinator. As I have supported the article's promotion, I am unable to promote it, however, if it achieves the necessary level of support one of the uninvolved co-ords will come and do so when they are free. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It appears we have met the 3 support requirement, so now it's up to an independent editor, as you said. --Interchange88 ☢19:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm nominating this article because I think that it's ready for A-class. That said, I've worked it over until my eyes are crossed and there's probably still plenty of things wrong with it because I've incorporated much of the original text. I look forward to new sets of eyes helping to improve it as there are probably numerous overlinks and other small problems. Hopefully I've taken care of the larger issues, but perhaps not; belike, I'm a bit too close to judge.
Comments It's good to see that the article on this interesting and important ship has been brought to a high standard. I think it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
The piping of the link to Mackensen-class battlecruiser in the lead para looks a bit untidy (the piped text is probably longer than the name of the article it links to)
Agreed.
"She was refitted twice before being stationed with the Mediterranean Fleet due to the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War" sounds a bit awkward
Cleaned up.
"and later as an intercept force" is also a bit awkward (particularly as the intention wasn't to intercept the invasion force - which was impossible for Scotland-based ships, but rather to attack the follow on forces)
How does it work now?
" the resulting orders from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the Royal Navy to "sink the Bismarck" culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that ended in the sinking of the Bismarck" - 'sink the Bismarck' is effectively repeated in this sentence
Agreed, but I like the new wording better. What do y'all think?
"Partly because of the manner in which Hood was lost in World War II, the battlecruiser remains a popular subject for naval history, with extensive research being done into the reasons for the loss of Hood and into the subsequent chase of Bismarck by the Royal Navy, which deployed nearly 100 ships of various types in the effort to locate and sink Bismarck" - this is a long sentence and it's a bit repetitive
Deleted the whole paragraph as not relevant.
"She was the only ship to carry these guns in the hydraulically powered Mark II twin turrets which were designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear." - did other ships carry these guns in a different configuration of turrets as this implies, or were the turrets given different names on other ships? (or both?)
Rewritten.
"The gun house for this mount was larger than the previous mountings" - what were these previous mountings? (eg, were they fitted to Hood or, as I assume, earlier BBs/BCs)
Cleaned up.
The paragraph with begins "Construction of Hood began" seems to repeat much of the content of the 'Protection' section.
How so? This section talks about the layered scheme of the deck armour, which isn't well covered in the protection section.
The sentence which begins "She was launched on 22 August 1918" is a bit over-long and should be split
Done.
Hood and her companions during their world cruise was designated the 'Special Service Squadron'. You could note that this squadron was present at the scuttling of HMAS Australia (1911) during its visit to Australia.
The article refers to the "reputation and legend of the "Mighty Hood"", but doesn't actually explain what this was. From memory, she was considered one of the more significant symbols of the RN and British Empire (her visit to Australia was considered a very big deal at the time) and this explains why her loss was such a shock (except to people who actually knew how obsolete she was).
"This lasted until January 1941" - it's a bit unclear what the 'this' is here (patrol work or being dispatched against reported German raiders?)
Where? I'm not finding this phrase.
"Holland’s ships caught up with Bismarck and her consort" - this implies that they over-hauled the German ships in a chase, when they actually intercepted them from the south.
Agreed.
Do the sources allow anything to be said about Hood's crew? (including her habitability). At present all that's specified is how many of them there were and that they once participated in a mutiny. Given that she was the RN's most prestigious ship for much of her career, did she receive unusually high quality officers (including captains)? Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain about the quality of her officers, although I suspect it was a plum assignment. I can add some stuff about her habitability. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone of Hood's captains made flag rank so I've added them in, mostly as a bunch of redlinks. See how well I've integrated them into the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed. I'd suggest looking for further details on the ship's crew before this goes to a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Done a bit of a copyedit, undo anything you disagree with
In the lead, 2nd para (and again, in para 3 of "Inter War Service"), the status of the ship in relation to the Mediterranean forces is unclear. Was she deployed for the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, left, then came back for the Spanish civil war, or does the claim that "When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet" mean that she'd 'unofficially' been with the fleet since the Italo-Abyssinian War deployment, and had just been hanging around before being formally integrated into the order of battle?
This is spelled out in the main body. She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly afterward and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Hood returned to Portsmouth for a brief refit between 26 June and 10 October 1936. She formally transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet on 20 October
Although its definitely clearer in the body (although a date associating with the posting at Gibraltar or the war's outbreak would be a good addition there - I've added "in October", but feel free to remove/change), I think the lead could do wit a little tweaking to make clear the 'go, come back' sequence of events clearer. May I suggest She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet following the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935. After returing to England in mid-1936 for refit, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly after the Spanish Civil War broke out. She remained in the Mediterranean until she had to return to England in 1939 for an overhaul. -- saberwyn02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't really see a need to get this level of detail in the lede. It's only a summary.
Its that the 'attached', then 'permanently assigned' thing reads to me as really confusing. Let me try a less-detail version: She operated with the Mediterranean Fleet during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War, and remained in the Mediterranean until 1939., dropping the 'status' of her operation with the Fleet, and the "return for overhaul" bit. Thoughts? -- saberwyn00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied in the boiler and turbine details from the infobox to the second paragraph of "Description". Can you doublecheck and cite if necessary?
Done
The broadside torpedoes tubes: were three facing off each side, or could one (or more) be reaimed to fire in the other direction? This is probably a stupid question, but it needs to be made a little clearer in the article
Added fixed to the torpedo section.
Unfortunately, now it reads to John 'Idiot' Landlubber that all six tubes fire in one direction. May I suggest Six fixed 21-inch torpedo tubes were mounted on Hood, three on each broadside. -- saberwyn02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
In "Fire Control", the 'fore-top' where the supplementary secondary rangefinders were fitted: was that the same place as the second primary director was located (spotting top of the foremast)?
Yes, spotting top, fore-top, control top; the usual multitude of names for the same place.
Any particular reason for the inconsistent use of the {{Convert}} template for armour thicknesses?
Each number is only converted once.
In the fourth para of "Protection", were the two torpedo tubes removed to allow for more armour in addition to the six mentioned in "Armament", or was it reduced to four?
It was reduced to four.
Is there somewhere the single-paragraph "Aircraft" section could be merged into. Maybe "Armament"?
I wouldn't recommend that. The recon/observation function of these aircraft mean they don't fit under armament or fire control very neatly. Most other battleship/battlecruiser articles maintain aircraft as a subsection of the design section, so we ought to keep it consistant. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second para of "Inter-war service": A couple of sentances describing the actions of the Special Service Squadron (specificly Hood's actions) during the cruise would be valuable.
I can add her intinerary, but it's not like she did much other than "she saw and was seen".
Maybe a list or numbers of the nations called into which would fit nicely after They returned home ten months later in September 1924... with ...having visited A, B, C... or having called into X ports in Y nations. If there was a sort of goal or 'mission statement' behind the cruise (the Cruise of the Special Service Squadron article indicates the aim was to make port visits to Britain's WWI allies), that might be good to add. -- saberwyn02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose would be better than the stopovers, not least because it's a shorter list.
Third para of "Inter War": Was there much damage to Renown? If it was only light, could maybe rephrase as "...the ship collided with the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935; both ships suffered only minor damage." Is there also any indication of specificly what/where the damage happened on Hood?
Hood was rammed by Renown at her quarterdeck. Her left outer propeller was badly damaged and her hull had a bunch of plates started by the impact as well as a dent 18 inches (.45 m) deep. Renown was more badly damaged, although I'd have to look to see how long she was under repair and what exactly was done to her.
Maybe rephrase/elaborate as While en route to Gibraltar for a Mediterranean cruise, Hood was rammed in the portside quarterdeck by the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935. [Although Renown was out of service for X months because of main problem-my idiot guess is bow damage?], the damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18-inch (460 mm) dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935.? Your call if you feel the need to specify Renown's damage or not. -- saberwyn02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Operation Catapult", para 1: Does it specify what means the French were to take to stop their ships falling into Axis hands? I imagine either scuttling or disarming. It would be good to specify.
Somerville's ultimatum actually told the French to sail them to a port (suggesting Britain, a French colony, or other neutral place) where the Germans couldn't get at them. He never suggested the French actually damage or destroy the ships themselves. But I'm not entirely sure it's especially relevant to the Hood's history. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding the sentance Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty had issued an ultimatum to the French Fleet at Oran to ensure they would not fall into German or Italian hands. a little to indicate the expected measures would be good context; simply 'to ensure' is very vague and the reader is left to wildly speculate if Hood and others firing on the ships is an adequate response to the refusal or not. -- saberwyn02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How does it read now?
Tiny tweak made. Maybe condense ...fall into German or Italian hands. to {{xt|...fall into Axis hands. if you become worred about an overly-long sentance. -- saberwyn00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a quote reference in "Aftermath of the sinking" that's been tagged as dead since September last year (and still is). Are you able to find a replacement, or alternatley provide a different cite for the quote?
Fixed.
In "Modern Theories", the quote from Anthony Prestion does not have ending quotation marks, so its unclear where it ends.
Fixed.
For "Wreck", a little more information on the finding of the ship (what effort went into locating the wreck, had there been any previous attemtps, and if so, why had they been unsuccessful) is needed. To that end, I have a book Mearns wrote following the search for HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (which contains content on some of his previous disoveries, like Hood) that may help (although you may get more from his co-authored book with White). I'll hammer some notes together in userspace over the next few days, and you can integrate them if/as you see fit.
"Wreck" also needs some rejigging: at the moment its a two-sentance paragraph, a block of text, and another two-sentance para. This will probably fix itself as information is added, but keep it in mind.
There's two books cited to Anthony Preston. The second (published 2002 by Conway), lacks a title.
There are a fair number of citations to the website for the Hoodveterans association. I don't know where it falls on the scale of reliable sources, but the question will probably be raised at FA (if not here), so you may need to start thinking about responses.
I'm not too worried about it qualifying as highly reliable. It's an organization and most of what I'm using are copies of Admiralty documents.
There's a glut of images in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" section, and not too many elsewhere. If you can, address the balance. I'd suggest finding image examples of some of the features discussed in "Description" and subsections, because I get almost three screens of text between the profile drawing near the top of the section and the Sydney Harbour photo in the "Inter-war Service" section.
You use Second World War in the lead, and World War X in every occurence in the body. Probably needs to be standardised. -- saberwyn00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I still think the "Wreck" section needs some reorganisation of the info to make the paragraph size more consistent. but that should only a light copyedit. Support for A class. -- saberwyn08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from baha (who is pissed that he got a BSOD while typing this and has to do it all again):
The image imbalance is rather clear. Of the nine images (including the lead), four are of Hood's loss, and one is a bit of her wreck. It shouldn't be too hard to find images of specific components in the description section, like the guns or an aircraft flying off the ship. The phot and sketch of the explosion can be combined side-by-side using {{double image}}. This will free up space to move the Schmitz-Westerholt painting down, because it's sandwiching (boxing) text between it and the Prince of Wales photo.
Nick is entirely right about the impact of Hood's sinking. If I were a reader who didn't already know, reading this article would leave me wondering what the fuss was about, why Churchill was so upset at her loss that he demanded the Bismarck be sunk, and why the RN devoted so many resources to the task. Her status as the pride of the fleet needs to be expanded, possibly into a subsection of the aftermath section (which could also use some wordage on the subsequent hunt for and sinking of the German battleship). This would be a great place to display the Schmitz-Westerholt painting, kind of a pop-culture impact. There should probably be some more written about the sinking of the Bismarck in the aftermath section, since it is more or less directly related.
I echo Nick again in talking about her crew. Surely she had notable captains besides Tomkinson and Kerr over her twenty one years (and I actually had to search for Kerr's name, John Leach's name was more prominent IMO, and he commanded a different ship!). The only others mentioned are the three survivors.
The logical organization needs a bit of work. For one, the lead is a tad long, and you can probably move some of the info on the ship's history out or cut duplication. The background in the lead (i.e. unfinished sister ships, Emergency War Programme) and the "construction" subsection should either be in the sections regard the ship's history, or in a background section between "description" and "inter-war service". The "surviving relics" section should be a subsection of the "wreck" section, even though they aren't from the wreck itself.
It seems like two sentances on the collision with Renown are not enough. Wouldn't such an incident be followed with inquiries, firing the captain, and maybe a court-martial? "lightly damaged" is rather vague, and it was significant enough that she needed to be serviced more than once (and they picked bits of the propeller from her bilge).
Good idea about the court-martial. I'll add something about it when I get a chance.
The last sentance in the "inter-war service" section ("Her condition meant, among other things, that she was unable to attain her top designed speed.") should state what speeds she was actually capable of in her degraded state. You mention it in the next section, so it's probably best to move that sentance up.
Unfortunately, I think that her maximum speed would change depending on how long since she'd had her bottom cleaned and when her last machinery overhaul had taken place. Furthermore, I don't know what it was at any time except when given.
Is there more information about the damage she took in September 1939? Was this a German attack (if so, where the devil did the aircraft come from?), or an accident... was there a battle/skirmish or just dumb luck?
In the "description" section, you mention Hood being chosen to chase down the Bismarck due to her speed, and it's probably worth repeating that in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" subsection.
Rephrased as it more a question of availability than anything else.
"This was followed by a devastating magazine explosion that destroyed the after part of the ship." Maybe I'm confusing my naval terminology (or perhaps an ENGVAR thing), but shouldn't it properly be "destroyed the aft part of the ship"?
Indeed.
"Memorials to those who died are spread widely around the UK..." and on should probably be moved to the aftermath section, or wherever you expand upon the imact of the Hood's sinking.
In the second theory, about the underwater shell strike, how far would a shell have had to penetrate to reach the magazine?
Not sure, but I've added the available info.
What kind of boats/launches did she carry? I think it's worth mentioning in the "description" section, since the impacts to the boat decks are significant to the accepted theory.
Honestly don't think that it's that important. As you can see from the one aerial photo, the answer is lots of boats.
The line "...as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarck's 38 cm shells..." seems inconsistant since the Bismarck's shells are described as "15-inch" everywhere else.
Fixed
There are a few spots where you use the degree symbol (°), and some where you spell out the word. Is there a reason for the inconsistancy?
"She had a metacentric height of 4.2 feet (1.3 m) at deep load, as well as a complete double bottom. The additional armour added during construction increased her draft by about 4 feet (1.2 m) at deep load, which reduced her freeboard and made her very wet.": A suggestion here. "As well as" has a connotation that what follows amplifies what comes before. There's a connection between those two things, but it seems to me there's a stronger connection between the extra weight of the double bottom and what comes after; is there a way to move the double bottom into the next sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the US continued with their established design direction, the slower but well-protected South Dakota-class battleship": I think a reader is likely to come away with the impression that there actually was such a battleship ... there wasn't, just a design. Is there a way to reword?
IMO the list format in Modern theories on the sinking is supported by MOS, specifically WP:EMBED.
"; a world first": what was it that never happened before? Underwater video streamed to a website, or video from a certain depth, or underwater video streamed to a national broadcaster's website, or .... ? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between a messdeck and living quarters? I think you should just have living quarters, or specify which mess (probably the enlisted one) which was drenched.
The messdecks were the living quarters for the junior enlisted men. Some NCOs and all officers had separate living quarters, most all of which got wet. There were different messes for many specialties and I don't propose to detail all of them.
Messdeck could use a link; anyways I guess even with the jargon its clear enough to the reader that some parts of the ship where some subset of the crew ate and/or slept were uncomfortable.
Which page of Taylor (pp. 92, 94 or 123) says she was "the largest submarine in the Navy"? I think you should cite that individually.
Done.
You kind of mention this obliquely regarding her high speed and armament earning her a nickname, but that sounds kind of POV-ish to me; wasn't there an actual story how the Hood received the nickname "Mighty Hood"?
Nope, just consensus as to why.
Hmm, ok just checking. Hood is not the only ship with a nickname of dubious origin.
Super-long third paragraph in Inter-war service should be split; it will make the last image format better.
Done.
Sinking; wasn't there a story how each of those three survived that massive explosion?
Sure, but not really relevant to this article; it's more appropriate to articles on the fellows themselves, if they're notable in their own right.
I think simply surviving the sinking makes them notable; anyways, you have a one sentence paragraph that easily could be expanded. I'd redlink the names, add their ranks, and detail the 3 hour wait to be rescued by Electra, then mention all three testified in the official inquiries. Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed the same procedure that I used on the battlecruisers blown up at Jutland where I provide numbers and the ships that rescued them. I don't feel that simply surviving makes them notable in any way. I've added their ranks and corrected their time in the water before rescue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BULLET I don't think you should have the bullet points in the theory section and you should summarize the 6 theories in the lead paragraph.
I disagree. The bullets nicely organize the theories, especially as several of them are really too short to stand on their own as paragraphs. I've added a discussion as to the investigations into her loss and some, but not all, of the theories. I only covered those that disagree with the board's conclusion; those that only focus on how the magazines exploded are left for later. See how it reads.
The section doesn't even have a lead sentence, just a sentence fragment, and if you didn't have the bullets it would read the same to me; which is what the MOS says Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. I don't think Dank got this far in the article, he might have a comment or two once he gets here.
The motto is not cited.
Done.
I'm confused about the torpedo tubes - they removed the two underwater tubes ahead of the A-turret but why did she have 2 torpedo tubes in 1941 - shouldn't it be 4?
Support but here are a few comments: Would it be too much to ask for a separation of notes and citations? I find that much easier to read. What I found particularly interesting are the slight discrepancies in timing when I look at the German sources about who fired when during Hoods final battle in the Denmark Strait. The distance between Hood and Bismarck was also judged differently by Von Müllenheim-Rechberg in comparison to the numbers stated here. But all of this is minor. This may be difficult to address but not much is mentioned about the crew and its structure, such as how many officers, how many men per gun or for driving the engines were needed, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the crew numbers based on the best info I've got, but I can't break out the info on them to the level that you want, nor do I ever expect to be able to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another Chief of the Genral Staff (and later Chief of the Defence Staff)—Mike Jackson's immediate predecessor, in fact. There's not quite as much written about Walker as there is about Jackson and Jackson's successor (who will make his way here sometime in the next few weeks), but I think this is the best account of his career we're going to get short of an autobiogrpahy or an obituary. I'm not 100% sure it's detailed enough, but I'd welcome comments, pro or con. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Yep, perhaps not as detailed as one would like, so I might not take it FAC as is, but there's enough meat there for A-Class IMO.
I'm guessing there's no free images of him apart from the lead, but I wonder if there's any free images relating to actions he was involved in -- might be reasonable to add as context.
I'll see what I can find. I'll also go through Flickr to see if anyone there has any photos of him that I can beg thjem to release.
Be nice to see if there's anything about him in books as opposed to simply the Gazette and news/web reports, but I have no prob with the article from a verifiability perspective.
I've not been able to find naything more than a passing mention
Now to prose:
Performed my usual copyedit -- there were a few sentences that were a bit repetitive in structure, and some that were too long I think -- but feel free to revert if I've unintentionally altered any meaning.
Thanks very much
...took command of 20th Armoured Brigade in Germany before becoming chief of staff to I Corps -- I think you're COS to a commander but COS of or in a unit.
Fair enough, I'll ammend that
Do we know when he was married? I often find things like that in Who's Who -- that might give you a few other tidbits as well, or at least more precise dates of things, e.g. the first tour in Northern Ireland.
I don't have access to Who's Who. I'm hoping they'll get these Credo accounts sorted soon, because I think there are various dictionaries of national biography in there. I'll se if I can find anyone who has it (do you?).
I certainly have access to the international Who's Who at the Mitchell Library -- I expect he'd be in that as a former CDS. Failing that I think we have the ODNB there, though not sure what year it goes up to. See what I can find next week, anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I did a GA review for someone with access a while back and they kindly emailed me his entry. I've got things like his year of marriage, but it doesn't have details on his early tours of duty (just "regimental and staff duties" for the first 15 years of his career!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that sort of all-embracing throw-away phrase is unfortunately common in these mini-bios. Anyway, saves me some investigative work... ;-) Just for completeness, though, did you say it had his date of marriage? I don't actually see it in the article yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should be a summary of the article it needs to be in the early life section and cited.
No, it doesn't. I never include it anywhere other than the lead, including in a very recent featured article. If it's not a requirement for FAC, it's not a requirement for A-class.
Nothing about where he was educated other than to say he was, presumably if he taught at a school he must have attended a university?
Not necessarily. It seems likely, but this was nigh on 50 years ago
Apparently not. Who's Who makes no mention of university (apart from a couple of honorary degrees)
married to Victoria (Tor) - is Tor her maiden name?
No, it's an abbreviation of Victoria
R ANGLIAN - should be lower case and written out in full Royal Anglian Regiment
Removed (a legacy of the state the article was in before I expnaded it)
rejoined 1st Battalion, R ANGLIAN to become a company commander - sounds like he had a choice and only accepted if given the appointment
I'm not sure about that, but if you have a suggestion for rewording, I'm all ears
In command of the 1st Battalion - when was he given command and 1st Battalion of what
Regiment is mentioned a few lines above.
The 2nd Infantry Division did not serve in the Gulf War so who did Walker serve with and it needs a cite
If he was knighted should he not be titled General Sir Michael John Dawson Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham ?
No, because he's a peer. He's General Lord Walker as opposed to General Sir Michael
What is COMARRC and IFOR - I can work them out but the should be linked or written in full at first use
Both abbreviations (Commander, Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and Implimentation Force) are given above.
was awarded the American Legion of Merit (Degree of Commander), and granted unrestricted permission - by who and why was permission needed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is in the category Category:Old Grovians for people who attended Woodhouse Grove School there is also this link where he hosted a dinner for thme [100] - you could contact the school see if he is listed anywhere as having attended Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - overall this seems very good to me, only a few minor points:
I have made a few changes using the Advisor script and reworded the lead slightly;
FYI, your script change the title of a reference, which should generally be left un-copy-edited.
The citation check tool reveals one error ("{{London Gazette|issue=54662|supp=yes|startpage=1092|date=27 January 1997|accessdate=15 March 2011}}" - error is "Multiple references contain the same content");
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it meets the criteria. This reconnaissance drone and mother ship combination were bleeding-edge technology in the early 1960s when they were designed, which made them exceedingly expensive and very risky. One such pair collided after launch which destroyed both and forced the change to the far less risky Boeing B-52 as the launch vehicle. The program was plagued with failures as the electronics of the day were barely up to the task demanded of them. After only four operational launches into Chinese airspace, the program was cancelled for political reasons as well as technical and cost grounds in 1971.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Nice article -- succinct, well written/researched, properly cited, and great images, all correctly licenced.
I have a minor structural quibble, namely that the lead makes clear that the switch in motherplane from M-21 to B-52 occurred due to an accident, but the "Change in carrier" subsection in the main body barely alludes to this, leaving it until "Testing" for the details of the accident to emerge. I think that even though it could be considered part of design, the change in carrier should be wholly dealt with chronologically, under testing, since that's when it happened.
You could also make "Testing" a fully fledged section, since technically I don't think we'd say it was part of the operational history. If you did this you'd then have the following sections:
Design and development (merging the "Change in D-21 carriers" subsection info, without a heading, with the "Testing" section)
Testing (dropping "Operational history" section heading at this point)
Operational history (instead of "Operations" subsection)
The citation check tool reveals one error (Donald 2003, p. 155 - "Multiple references contain the same content");
"that used much of the technology as the A-12", should this be "that used much of the same technology as the A-12"?
"Kelly Johnson specified speeds", this should just be "Johnson" at second mention per WP:SURNAME;
"Kelly Johnson wanted to power the Q-12", as above;
"The hatch would be ejected at the end of the mission and it would be snagged", this seems a little convoluted... maybe reword to something like "The hatch would be ejected at the end of the mission and snagged";
"in size by about 20%.", this seems inexact. Can you be more specific?; and
There were two identical footnotes and I combined them. I reworded and clarified based to address the above comments. I do not think the sources are any more precise than ~20%. I do not have my books handy here to check and doubt additional precision is needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, if you're taking this to FAC, they're not going to like the page title per WP:SLASH, that is, it's not clear from looking at the title what the slash means. Since the article is devoted to the D-21 with maybe 3 paragraphs of material total on the M-21, you might want to consider Lockheed D-21 as the title. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name change to Lockheed D-21 was brought up on the article's page previously. Consensus was against due to it being incomplete. Somebody can suggest something on the talk page if they want. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lockheed MD-21 was suggested previously. If this is headed to FAC, how do we deal with the requirement at WP:SLASH to limit slashes to phrases "widely used"? Was the slash in Lockheed D-21/M-21 "widely used"? And even if so, if the two were considered a unit at one time, this article deals with the Lockheed D-21 separately. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the slash actually created a subdirectory in article space (a policy violation) and a subdirectory off this ACR, so the slash was a no-go from the start. Discussions during a review usually happen on the review page, although I'm happy to read any discussion that happens on the article page. so when there's a relevant discussion on the article talk page, please point me there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, another RAAF Chief of the Air Staff, this one being the first to follow the four former Duntoon cadets (John McCauley, Frederick Scherger, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch) who led the service between 1954 and 1969. Like Murdoch, Hannah seems not to have fulfilled his early promise as CAS; in any case he preferred to chuck it in early to become the first RAAF man appointed a State Governor -- a story in itself, but you can read that for yourself... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ranks should not be in capitals when not attached to a name
Old habits die hard and caps in all cases has been accepted for some time but what you say seems to be way of it now, will do.
His promotion to temporary wing commander is mentioned, as is his promotion to temporay group captain. Is there a record of when he was granted the former rank substantively?
I'll see if I can find a newspaper mentioning it, as I did for his group captaincy.
Is that a full summary of the body of published knowledge about this chap? I can't say it leaves me wanting, but I'm a little surprised there isn't more to say about his governership, especially if he's had a park named after him.
I could add a bit more about the governorship but it would pretty well be all further details about the revocation of dormant commission, e.g. quotes from some of the players, plus a couple of other minor incidents earlier in 1975. There seems nothing about anything positive he might have done like visiting disaster zones or patronising charities or causes. FWIW I wasn't planning on taking this to FAC at this stage like I am with the other three I've just put up for ACR, which I think have fuller coverage of their subject's careers. Many thanks as usual for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and you're quite welcome. My only concern, which is more FA level really, is that the only part of his tenure as governor is what seems to me to be something of a storm in a teacup, albeit one that ended his career. If there are any details available on what else he did as governor, I think the article would benefit from their inclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was a lot more than a storm in a teacup - the governors of Australian states (which are largely ceremonial positions, albeit with the constitutional ability to sack the government in a crisis) are expected to stay out of politics at all times. This also formed part of the background to the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is another great article on a RAAF leader and I think that the A class criteria are met. I do have some comments though:
"he was sent to Air Force Headquarters," sounds a bit odd (and being 'sent' somewhere generally has negative connotations)
Ah, great minds, I thought the same thing last time I read it but got waylaid before I could fix it. Yes, sounds like he was a naughty schoolboy -- but that came later... ;-)
What were the responsibilities of RAAF armaments officers?
I'll see if my friend Coulthard-Clark can tell me something specific...
Their responsibilities appear to have included maintenance of aircraft bombs, guns, and interruptor gear (this was still a biplane era) -- however as a general statement (the mention isn't specifically related to Hannah) I think it'd slow up the narrative to plonk it in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not that I'm aware of, and have to admit it's not on my list. In any case being an armaments officer (which I don't think Hannah ever was per se, he seems to have gone from the Armaments School to being Deputy Director of Armament) wouldn't count as a technical trade, as trades were a non-com field. As a General Duties officer (meaning pilot and any operational/staff job they felt like throwing him, as opposed to belonging to Medical Branch, Technical Branch, Logistics Branch, etc) Hannah would no doubt simply have overseen the guys who did the work anyway (apologies if this has gone off the track a bit). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In the event, the post again went to an Army officer, and the RAAF presence would be withdrawn from Vietnam during Hannah's tour as CAS" - this suggests that Hannah was responsible for the withdrawal of the RAAF from Vietnam, when this decision was made by the government of the day Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the way I expressed it was a bit throw-away (although the source puts it in somewhat similar fashion) -- will see about rewording. Thanks for the review and your edits! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Firstly" and "secondly" are considered somewhat old-fashioned in American style guides; I don't know what Australian style guides are saying.
I don't know for sure what Oz guides say, and if anyone strongly objected I'd be prepared to drop "firstly" and replace "secondly" with "also" or something, but I think if one mentions that two points are to be made then demarcating them as I have keeps things clear. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fine. I really need a bigger library. AmEng guides say to either do what you just said, or use "first" and "second". - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well I do spend a bit of time trying to polish my own prose as much as possible -- many thanks as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have read through this and can find nothing to fault it other than a few minor tweaks with the Advisor script which I have completed. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has gone through both a GA Review and a Peer Review. I would like to confirm that it meets the criteria for A-class. I will be willing to fix any problems present in the article. I have put a lot of work -- and am willing to put in more -- into it and would like to see it pass an A-class review. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The article is well cited and seems to be well written from what I have reviewed so far. Could you try to clarify some text in the Lead. This sentence: "Before reaching Italy, Skanderbeg visited Ragusa (Dubrovnik) where he negotiated financial terms with its rectors." is a bit unclear to me. From the text in the body of the article this seems to be a peace settlement deal. Thanks. More to follow.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deciding to review this article. I look forward to your continued comments. I have revised the sentence as follows: "Before reaching Italy, Skanderbeg visited Ragusa (Dubrovnik) to convince its rectors to help fund his campaign." How is that?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "File:Map of Ragusa.jpg" needs the licencing information translated into English on the description page - this might be an issue if you take it to FAC;
"File:Monte sant'angelo castle old.jpg" on the description page, author, date and description information are missing - this might be an issue if you take it to FAC;
in the References, the titles in English should be capitalised in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance: "The Italo-Albanian villages of southern Italy" should be "The Italo-Albanian Villages of Southern Italy";
I've read through the article a couple more times now and have the following prose suggestions/comments:
in the Background, I'm slightly confused by this: "to secure the pope's interests, Skanderbeg sent twelve Turkish prisoners of war that had been captured at Albulena". Where were the prisoners of war sent?
in the Background, this sounds awkward to me: "convince them to end their conflicts between each other and to unite under Calixtus' crusade" (perhaps reword to: "convince them to stop fighting each other and unite for Calixtus' crusade");
in the Background section, the paragraph begins in 1457, but ends discussing something that occured in 1456, it might be best to reorganise this paragraph so that it is in chronological order;
in the Italian situation subsection: "fell into Pius's hands." Generally if a word ends with 's' and possession is denoted, the second s can be left off. E.g. "Pius' hands";
in the Albanian situation section: "Constant news of Ottoman campaigns against Bosnia and Morea but not against Albania seemed to suggest..." (Suggest to whom? This might need to be clarified);
where you use distances such as miles, it might be a good idea to use a conversion template. Some readers can't conceptualise miles, but can conceptualise kilometres. If you add {{convert|30|mi|km}} or for a range {{convert|30|-|40|mi|km}} it will automatically do the conversion and display both figures;
in the First landings section, I think there is a missing word here: "his nephew, Constantine, who at the time was 22–23 year-old" (suggest either "was 22-23 years old" or "was a 22-23 year old");
in the First landings section, I suggest wikilinking "cuirassed" to an appropriate article. Perhaps to "Cuirass";
in the First landings section, "René d'Anjou had been particularly surprised by Skanderbeg's action since he had never offended the Albanian" (perhaps include the modifier "...since he believed that he had never offended the Albanian".
in the Orsini-Skanderbeg correspondence section, this sounds a little awkward: "and had grown an admiration for Skanderbeg and his campaigns in Albania" (perhaps reword to: "and had developed an admiration for Skanderbeg and his campaigns in Albania");
is there a link that could be provided for the term "ducats"?
in the Neapolitan counteroffensive section, there is some redundancy here: "annually from which most of Piccinino's pay came from" (the last "from" is not necessary);
is there a link that could be provided for the term "florins"?
in the Preparations section, I not sure of this wording: "He was still awaiting a grain of supply and two Neapolitan ships" (what is a grain of supply? or should this be "a supply of grain"?);
in the Preparations section, there is inconsistent spelling here: "Barleta" and "Barletta";
in the Preparations section, there appears to be a word missing here: "Skanderbeg set off for Apulia, but a storm forced to anchor off a Dalmatian island" (perhaps "but a storm forced him to anchor off a Dalmation island");
in the Aftermath, I think there is a word missing here: "On 27 April 1463, Skanderbeg and Mehmed signed a new peace" (perhaps add the word "treaty" after "peace"). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also not a specialist so can only give a few comments
The Battle of Orsara should link in the lead, as first occurence. I note there is no article on the battle itself - you may wish to consider a stub for that purpose to link to, or put more detail later in the text
Who is referred to in the first sentence of the middle paragraph? Piccinino, Orsini or both? The sentence begins with condottieri (plural) but the second half of the sentence says "his".
There seems to be a contradiction between the lead and the middle para of Aftermath. In the former, Albanians fight in the battle of Orsara, in the latter it is uncertain.
Support: Good job Gaius Claudius. My comments from Peer review are mostly solved, and the article was improved much more. Congratulation! --Kebeta (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
São Paulo is one of my old articles; I penned the original version back in April 2009. I've now rewritten most of the article and I believe it meets the current A-class criteria. Thanks for your reviews in advance – I greatly appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from baha
No format issues really jump out at me, but I'm sure Dank will annotate them much better anyway.
The "Late career" section isn't really clear as to her final fate: she snapped her tow lines and disappeared, and then the intro and infobox say "sunk" without saying where or how exactly, nor how it was confirmed by the search forces (or did somebody else after the search was called off?).
The 1918 boiler incident is vague on why/how they failed. Do we know if it was poor maintenance, defect, age, etc.?
In the "Revolt of the Lash" section, the last paragraph seems to insinuate that the mutineers were sailing the ships around and firing the guns off... but it's not mentioned at all that they left port at Rio or what they might have been shooting at.
I think regarding her final fate, you should clarify as "disappeared, assumed sunk" or something like that. And what about the gunfire during the Revolt? I think that we can use Whitley if we word it properly. bahamut0013wordsdeeds15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very good article, and I'm close to supporting it's promotion, but I think that a few improvements are needed first:
"In particular, the United States now actively attempted to court Brazil as an all" and the following material seems to come out of nowhere.
"Soon after they arrived, the 5 October 1910 revolution began" - you should specify which country this affected, as it's a bit confusing
"Brazil declared that they would be neutral in the First World War on 4 August," - which year does this refer to, and "Brazil declared that they" and "but the sinking of Brazilian merchant ships by German U-boats led them to revoke their neutrality," is poor grammar and vague (you're talking about the actions of the Brazilian Government here)
"After the boilers were fired, São Paulo attempted to entice Minas Geraes ... However, São Paulo was only able to sway one old torpedo boat to her cause" - surely it was the crew of São Paulo who were doing the enticing and swaying (this wording sounds like some kind of odd inter-ship romance!).
Support My comments are sufficiently addressed for me to support this article's promotion. I think that it should receive a comprehensive copyedit before it goes to a FAC through. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support -- Completed my usual copyedit, hopefully haven't inadvertently altered any meaning. Apart from that things look pretty good as far as structure, referencing, supporting materials and coverage go. Just a couple of other points:
...inadequate training for incompetent sailors... -- Do we really mean "incompetent", or would "inexperienced" be more accurate? The latter seems to make more sense...
Struck comments below that seem to have been resolved but like an answer to this before I support (won't oppose over it though). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "for incompetent sailors", per my understanding from previous conversations with Ed about the revolt. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...transporting the deceased Uruguyan Minister to the United States... -- Um, Minister for what? Or is it supposed to be "Prime Minister"? If not, I'm sure the country must've had more than one Minister, so if we don't know then we should say "a deceased Uruguyan Minister"...
Heh, I'm sorry, I misread and thought it said that "the Minister" was being transported to the United States, rather than the "Minister to the United States" was being transported to Montevideo -- tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't use "p." or "pp." with page numbers as a general rule, but in some cases you do. I prefer to see them in all cases but at least it should be consistent.
Further Reading entries would look better if formatted the same as References, e.g. last name, first name for the author and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - most are just suggestions so if you disagree I'm happy to discussSupport
The citation check tool reveals a couple of errors: "Scheina, "Brazil," 404." and "Ribeiro, "Os Dreadnoughts." - both "- "Multiple references contain the same content".
Images lack alt text, you might consider adding it (although I don't believe its a requirement).
The first paragraph of the lead isn't really a paragraph, its just two sentences. As such you might consider restructuring the lead a little.
I agree that the first paragraph doesn't entice the reader or offer them a quick summary ... both reasonable goals ... but I think Ed made the right judgment call here. To say everything that needs to be said in a way that's easiest to digest, it's best to start the narrative part as quickly as possible, and Ed does that starting in the third sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand what you are saying, the choice of language in this sentence seems a little contradictory: "Beginning in the late 1880s, Brazil's navy fell into obsolescence, helped along by an 1889 revolution, which deposed Emperor Dom Pedro II, and a 1893 civil war." Specifically "obsolescence" and "helped", perhaps "hindered" instead?
Butting in, I think if you hinder (negative) obsolescence (another negative) you actually improve things... ;-) Perhaps the wording should be "Brazil's navy fell into obsolescence, a situation exacerbated by an 1889 revolution" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian's suggested rewording here, although my point was that the Navy was hindered, not that obsolescence was, which I agree also would not work. I'll try to be more clear with my future comments. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the "First World War" section could be reworked. Specifically the first paragraph is very short (only one sentence) and is therefore not really a paragraph at all.
I deleted the first sentence. The source doesn't indicate why that fact might be important, and it's hard to work it into the narrative, as you say. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a little informal to me: "while Minas Geraes was totally refitted", perhaps "refitted completely" or something similar?
"to finance a large naval building program in 1904,[2] which authorized the construction of a large number of warships" - repetition of "large"
"While the first designs for these ships were derived from the Norwegian coastal defense ship Norge and the British (originally Chilean) Swiftsure class,[N 4] the contracted ships were to follow Armstrong Whitworth's Design 439 (Design 188 in Vickers' files)." - I was unclear when I read this whose the first designs were (e.g. had the Brazilians proposed the design or Armstrong's). Could the Vickers file bit go in a footnote? (it would make the sentence easier to read)
"the new dreadnought concept, which premiered in December 1906" - being picky, can a concept premier?
Early career:
"by the wife of Brazil's minister to Great Britain, Regis de Oliveira," - if Regis de Oliveira's name came first in this construct, you'd avoid any potential confusion that Regis was the minister, as opposed to the wife (some might not know that Regis is a female name)
"The former believed..." - unclear if the former here is the naval officers, or the naval officers plus the president.
Late career:
"Stricken on 2 August 1947" - I ended up clicking on the link because I wasn't sure what this meant in this context - it could be worth expanding the sentence slightly (e.g. "Stricken from the naval lists..."?)
in the Background section I think that this sentence needs work: "Even though the greater cost of these ships meant that only two ships could begin immediately, plans went ahead". Two ships could begin what? Perhaps try: "Even though the greater cost of these ships meant that construction could begin on only two ships immediately, plans went ahead";
in the First World War section, please check the spelling here: "deceased Uruguyan Minister..." I think it should be "Uruguayan";
Friendly reminder: this ACR will pass the 28 day mark in about two days time. My comments are minor and wouldn't lead me to oppose, but have the others been addressed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this review has now been open 29 days. From what I can tell, there are comments from Nick-D, Ian Rose and Anotherclown that might not have been addressed, as well as my own minor comments. As there are two supports, there is probably enough support to leave the review open for a bit longer if a successful outcome is possible; otherwise it should really be listed for closing (although, as I say this, there is a large backlog of ACRs that need closing, so listing it might not mean anything, anyway). What does everyone think? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well rules are rules, and I think it at least needs to be listed for closing. As you say, it's unlikely anything will happen to it for a while no matter what since it will go towards the bottom of an already long (by ACRs-ready-for-closure standards) list and neither you nor I can touch any of them due to our involvement one way or t'other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I count three supports, Nick-D, Hchc2009 (I believe), and Bahamuts, but there are a significant # of comments that haven't been addressed yet. Most of these are stylistic things, but I'm not sure that we should promote it until they're resolved. Perhaps we should leave this one open for a bit longer. I'll drop Ed a line to address these soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. Frederick Scherger went through ACR/FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest. Among my earliest articles on senior RAAF commanders, John McCauley, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch have been B/GA-Class till recently (all are GA now), so I decided to expand and improve them in tandem, given the additional sources that have come my way since I created them. It therefore seemed appropriate to put them up for ACR at the same time and, given their similarities, you might like to review them in tandem as well... ;-)
Seriously, it shouldn’t be too bad: after Duntroon, they all joined the RAAF before World War II, saw action during the war, and went on to higher command and eventually the top of the Air Force in the 1950s and 60s. McCauley’s and Hancock’s tours as Chief were separated by Fred Scherger. Comparing those three, McCauley could be seen as the most reserved and cerebral, Scherg as the most dynamic and forthright, and Hancock somewhere between those two poles. Murdoch was the last of the quartet and somewhat the odd one out, not graduating from Duntroon as an Army officer and then volunteering for the RAAF like the others, but entering the college under an RAAF cadet scheme and transferring services before graduation due to economic cutbacks. Plus his legacy is generally considered a negative one for the Air Force, blamed as he is for the service losing its control of battlefield helicopters to the Army in the 1980s. His predecessors are remembered more positively, McCauley for focussing on Australia’s northern defences, Scherg for carrying that a step further by initiating a string of ‘bare bases’ up north and also for ordering the Mirage fighter, and Hancock for picking the fledgling F-111 as the top bomber of its era. Anyway, enough of the intro—thanks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Early career: His daddy was not promoted to brigadier until WWII, so consider re-wording
Tks, will do.
His brother Ian was a MAJGEN, so you can red-link him if you like
So have I -- again. I'm not entirely sure the Air Force even knows itself but the impression I'm getting now is that it was "Personal Services" during the war, and "Personnel Services" after. Gillison explicitly mentions the former, Stephens the latter. You might note that in Hancock's article I used the latter, as Stephens does. My source for Murdoch annoyingly uses "Pers. Services", but I think now it's best we assume "Personnel" for that too... Ho-hum. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Described as second only to the General Dynamics F-111 as the "most significant" purchase by the RAAF, Described by whom? (I would disagree myself and put the Herc first.)
Stephens in his official history of the RAAF 1946-71.
sixty-nine were later delivered Skip the hyphen
Hmm, I thought double-barrelled numbers were always hyphenated...
UH-1H Iroquois gunships UH-1 or AH-1? I thought it was the latter but I could be wrong. I thought that the hueycobras were even allocated "A numbers" but the RAAF cancelled the order in the Vietnam wind-down. I may have recalled the story wrong.
The Cobra would've been AH-1. Iroquois were always some species of UH-1, I believe.
It was the AH-1G. The gunship version of the UH-1 Huey. I think the article misrepresents this story. The Army wanted the AH-1G. The The RAAF, particularly DCAS AVM Read, wanted more UH-1Hs, which could be used for duties other than as gunships. The Army, in particular the DCGS, MAJGEN Graham, a former commander of 1ATF, protested. The RAAF Board then decided to recommend the UH-1H, on grounds that showed a lack of understanding of gunships. The Air minister accepted the board's recommendation but cabinet overturned this and the AH-1G was ordered in early 1971. The order was cancelled in October 1971. See Coulthard-Clark, The RAAF in Vietnam, pp. 182-183
I think I've related the story accurately insofar as Murdoch was involved, namely that the Army wanted the AH-1 Cobra while Murdoch preferred the idea of Harriers, if anything. The main area I see our stories diverging is that my source, Stephens, declares that it was UH-1H Iroquois gunships that were eventually ordered, then cancelled, while Coulthard-Clark says it was AH-1 HueyCobras. Given both of their strong track records in Air Force history I can't really say which author is more likely to be correct. Do you know of another reliable source that claims one model or the other? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Stephens, p. 299 and p. 318. But also see Parnell and Lynch, Australian Air Force, p. 176, which makes it clear that eleven AH-1Gs were ordered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well I guess Stephens is outvoted then... ;-) Is that Australian Air Force Since 1911 or some such? If so, I've seen it but haven't had access to it for years unfortunately. What I might do is effectively leave the first part as is, with Stephens as source, but alter the last statement to AH-1 and cite Coulthard-Clark and Parnell/Lynch for that. Can you just supply the ISBN for your copy so I can source the exact publishing details? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Parnell, N.M. and Lynch, C. A., Australian Air Force Since 1911 (A.H. & A. W. Read: Sydney, 1976) ISBN 0 589 07153 X Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, made the change per above. I left the reason for the deal not going ahead as withdrawal from Vietnam (per Stephens) -- if that's not actually in Coulthard-Clark or Parnell/Lynch, let me know and I'll just say it was rescinded in Oct 71 per C-C. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A generation of lieutenant-colonels and majors had come to believe that the RAAF did not care about army support, and they were to carry that belief into the 1970s and beyond Um yes. I know that must have been painful for you to write, but that is exactly what I remember from the 1980s and 1990s. Also, remove the hyphen.
Probably worth your while perusing WP:POSTNOM (see the edit I made with that link in the edit summary). Yes, I know, another of the many utterly thrilling MoS subsections! ;)
Those particular links are legacy of the age of the original versions of the articles.
Why "Commandant of RAAF College" not the RAAF College?
Fair question but it generally seems to have been referred to without the definite article.
Fair enough.
What's the connection between his knighthood and graduating from Duntroon?
Do you mean in the lead? Wasn't trying to imply a connection, just the bit about the knighthood seemed too short to use in a separate sentence -- happy to entertain other suggestions...
I don't really have a suggestion, but the current phrasing makes it sound as though the knighthood was directly related to his graduation from Duntroon.
The placemnet of that image in the early career section looks horrible on a smallish screen
Not sure where else it could go, though. How small is "smallish"? I use both a 15" screen and a 10" screen to check the look of articles and it seems all right on those...
I don't know offhand, but I'd guess it's about 10", maybe a bit smaller, and the text looks squashed between the ibx and the img.
Suggest a link for his brother, even if it's red—Major Generals are usually notbale
Heh, I guess I'm seeing a consensus from the reviewers on this, though I still prefer to avoid red links that might never go blue (even if they're prima facie notable).
I guess it's author's discreation. Personally, I'd link it if it were my article, but if he were a Brit, he'd likely be on one of my lists.
Anything more known about his father's military service? If he got to brigadier, surely there's some record of him doing something interesting?
Well he's got that Australian Dictionary of Biography entry that I linked to (something his sons lack) so might be a tidbit or two...
Use double quotes (" instead of ') per the MoS
You're talking of 'delighted'? That was sort of a quote but not quite, hence the single inverted commas.
One of a small coterie of officers earmarked for top positions in the post-war Air Force... sounds a little POV to me
Oh, how so? It's pretty clearly put like that in the sources I cite.
Fair enough, it seems a little like praising him to me, but perhaps that's just me
So what was his thinking behind his oppositions to the various deployments to support the Army? He was repeatedly overruled by the government and the quote Hawkeye points out seems to suggest that history shows they were the wrong decisions, but I'm not seeing much about why he amde these decisions which seem so disastrous with hindsight
I think I've got about as much out of the sources as I can on his reasons, however wrong-headed they may have been. With Wilton it was resourcing and complacency over existing RAAF experience, with Daly it was other priorities, and with the Canberras it was supposed unsuitability.
Fair enough.
How did he die? Did he have any family?
None of the short bios I have go into this. I even scoured microfiche of a couple of newspapers to try and find an obit but no luck (unlike for his predecessors McCauley, Scherger and Hancock). Judging by his last Who's Who entry in 1983, his wife and daughter were most likely still alive at his death but I can't say for certain. Thanks as always for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: not much wrong with this one that I can see. I have two minor comments/suggestions:
please check the spelling of "overidden" - I think it should be "overridden";
the Reference list is slightly out of alphabetical order (e.g Dornan appears before Coulthard-Clark when it should be after and Draper after Herington when it should be before). AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks very good to me just one minor comment:
"he led a team to the Middle East, where the possibility of Australia contributing a garrison force in the region was first raised." Specifically "in the region" might be more correct as "to the region"? Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AC, there is no doubt that you spot potential improvements that everyone else (including me of course) misses -- tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Murdoch headed a programme to determine future aircraft purchases for the RAAF": I removed "future". His programme seemed to be involved with near-term purchases, unless I'm misunderstanding the text. If "future" meant only "at a point in time after the point in time it was requested", then it's redundant, and several of the FAC reviewers are pretty strict about this kind of redundancy. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"air/ground operations": Maybe a hard call here. If the slash is used almost all the time in that phrase, then it's hard to argue it shouldn't be there. But per WP:SLASH, someone will probably complain at FAC. On "V/STOL", I don't recommend that you change it, but be prepared to defend it.
Thanks mate, happy with your edits. The slashes in "air/ground" and "V/STOL" are pretty ubiquitous I think -- at least that's how they appear in sources -- so I'll defend them if I have to... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article on the last engagement between British and German warships off Norway during World War II was assessed as a GA in December last year and has since been improved. As such, I think that it now meets the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' views on this. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks pretty good to me, but I'm not really a subject matter expert:
no dabs, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
in the lead Kriegsmarine is in italics, but later it isn't - should this be consistent?
WP:MOS#Italics isn't terribly clear on this, but on the grounds that 'Kriegsmarine' is an uncommon foreign word I've italicised it throughout the article.
I might have missed it, but why did Hetz have to take command of the flotilla after Z31 was damaged - I assumed von Wangeheim was aboard Z31? This doesn't appear to be explained though - perhaps a clause could be added to the first sentence?
Annoyingly, none of sources explain why. I'd imagine that it was either because the damage to Z31 meant that she was no longer capable of acting as the command ship or that von Wangenheim was wounded.
this seems a little ineligant to me: "The ship's speed was not affected, however.[10] Casualties were heavy, with 54 of Z31's crew being killed and another 24 wounded." Perhaps reword to: "The ship's speed was not affected,[10] but casualties were heavy, with 54 of Z31's crew being killed and another 24 wounded.";
Done
in the infobox it mentions 55 Germans killed, but in the prose only 54 are mentioned - was there another killed, or is the infobox incorrect?
55 is the correct number - I've just fixed this.
The last sentence of the battle section might be better placed in the Aftermath (possibly as the first sentence in the third paragaph?): "The battle was the last action to be fought between British and German warships in Norwegian waters during World War II";
I just experimented with that, and I think that it's a bit awkward.
in the Aftermath, this might be a little smoother: "Z31 received initial repairs at Bergen which included removing the wreckage of her forward turret." Perhaps try: "At Bergen, Z31 received initial repairs, which included removing the wreckage of her forward turret."
Support - I reviewed for GA and only have a few minor points:
No errors revealed by the citation check tool (no action required).
In the lead: "This battle was the last of many", you might consider "The battle" (only a suggestion - it just sounds better to my ear).
That sounds better to me as well
"the British cruisers fired star shells" Why? I assume it was either a signal or to provide illumination but lacking a naval background I'm a little uncertain of the tactics.
Yes, for illumination purposes - I've tweaked this
"and the three ships laid smoke screens" I think they did so to conceal their escape but I wonder if this should be clarified? Is it assuming too much knowledge of a reader? I'll leave it up to you as I accept I might be being a bit picky here. It seems fairly obvious why a ship would lay a smoke screen (for obscuration) but I'll ask the question nonetheless. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - I've clarified this. It seems best to assume that readers have limited, or no, knowledge of naval tactics (and particularly the technical aspects of these tactics). Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
General point is that I find it a bit on the small side for A-Class; it’s easily GA but a bit more borderline for anything higher IMO. On the other hand I can’t imagine you’ve left too much out, since there probably isn't a helluva lot to describe, and as an account of an action that was probably relatively routine apart from the significance of being the last of its kind in the war, it’s well done.
Yes, given that this was a fairly brief and inconclusive battle, not much has been written about it (and I've conducted a very extensive search for references in the ADFA Library). I'm not planning on taking this to a FAC unless I can find a more detailed source.
I'm happy that the article's got a bit more fat on it than when I first reviewed; had a quick look at the changes and no prose issues leapt out -- well done working Black Friday into it too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, structure, prose, referencing and supporting materials look fine. A few specific things (I actually read and made notes on this a few days ago but am only just now adding them here, apologies if anything's been overtaken by recent edits)...
Battle:
Any more info on that first air attack, like any hits sustained by the Germans?
No damage to the ships or the composition of the attack force is recorded in any of the sources. On the basis of my Black Friday (1945)-associated reading, I'd guess that the destroyers were attacked by one of the small forces of aircraft which patrolled the Norwegian coast as these sources explicitly say that there were almost no major anti-shipping operations during January 1945 and this wasn't one of the attacks were were identified.
”Z31 suffered heavy damage early in the battle” – maybe “extensive damage”, since you use “heavy” casualties soon after.
Fixed
”She was struck by seven 6 in (150 mm) shells which caused her to catch fire, damaged her hydrophone compartment and torpedo transmitting stations, and destroyed her forward gun turret” -- Forgive the pedantry but "which" should generally be preceded by a comma, and "that" used otherwise; either would work here, I think.
Pedantry is good - fixed
”This led to a running battle in which Mauritius sustained a hit which did not cause any casualties and Diadem was struck by a shell six minutes later which killed one man and wounded three” – Again, should use “that” for the second and third “which”s (you already have “in which” earlier, anyway).
Fixed
Aftermath:
” During the early morning of 28 January” – Is "during” useful here? How about “Early in the morning of 28 January”?
That's an improvement
Reckon “dissatisfied” reads a bit better than “unsatisfied”.
Fixed
I think BritEng takes double “l” in “labeled”.
I think that that sentence sucked, and have just tweaked it (since when does the head of the wartime RN 'label' things? What was I thinking?)
References:
I think in WP terms “Notes” or “Citations” work better here than “Footnotes”, but not a showstopper.
The place where the computers which were used to aim the torpedoes was located: [102] - this was the name of the station, and I can't see anything sensible to link to
Then create an entry in the glossary of nautical terms, so people will know what you're talking about
Done (I didn't even know that that article existed!)
FYI, knots are automatically converted by the template into miles and kilometers; you needn't specify them
OK, thanks for that. The convert template is getting rather complex...
This is just me, but I really don't see any point in abbreviating short units like miles, etc.
Tweaked
Whitley, German Destroyers of WW Two, says that the cruisers opened fire at about 20,000 meters, or 12.5 miles. He's got some info on where the cruisers were hit, but otherwise matches your account. He also says that the destroyers were attacked west of Sognefjord by the aircraft on 27 Jan.
Could you please add this in? (I can access this book, but it's in a library about a 20 minutes drive away)
Done, but check to ensure that I haven't messed up any of your other cites. I don't think that the difference in opening range is all that important, but it's on the same page if you want to add a note or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Given that the range between the ships when they spotted each other is in the article, I'll leave the opening range out.
Cunningham book need place of publication.
Done
I've added state names and hyphens to standardize the bibliography.
What makes naval-history.net reliable? It's a great site, but without sources I'm not sure that we should consider it reliable for anything above GA.
It checked out against the other sources I consulted, but I've replaced it with a book
I'd have no reservations about sending this to FAC, even as short as it is. It's comprehensive and well-written; all that matters. Regarding sourcing, my only reservation would be consulting any relevant RN Staff Histories. I haven't really looked for them, but several have been published within the last decade or so. Have you looked for any ship or class histories on the cruisers that might give more info? Ammunition expenditures are always nice to give if they can be found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though only Cruisers in Action, 1939–1945 had anything on the battle which added detail to O'Hara's The German Fleet at War and the British official history. I couldn't find any RN staff histories on this period, though I'd probably be on the wrong side of the world from hard copies on them if they do exist ;) Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure where you are, but there are some copies in Sydney, according to Worldcat. But nothing that likely pertains to this action unless there's a mention tucked away in the volume on the Arctic convoys.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this one: The Royal Navy and the Arctic Convoys : a Naval staff history, although I don't recall if this is one of those in Sydney. At any rate, I've ordered for my own purposes and it should arrive in a couple of weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, excellent. The ADFA Library here in Canberra also has a copy, though it will be a week or two until I can get over there. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get in a request to place this battle in the context of later battles. Looking quickly through various lists and Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II, I don't see any later naval actions involving Germany. If this was the last action of the war of a certain type for Germany, that's worth mentioning in the lead, I think, and it will help to convince FAC reviewers that this is an important subject. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the first para, it was the last of many battles fought off Norway. I've also just added that it was the second last surface battle fought by the Kriegsmarine. I wouldn't say that this was a particularly important battle though - it's notable and interesting, just very significant. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if the Germans (almost) never tried fighting another sea action after this one, that constitutes significance, and maybe we can find someone who'll say that. What was the last sea battle? - Dank (push to talk)
I'm just taking a guess here, but if this goes to FAC, since it's so short, reviewers will be asking above all for context. So: after this, Russia, Germany, Britain and the US never again decided to fight a surface naval battle in the European campaign (except for a minor action involving mine-laying in the Mediterranean). I think you might be asked why this was so at FAC; why did Germany make a run for it this time, why did Britain attack, and why didn't they ever do the same after this battle? What changed? And I don't think this is such a bad question for A-class, either ... although if you give it a try and come up empty, I won't oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those questions are mainly already answered in the article, I think. The German force was sailing from Norway to the Baltic in response to the deteriorating situation there. The British found out about this from signals intelligence and dispatched all easily available warships to intercept the Germans. It seems that only one German destroyer was left in northern Norway after the 4th Destroyer Flotilla sailed, and it left a few days later and was attacked by Allied aircraft. As for the lack of further battles: the Allies didn't "decide" not to fight the German surface fleet: by this time the surviving remnants of the surface fleet were either supporting the German forces in the eastern Baltic or tied up due to shortages of fuel and/or damage. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Failed an earlier A-class review but now expanded and renominated. I hope that this article will help people understand the topic and not get more confused. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I passed this as GA a while back and supported in its previous ACR but a fair bit has changed since then -- perhaps not quite all for the better, though I realise Hawkeye has made many of those changes in response to other reviewers' comments...
I'm not about to argue the point about it (not) being a single strategy but, if not, I'd kind of expect the phrase to be in inverted commas (the strategy you have when you're not having a strategy).
A Clayton's strategy? I've removed the bit about it not being a single strategy, so now it becomes a strategy that encompasses a series of plans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Clayton's strategy indeed -- heh, almost makes one feel sorry for the non-Australians out there who don't have that frame of reference... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a single strategy also seems to count against it being a "grand" strategy, as in the infobox, though I admit to not being that familiar with the definition of "grand stategy". In any case, nowhere in the article is it cited as such.
I know it's not by any means unique to this article and has probably been discussed elsewhere but this practice of saying "British Royal Navy" is a bit cringe-worthy. It'd be understandable if "Royal Navy" was a more obscure term and not linked but that's not the case (I could just about handle "Britain's Royal Navy" as a variation, if one insists, for some reason it sounds a trifle less superfluous). I note that, thankfully, "British Royal Air Force" isn't being used (yet), nor is "German Kriegsmarine"... ;-)
The strategy was presented to the Dominions at the 1923 Imperial Conference -- I wonder at this point whether, in your research, you've found when it was first called the "Singapore strategy" (with or without quotes)...
I had not even thought of that. I will re-check the sources from the 1930s. There was a 1942 book entitled "Strategy at Singapore". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you must get sick of us saying it but watch for overlinking: you've done Churchill, for instance, at least three times in the body of the article.
In 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies replaced the heads of the Army and RAAF with British officers -- I think you'll find that Burnett became CAS in February 1940 (though the negotiations were complete by late 1939).
After these nitpicks, I have to say that the additional illustrations are excellent, and the prose is also looking good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If only the plan itself had been that impressive, eh? Anyway, I'm happy with all the changes -- well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a comprehensive article that meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions for further improvement though:
I think that I've seen maps showing the location of Singapore and Hong Kong in relation to the main trade routes of the British Empire (and Japan?), and such a map would add a lot of value to the article by illustrating Singapore's strategic position.
I've seen them too, but I don't have one here. I found a map of the British empire, but am still trying to decide if it improves the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit odd that only the British 18th Division and Australian 8th Division are identified as having been captured at Singapore when Indian units made up a large share of the defenders.
A British editor added the 18th Division, probably to show that Britain did not abandon Singapore. I then added the 8th Division. Expanded the casualties list, so it is now clear that Asian troops made up the majority of the force. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of scope to expand the aftermath section to discuss the long-term results of the failure of the Singapore Strategy.
Topics such as the influence it had on the concept of Imperial defence, the political fall out at the time and afterwards seem worth covering (even in the negative). Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideally, this fleet would be able to intercept and defeat a Japanese force heading south towards India or Australia. Such a fleet required a well-equipped base and Singapore was chosen as the most suitable location in 1919. Work would continue on a naval base and its defences over the next two decades. ... The Singapore strategy envisaged that a war with Japan would have three phases:": My preference would be to reword either the first or second "would". The first and third ones mean "was supposed to", which might made the reader stumble on the second one, which is the future-in-past tense. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.": Just to be clear, my reading of WP:LQ is that this is fine if the period/full stop is in the source. Some FAQ reviewers disagree, saying that LQ requires the period to follow the quote marks since "its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary". Your call.
The full stop is in the original. My Australian style guide (which quotes Churchill as an example) says: If any part of the printed sentence or sentences contains matter not quoted, then the final stop should be placed outside the closing quotation mark. So outside it goes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. The lead and the first section weren't bad, but they were a bit of a slog. Hopefully I'll have more time to copyedit this tomorrow, and if someone else wants to beat me to it, be my guest. It may be helpful to check my edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It called for Australia's first line of defence to be a strong air arm, supported by developing the munitions industry in order to allow the Army to be quickly expanded.": I'm not sure what you're saying.
Re-worded to It called for Australia's first line of defence to be a powerful air arm, supported by a well-equipped Army that could be rapidly expanded to meet an invasion threat. This, in turn, required a strong munitions industry.Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"With a battleship of the day costing ...": I can't tell whether this is the position of Fullam, the Labor party, the army, or all of the above.
Okay, everything looks good, except I'm not sure I understand what the last four sentences mean, and the last one is a quote, so it needs attribution. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can close this due to my earlier review/support, but I would like to list it for closure on the Coord talk page. How is it? The closing quote is cited, it just looks to me like the preceding statement (In view of the diminished resources of the British Empire, the Singapore strategy became increasingly unrealistic) should end with a colon rather than a full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, the last paragraph starts off attributing Richmond, but the last sentence (a quote) is cited to Callahan, so I'm not sure who said it. Per WP:MOS#Attribution and Chicago (somewhere in chapter 13), quotations of this length should be attributed in the text, not just cited or even just attributed in a footnote. Also, I'm not sure what the last 4 sentences are saying. I don't like to jump on wording that I don't quite understand, but there's enough of it in a short span here that I'm losing the meaning:
"employment of what was available was frequently poor": I get no mental image from that.
"As for the Singapore strategy itself,": I think I get what you're saying, you were talking about the weakness of the fleet, and now you want to say that the strategy wouldn't have worked even with a strong fleet. But some readers will stumble and think: were we not talking about the Singapore strategy already? And ... although you're saying you're now going to discuss the strategy itself, you don't, really.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. Frederick Scherger went through ACR/FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest. Among my earliest articles on senior RAAF commanders, John McCauley, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch have been B/GA-Class till recently (all are GA now), so I decided to expand and improve them in tandem, given the additional sources that have come my way since I created them. It therefore seemed appropriate to put them up for ACR at the same time and, given their similarities, you might like to review them in tandem as well... ;-)
Seriously, it shouldn’t be too bad: after Duntroon, they all joined the RAAF before World War II, saw action during the war, and went on to higher command and eventually the top of the Air Force in the 1950s and 60s. McCauley’s and Hancock’s tours as Chief were separated by Fred Scherger. Comparing those three, McCauley could be seen as the most reserved and cerebral, Scherg as the most dynamic and forthright, and Hancock somewhere between those two poles. Murdoch was the last of the quartet and somewhat the odd one out, not graduating from Duntroon as an Army officer and then volunteering for the RAAF like the others, but entering the college under an RAAF cadet scheme and transferring services before graduation due to economic cutbacks. Plus his legacy is generally considered a negative one for the Air Force, blamed as he is for the service losing its control of battlefield helicopters to the Army in the 1980s. His predecessors are remembered more positively, McCauley for focussing on Australia’s northern defences, Scherg for carrying that a step further by initiating a string of ‘bare bases’ up north and also for ordering the Mirage fighter, and Hancock for picking the fledgling F-111 as the top bomber of its era. Anyway, enough of the intro – thanks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
he had instead been earmarked for the artillary Spelling error here.
Oops, tks.
Was Hancock responsible for the purchase of the Hercs and Cariboux?
The Herc was recommended by Murdoch and endorsed by McCauley (as CAS) in 1954, and the order pushed through by Scherg when he was CAS around 1957-58 (the first arrived in 1959). Oddly, my sources seem relatively silent on just who advocated/ordered the Caribou, though it could well have been Hancock since it arrived 3 years after he became CAS.
Heh, that's another reason these reviews are so valuable -- out of the curiosity you piqued with your question, I re-checked Stephens and lo, there was a reference I'd missed. It was indeed, one way or another, Hancock who ordered it, but not without some shoving... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it the case that Duntroon (and later Point Cook) graduates were favoured for high command? Or was this just coincidence?
They were favoured for staff positions (to their annoyance in some cases) and having those positions on their CVs seems to have been a factor in selection for higher command. It's something I was going to go into in my "Former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF" article, if I ever get round to finishing it... ;-)
I am surprised that Hancock published an autobiography, but you have not used it.
Well I did the same thing with George Jones and Richard Williams in their A/FA articles and it seemed to be accepted. My rationale in these cases is that there's enough data for a good summary of their lives without their autobiographies and, while they'd no doubt be great stuff there, I'd be in danger of overbalancing the article with personal comments/perspectives. The other thing is that in all these cases their works have been extensively used as sources in more general works that I have relied on, e.g. Coulthard-Clark and Stephens, so they're not ignored.
I always mention where someone's papers are, if they are in an archive.
I have to admit I tend to bypass papers unless they're digitised but happy to take a look at NAA for his. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the same comments for Murdoch apply here: my mention of POSTNOM, the sandwhiching of the text between the infobox and the image
Any idea what the OBE was for?
Thanks HJ, you'll certainly see it at FAC I hope! Addressed postnom thing under Murdoch ACR, same with image (only thing I could do is make it smaller but then you see very little detail); neither Gazette not Aust War Memorial honours search say why for the OBE I'm afraid; re. "Val", we discussed on the William Brill article and parentheses is more consistent with similar articles I've been involved in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - again only a few minor points:
"after completing of his term as CAS", could this be reworded more simply as "after completing his term as CAS"?
overlink of Lang Hancock (linked in Early career and again in Later life sections).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. Frederick Scherger went through ACR/FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest. Among my earliest articles on senior RAAF commanders, John McCauley, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch have been B/GA-Class till recently (all are GA now), so I decided to expand and improve them in tandem, given the additional sources that have come my way since I created them. It therefore seemed appropriate to put them up for ACR at the same time and, given their similarities, you might like to review them in tandem as well... ;-)
Seriously, it shouldn’t be too bad: after Duntroon, they all joined the RAAF before World War II, saw action during the war, and went on to higher command and eventually the top of the Air Force in the 1950s and 60s. McCauley’s and Hancock’s tours as Chief were separated by Fred Scherger. Comparing those three, McCauley could be seen as the most reserved and cerebral, Scherg as the most dynamic and forthright, and Hancock somewhere between those two poles. Murdoch was the last of the quartet and somewhat the odd one out, not graduating from Duntroon as an Army officer and then volunteering for the RAAF like the others, but entering the college under an RAAF cadet scheme and transferring services before graduation due to economic cutbacks. Plus his legacy is generally considered a negative one for the Air Force, blamed as he is for the service losing its control of battlefield helicopters to the Army in the 1980s. His predecessors are remembered more positively, McCauley for focussing on Australia’s northern defences, Scherg for carrying that a step further by initiating a string of ‘bare bases’ up north and also for ordering the Mirage fighter, and Hancock for picking the fledgling F-111 as the top bomber of its era. Anyway, enough of the intro – thanks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Do RAAF officers have service numbers?
Yes.
McCauley's experience kept him in Australia on training assignments Which experience?
Basically his seniority and training qualification -- will reword a bit.
McCauley was in charge of RAAF units under Britain's Far East Air Force. As station commander at RAF Sembawang in north-east Singapore from August 1941 So he was not in change of RAF units?
None of my sources say he led the RAF flying units, they just mention RAAF units and the base as a whole.
The British had actively sought him for this particular appointment based upon his work in Malaya? (I note that he served for six months in a top job in NW Europe and all he gets for it is the France and Germany Star)
Only one source aludes to why, stating the RAF sought both McCauley and Frank Bladin after they'd "demonstrated outstanding command capabilities" -- thought it was a bit vague to highlight but I could if you think it's worthwhile.
Add "Occupation of Japan" to the infobox
Tks, will do.
How could he have been CoS to Northcott, when Northcott returned to Australia in June 1946?
Good catch! Checking the source again, it was actually Red Robbie by then, eh...?
Support This is a comprehensive and well written article which I think meets the criteria. I do have a few suggestions for how it could be further improved though:
"he personally supervised the training and operations of Nos. 1 and 8 Squadrons, flying Lockheed Hudson light bombers, and warned higher command of the weaknesses of the Allied air defences" - this is a bit awkward as it covers two quite different topics. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences (and expanding the material on his warning/s if possible)
I'll see what I can do.
How did McCauley escape from Palembang?
Nobody goes into detail except Gillison mentioning that they "marched out" of P.2 and were picked up by "motor vehicles" a few miles later; nothing about whether they returned to Australia by air or by sea.
Do we know why the British wanted McCauley for what seems like a key position in 2TAF in Europe? This doesn't seem obvious from his previous service record.
See response to Hawkeye.
"McCauley commenced the redevelopment of RAAF Base Darwin" - 'ordered the redevelopment' perhaps - the current wording implies that he was personally in charge (also, would it be appropriate to link to No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron RAAF here? - I'd say yes, but I'm probably a bit too close to that article!) Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, will reword. As to 5ACS, I suppose I could work them in there -- knowing full well that your next suggestion will be to mention them in connection with RAAF Learmonth in the Hancock article... ;-) Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the info box you list one of McCauley's units as this: "2nd TAF RAF (1945–45)" should this be 1944–45 instead?
I think the grammar here might be slightly off: "the final arrangements for demolition of equipment and departure of staff", should this be "the final arrangements for the demolition of equipment and departure of staff"?
Maybe a word missing here: "as a labour force on Sumatra, arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia" should this be "as a labour force on Sumatra, instead arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia."
I know this is a quote but is there a typo here: "no RAAF officer of sufficient age, or operation experience, to take", specifically should it be "operational experience"?
Thanks again for reviewing and for finding those things -- oddly enough, "operation experience" is the exact rendering of the quote in one source, which is why I'd left it, but not in the one I ended up using now I look at it again, so I can safely change it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking good. I've just found one thing that perhaps needs expanding; WW2 section mentions Sembawang was "the busiest airfield on Singapore island", with two Dutch Glenn Martin bomber squadrons ..., is it known which type of Glen Martin aircraft they were flying? There were several types of Glen aircraft operational at the time. NtheP (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has reached GA status and I would like confirmation that the content is A quality Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two off-duty soldiers killed by the IRA - nothing other than this as far as I can see - that link was added by another user. I'm open as to the usefulness Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
The IRA Army Council sanctioned offensive operations against British soldiers at the beginning of 1971 - was it just soldiers/army or all British forces.
Most articles seem to abbreviate to IRA, although I'm aware PIRA is widely used. I've seen edit warring to remove instances PIRA from other articles in the past and Provisional IRA is very clear especially when we have OIRA referenced in the article Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This led to the first British soldier, Robert Curtis, being shot and killed by the Provisional IRA on 6 February 1971. Two other soldiers were to be killed before this incident. - This is confusing so Curtis was the third soldier killed or were the other two killed after Curtis?
The three privates were serving with the 1st Battalion, The Royal Highland Fusiliers - or the three soldiers were privates serving with the 1st Battalion, The Royal Highland Fusiliers.
Its associated with the University of Ulster so is an academic source as far as I can see - I've added an extra source for the Falls Curfew sentence for coroboration. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The location the books were published needs adding and a separate bibliography section can be added
Check my edits please; in some, I took a guess and changed the meaning slightly.
"considered safe for soldiers": considered by whom?
I changed this to "safer areas of the city for soldiers"; revert that if it's wrong. If it was just someone's opinion, that opinion needs to be attributed to them in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"drumhead": the link explains what a drumhead is, but not what the word means in this context.
I've unlinked - the meaning is 'Drumhead Service' i.e. regimental drums and colours stacked to create an altar for a religious service. There is no appropriate link for this as far as I can see Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. After you have a chance to work on these, I'll be able to support it for A-class. FWIW, I don't think this would do well at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would ultimately like to take the article to FA review. It has passed at Good Article status, but could do with some further attention from the community before going up to the next level. York Castle is a famous site, and the castle has a long history. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Watch for terminal periods in the citations "McLynn, pp.120–1" they're your style, so make sure you're consistent.
Double check for p/pp being correct, "Cooper, p.196, 200."
Check your web citations for authors, publishers, last updated, works contained in greater works etc...
Standard inflation grumbles, use your own judgement and refer to MILHIST project talk, you seem to be well aware of the issues though. You can improve the MeasuringWorth citation with author, correct title, etc. Their website indicates how to cite.
Comment. I've asked over at WT:MHC#ACRs for closure if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments:
according to the tools there is one dab link, but I don't believe that this can be fixed (no action required);
ext links work (no action required);
you might consider adding alt text, but it is not a requirement: [103]
in the 13th and 14th centuries section, "the southeastern lobe cracked" (I think this should be "south-eastern", but I might be wrong - I'm using the Macquarie dictionary which is Australian English, so please check a British English dictionary);
in the 17th century section, "Meanwhile, the garrison and the castle had became extremely unpopular" ("became" should be "become", or "had" should be removed);
in the 18th century seciton, "built between 1701–5 by William Wakefield" (probably should just be "built between 1701 and 1705 by William Wakefield");
in the 19th and 20th centuries section, I think there is a typo here: "causing a reccurence of the 14th century subsidence" ("reccurence" should be "recurrence");
in the References, # 37 there is an out of place full stop here: "Brown, p.86.;" (after 86, should just be a semi colon);
Good to know it's working, be sure to tell me if it's not. - Dank (push to talk)
"The work was carried out between 1245–70, and included the construction of a towered curtain wall; three gatehouses, one of considerable size with two large towers; a smaller watergate and a small gateway into the city; a chapel; and a new stone keep, first known as the King's, later Clifford's, Tower.": I changed it to: "The work was carried out between 1245 and 1270, and included the construction of a towered curtain wall, a gatehouse of considerable size with two large towers, two smaller gatehouses, a small watergate, a small gateway into the city, a chapel, and a new stone keep, first known as the King's, later Clifford's, Tower." It may require some poking and prodding, but generally, make the attempt to use commas rather than semicolons in a series, as long as it doesn't impede clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"by reducing dead ground visible from the summit of the keep.": Does this mean "by making more ground visible from the summit of the keep."? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The King's Pool that formed part of the castle's water defences was drained and built on.": Doesn't quite work, since you can't build on something that's not there. Do you know what was built on the site? - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"installed concrete underpinnings to compensate and stabilise the structure beneath the gatehouse.": nonparallel. One easy fix if you like would be to remove "compensate and". - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a "security situation" is. "Situation" is often taken in good writing as a flag that the writer didn't know what they wanted to say; best to avoid it if you can. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have undone this edit as although it is a small change it changed the meaning of the sentence. In the sentence "The prison ... was built entirely of stone in order to be both secure and fireproof." it is the keep that is secure and fireproof by virtue of being stone. The change to "The prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of highly secure and fireproof stone." meant that the stone was fireproof and secure but not necessarily the keep itself. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but some FAC reviewers will object to that "in order to" ... and leaving aside the contentious arguments about it at FAC, it is true that more often than not, when I see "in order to", it's a flag that the sentence would be better if it were shorter, for one reason or another. How about this? "Secure and fireproof, the prison ... was built entirely of stone." - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the sentence as it stands TBH, but at times my own writing can run on a bit so may not be the best judge. Perhaps it just needs splitting. Something like "To ensure it was fireproof and secure, the prison was built entirely of stone. It was considered the strongest building of its type in England"? But now it's been split, I like the way the tidbit about it being considered the strongest prison was integrated so it didn't sound like a random throw-away factoid. How about something like "To ensure it was bot fireproof and secure, the prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of stone"? Or, my preferred option, how about just ditching "in order" (and perhaps "such building")? Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like: "To ensure it was both fireproof and secure, the prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of stone" - it captures the sense of the original writers well, who were clearly impressed by the fireproof bit and by the general strength of the design! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've been sadly neglecting my responsibilities as as member of OMT to fulfill our goal of the largest featured topic in Wiki. I believe that it meets the criteria, but look forward to working with reviewers to improve the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more work. Let me give a few examples of where the coverage of the article could be improved. Who were the commanding officers? How was the crew made up in terms of numbers of people in different departments of the ship? How successful was the fire control? Note also that two of the books in the references list are by the same author, but the authors are listed differently N. J. M. Campbell and John Campbell, which is unhelpful. (The author used both ways of referring to himself - in Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, he used John Campbell on the cover and N. J. M. Campbellon the title page and on the page that contained publication data. I am not really sure why Sturmvogel 66 felt it necessary to change the edition being cited either, seemed like edit warring to me. --Toddy1 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's break this down in a format more convenient to respond to:
Commanding officers. That's a fair cop, gov, but only Reginald Hall is actually notable. So I've added a reference to him, but not to Cecil Prowse, who is not notable, AFAIK.
Crew composition. Not known, nor do I feel that it's particularly relevant for an article in Wiki.
Fire control. I think the fact that she made a number of hits, as noted in the article, speaks pretty much for her gunnery and fire control. That aside I don't think that any hit ratio can be derived for comparison purposes because nobody knows exactly how many rounds she fired before she blew up. The common estimate of 150 is just that.
Campbell. Lemme dig up a copy and I'll see how he's shown on the one that I have access to.
You're pretty quick to throw out an accusation of edit warring. I rolled your changes back because your disambiguation for the references were in a style that I particularly despise and find horribly redundant. However, you failed to note that all of your more substantial changes were added back in, after fixing their formatting to match my own, so your claim of edit warring is undeserved and unsubstantiated. As a point of information, you would do well to match the existing formatting for notes and such when adding information to articles that are substantially complete. It saves work on behalf of the primary editor if the article is going to go for ACR or FAC where such trivial things matter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you change the edition of Campbell's book on Jutland cited from the 1986 UK edition to the 1998 US edition for the reasons specified above:
Campbell, N. J. M. (1986). Jutland, an Analysis of the Fighting. London: Conway. ISBN0-85177-379-6.
Campbell, John (1998). Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN1-55821-759-2.
My belief is that it is useful to have a list of commanding officers in articles on ships if the information can be found.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the consensus is against lists of commanding officers, which I generally agree with. However, I'm less irritated by them if they can be worked into the text somehow if they're notable in their own right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel fairly sure that the crew does matter on a ship. So information on crewing arrangements is as useful and informative as information on the engines, or the gun mountings.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, most authors don't seem to agree with you, which makes it hard to cover, with the partial exception of ship biographies. And even then it has the potential of overwhelming the rest of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy, some wikiprojects are easygoing, and whatever you want to do is okay; SHIPS isn't one of those projects :) We've discussed how much to report about the crew quite a bit, and Sturm is following the consensus. Having said that, if you want to suggest a sentence to add about the crew, let's have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked over at WT:MHC#ACRs for closure if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments:
no dab links, ext links work;
images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only): [104]
"Lion class" should be "Lion-class" (infobox and General characteristics section) - per previous ACRs;
No, they're not compound adjectives. Just an ordinary adjective modifying the noun "class"
in the General characteristics section, both paragraphs begin the same way - could it be reworded slight for variation?
Done.
in the General charactersitics section, "to place her officer's quarters in" this should be "officers' quarters" (position of the apostrophe denotes plural);
Good catch
in the General characteristics section, it might be too much detail for the article (I'm a layman) but I'm curious - where did other battlecruisers place the officers' quarters if not where they were traditionally placed?
They were amidships, where the officers were closer to their duty positions.
"Rear-Admiral David Beatty" - I don't think the hyphen is correct;
some of the times seem to use "am" and "pm", but others don't - should this be consistent?
Am and pm are only used the first time they are needed.
in the Raid on Scarborough section, "Vice Admiral Sir George Warrender" and then "Admiral Warrender" - inconsistent, also you probably don't need to mention rank a second time;
Fixed.
in the Notes section, I think # 2 probably should have a citation;
Done.
in the Footnotes section, # 23 "Roberts, Battlecruisers. p. 123" seems to be formatted differently to the other citations;
Fixed.
in the Footnotes section, # 41 there is a slight inconsistency "Campbell (1998), p. 338" is different to the presentation used in Footnote # 9 "Campbell 1978, p. 33";
Fixed.
should the Portal be in the Bibliography? I seem to remember a comment at FAC that it should be in the first "endnotes" section - I might be wrong, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's supposed to be in the See also section if any.
It's your call, and its not a war stopper for me, but my understanding is that what was said at FAC was that it should be in the See also section, or if there is none, in the first endnotes section. For instance, look at at how it is done in SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC);[reply]
Sandy says that everyone at FAC (except SHIPS people) puts their portal links in the first end section if there's no See also section. Last time I looked, that's not in the style guidelines. This is something Sandy always keeps an eye on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the infobox it says that the ship was completed in August 1913, but in the prose it says "completed on 4 September 1913". Should this be changed? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation checker tool reveals a number of errors: "Roberts, p. 83" (Multiple references contain the same content), "Roberts, p. 123" (Multiple references contain the same content), "r3" (Multiple references are using the same name) and "b7" (Multiple references are using the same name).
The only significant one was the multiple use of Roberts, which has been corrected. There are no other redundant entries now.
"Queen Mary's first action was as part of the battlecruiser force under the command of Admiral Beatty". This should just be "Beatty" not "Admiral Beatty". Rank should not be used after the first mention per WP:SURNAME.
Done.
There seem to be some inconsistency with times, in some instances you use "7:00" in others "1:10 pm". The issue being having "am" and "pm" in some places but not others. Needs to be consistant per WP:MOSTIME. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm from reading above I can see this has already been raised. That said I'm not satisfied with the response. IMO this is inconsistent and needlessly confusing. Anotherclown (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd for one disagree about needlessly confusing as the context makes it perfectly clear after the first use if am or pm is being used. So to conform to the MOS and avoid needless typing and useless redundancy, I've switched everything over to military time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This apparently is the section Anotherclown had a problem with: "... 5:15 am and fought an inconclusive action with them. Vice Admiral Sir George Warrender, commanding the 2nd Battle Squadron, had received a signal at 5:40 that the destroyer Lynx was engaging enemy destroyers although Beatty had not. The destroyer Shark spotted the German armoured cruiser Roon and her escorts at about 7:00, but could not transmit the message until 7:25. ... message to Beatty at 7:36, but did not manage to make contact until 7:55." Is anyone else unclear about whether we're talking about morning or evening? Agreed that WP:MOSTIME is unclear, and I asked a question at WT:MOSNUM about that a couple of months ago. IIRC, no one had a problem with the format Sturm is (was) using here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also raised this issue in my comments (above). In my opinion it is not confusing if the reader is paying attention and reading the whole article, however, if a reader is quickly searching for a small bit of information about when something happened it may be confusing. That being said, I'm not one to buck consensus so I'm happy to accept it if it is a previously established convention. Nevertheless, the change to 24 hour time seems to resolve the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that you brought it up, Rupert. Okay, putting "am" after each isn't IMO an option, most readers would perceive it as needlessly repetitious. So would you two prefer 24-hour clocks in SHIPS articles where there are multiple times close together, or in all SHIPS articles? I have no preference. Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure really. Personally I'm not sure that it would be repetition to use "am" and "pm" for all times (for me it is a matter of clarity over repetition - for instance we always state what unit of measure we are using), and my reading of MOSTIME is that it does in fact ask for this. However, maybe I'm wrong and if the previous style (i.e only mentioning "am" or "pm" on first mention and when it changes) has consensus in the Ships project and if it hasn't been raised as an issue at FAC, I'd be against making a blanket request for change on the basis of this ACR. Sorry if that sounds like sitting on the fence. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with AR here. All I expect is consistency, mufti time or 24 hour time I don't really mind, but I don't see why we would be purposefully unclear, which IMO this seemed to be. That said if its accepted convention I'm prepared to move on. Although it leaves me scratching my head I certainly have no interest in taking it any further. Anotherclown (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it in my style guides at the moment; can I ask you to trust me on this one? "At 8:00 am this, at 8:15 am that, at 8:30 am the other" is more or less unknown in scholarly prose, although it would work as something list-y of course. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pleasure to copyedit your articles btw. I changed 'Run to the South' to "Run to the South" per WP:MOS#Quotation marks (I think) on the assumption this is headed to FAC ... if not, it's perfectly good BritEng like it is. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's nice to hear. I'd like to think that my writing's improved after all the work in the last year or two.
What's a cruising stage?
Added
I made the change to "BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns": unless someone has changed MOSNUM and MOS, we don't do conversions inside links, because the links serve as names, because people in metric countries often use inches to describe the guns, and because the conversion is easy enough to find on the other side of the link.
What's a superelevating prism? A PVI mount? Neither gets any ghits.
Link to optical prism and deleted all mount info as TMI.
Does "HA" mean "high altitude"? You only use it once, so even if "HA" is the usual designation, "high altitude" would probably be kinder to the reader. (Okay, looks like you changed it to "high angle".)
Ah, I see you're using navweaps.com. There's a saying I learned a long time ago in math grad school that may be completely apocryphal, because I can't pull up any relevant ghits: when there's a chasm between where you are and where you want to be, some mathematicians prefer to build delicate, tenuous bridges across; others fill in the chasm. The fill-in-the-chasm approach to the navweaps problem would be just to help DiGiulian get navweaps published. I expect there would be a readership, especially in these days of e-readers and tablets and smartphones, and I'd be happy to copyedit. Is anyone from SHIPS in touch with him? - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be much of a market for a book as you propose. I'll have to swap out all the Navweaps.com refs before I sent it to FAC unless I want to fill in the chasm with an essay justifying it as a highly-reliable source.
"Her after torpedo director": I changed it to "aft". It's not uncommon, and less like to confuse the casual reader. I see you also choose "aft" more often than not as the adjective form.
I concur.
"Rear Admiral David Beatty": Rear Admiral Sir David Beatty, maybe? Was he knighted at this point?
He wasn't knighted for almost another year.
"almost immediately": usually doesn't mean anything, and I usually delete the phrase. If it happened "immediately", that's worth mentioning.
"she had been hit twice earlier by Seydlitz": Per WP:MHCL#chronology, it would be better to move this back to approximately the point in the narrative when it happened.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following on from John Balmer, this article focusses on his successor as commanding officer of No. 467 Squadron RAAF, a guy who managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe and, unlike Balmer, survive the conflict and play a part in the post-war RAAF. The article has recently passed a GA review. As far as a possible FAC goes, it's a bit shorter than most I've nominated but on the other hand he had a relatively brief life and I don't think any significant area is missing coverage, so welcome comment on that too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Is there a reason you don't start with his rank? My personal inclination is to start with it, but I guess different writers have different styles
The rule of thumb is that only air officers, that is Air Commodores amd above, have the rank in the opening sentence.
I believe quote marks for nicknames are more common than parentheses, though MOS:BIO doesn't have any specific guidance on the issue
My practice has been to use parentheses for common short forms like Bill, Dick and so on, so I'd prefer to stick to that if it's not violating any rules.
Place of birth shouldn't generally be in the lead unless it's relevant to the subject's notability
Hmm, never heard of that, I almost always give the town or region of birth in articles. I think in this case it definitely reflects the weight given to him being a country boy in at least one of my main sources.
Could you explain what "militia" means in this context?
What Rupert says below -- I generally pipe to Australian Army Reserve but was lazy this time... ;-)
For a military man who died in harness I think his personal life is reasonably well covered compared to similar articles. I think about the only thing I can add is that he was a Freemason, and happy to do that... Thanks for reviewing! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments – looks pretty, just a couple of comments from me:
no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
I suggest changing the militia wikilink to point to Australian Army Reserve, as this will provide more context to what it means. I believe that it was actually the organisation's proper name between 1929/30 and 1948, so it should probably be capitalised as "Militia";
Wilco.
Even capitalized Militia probably needs an Australia(n) next to the first instances in the lead and prose; its certainly not as well know as TheRoyal Navy which gets a fair amount of complaints from editors in reviews. Or be consistent with the other articles in the series. Kirk (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the abbreviation "RAF" should be formally introduced on first mention of "Royal Air Force";
Fair enough.
this sounds a little awkward to me: "Brill dived the Lancaster and succeeded in blowing out the flames". Perhaps: "Brill put the Lancaster into a drive and succeeded in blowing out the flames";
I think I came to the wording I did because what you suggest (which I prefer) is pretty well the exact wording in the source, but will see what I can do...
No worries, sometimes there is only a few ways to actually say somethng before it becomes different altogether, so if you can't reword it without changing the meaning, I can live with it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
some of the citations end with full stops but others don't (e.g. compare # 6 and # 7). This should probably be consistent, but it is a very minor thing. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree they're not the same but the form is exacly what I always use w/o issues being raised. I think how it is would be acceptable for the same reason that image captions in one phrase or sentence are okay w/o full stops but if you have more than one sentence, you use them. In any case, thanks for taking the time to review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - another well written biography of a remarkable RAAF officer IMO. I've read this from top to bottom and only have one minor point:
" Brill, however, made his attack run at 1,500 feet..." I'm no expert on this area but would "bombing run" be more appropriate terminology than "attack run"? Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing, mate. I think I avoided "bombing run" 'cos there's so many instances of "bomb" (or variations) in there, but tweaked a bit to something different... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Dan. The only edit I'd take a bit of an exception to (though I get it) is the Lincoln Mk/Mark 30 thingy. The RAAF typically used "Mk" for "Mark", rather than the full word, so what I had was strictly correct. If you don't think it makes sense to the general reader then probably best we spell it out as simply "Mark 30" (not "Mk (Mark) 30") or I can just drop it entirely -- it's not vital. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to a link. If that works for you, let's do that consistently at the first appearance of "Mk" in an article ... there are a lot of readers (including some FAC reviewers) who won't get it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another German battleship graces the MILHIST A-class review (though not the last, to be sure). Friedrich der Grosse was the fleet flagship for the majority of World War I and saw extensive service during the conflict. Like most of the other capital ships of the German Imperial Navy, the vessel was scuttled at Scapa Flow after the war and later broken up for scrap. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure the article meets our criteria and to prepare the article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments;
My main concern is that "construction" section is too brief. I often find myself saying in warship A-class reviews that we need more information on the "why" as well as the "what" - and to be honest I think this is a bit of an issue for Kaiser class battleship as well. For instance, there we have a mention of the fact that the class were the first German battleships with turbines, but no discussion of why turbines were used; description of the armament but no discussion of why those calibres were chosen or what the role of the secondary armament was. I think this kind of thing is really quite important for top-notch articles.
I really don't like to have a lot of overlap between the class and ship articles (though I do agree that the class article could use some work - I wrote it before Staff's book, which has a great deal of this kind of information, was published. At some point, I'm going to go through the older articles and update them accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knoop and Schmolke go into a bigger discussion about fuel efficiency of the different power plants available at the time. The choice for turbines was not that obvious. I recommend reading it. Koop and Schmolke was published in 1999 (10 years before the article was written), but then again it is an unreliable German source... MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention that I am not the biggest fan of Osprey books. I own a number of them and they are a good supplement to the other literature I own but they tend to lack preciseness. Generally speaking, I get a condensed overview of what happened out of them. But for detail you have to look elsewhere. This is my personal opinion here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel quite reluctant to support an article at A-class which didn't have this material in it. If the reason for the absence of the material is that it duplicates the class article, then fair enough. But if this kind of thing is omitted entirely, we're not covering the subject well enough. The Land (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A deficiency in the class article shouldn't cause problems for this one - this type of information generally is not included in individual ship articles, unless they were unique vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In particular armour is scarcely mentioned in the "construction" section and so there is no context to the figures quoted in the infobox, which are maximums.
I would recommend comparing the price of 45,802,000 Marks to the annual salary of a metal worker at the time who earned 1,366 Marks annually. This would help me understand the order of magnitude this ship had cost. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Service history; an indication here that she became flagship upon commissioning would be good (it's in the lead but should probably be mentioned at this stage too).
The "Subsequent operations" heading looks slightly odd, preceding as it does "Operation Albion" - perhaps "Subsequent North Sea operations" would be clearer?
Comments You know the drill. - Dank (push to talk)
You know, in our last Imperial Navy battleship, I really liked Rumiton's reasoning on "His German Majesty's Ship", to avoid confusion with the British navy. Now I'm not seeing it; sure, I like "His German Majesty's Ship" if it's sitting by itself somewhere, but this is clearly a translation ... who's going to look at all that German, before and after, and confuse this with a British ship? And I think we're constrained that when we say or imply something is a translation, it should actually be a translation ... not necessarily literal, but at least a good translation. I haven't seen any sources yet that translate that phrase that way. So I'm going to leave "His Majesty's Ship" alone. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take a position, but some Brits have expressed the opinion that it's a bit disrespectful to mention people who have been knighted (Beatty) without putting "Sir" at the first occurrence.
Question My English is not that good but shouldn't "ammunition" be replataced with "munition"? According to the WP article on ammunition it states "The collective term for all types of ammunition is munitions." The sentence "The rest of the fleet entered Wilhelmshaven, where Friedrich der Grosse and the other ships still in fighting condition replenished their stocks of coal and ammunition", according to my interpretation, would make munition more suitable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either would probably work, but I think "munition" is too general for this context. "Munition" can mean bombs, rockets, and other projectiles, while ammunition generally refers only to gun-fired projectiles. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I understand that German terms, German sources, etc. are to be avoided as much as possible (this was made very clear to me), but please put yourselves in the shoes of a reader who is unfamiliar with this subject. I read the section on the "Battle of Jutland" three times now and I still have difficulties figuring out who the Germans were and who the British were. You use terms like "V Division, III Battle Squadron", "I Division, I Battle Squadron", "1st Battlecruiser Squadron", "I Scouting Group", "2nd Light Cruiser Squadron", "I Squadron ships". You have to be very familiar with the subject and only in context can you figure out who was who. Have a look at sentences like "At 17:30, König's crew spotted both the I Scouting Group and the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron approaching." I think in this context a linguistic twist would help me understand much better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your solution for Lindemann (of using a translation section) would work here. There I could translate the German unit names (III Geschwader, Hochseeflotte, etc.). I don't have much time at the moment, so this will have to wait until later today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another solution could be to use a general footnote at the beginning of the section to point out that German units are denoted with Roman numerals while British formations have Arabic numerals (this is fairly typical at least in English works). Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Staff says Skadenes, but it could be a typo on his part, or just a different spelling. I'm going to assume that it's the case (it's too close to be a coincidence). Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, and yes you have tried to explain this before so I'm not making a big deal of this because to the English speaking world it makes sense, nevertheless I still can't come to terms with the fact that you spell the same German word Groß, Großer once with the ß and then again with a double S. In way it is mixing British spelling and US spelling in one and the same article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The ship disposed with the inefficient hexagonal turret arrangement of previous German battleships; instead, three of the five turrets were mounted on the centerline, with two of them arranged in a superfiring pair aft." What was inefficient about the hexagonal turret arrangement and what made the new superfiring pair better?. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that should be in the class article (I'm not sure why I didn't explain this there). When I get around to reworking the older articles as I mentioned to The Land above, I'll rectify this. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info you may want to add even though they are from not reliable German sources :-)
christioned by Princess Alexandra Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, speach by Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz, source Knoop and Schmolke page 86 MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of 8.8 cm guns does not match data from Knoop and Schmolke page 81. nor data from Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 3 page 125. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Koop and Schmolke claim (page 81) that initially 8 x 8.8cm fast loading L/45 in MPL casemates were installed. During the war (no date mentioned) they were replaced with 4 x 8.8cm Flak L/45 in MPL C/13. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 3-shaft expansion engine as stated correctly were manufactured by AEG, the name of the firm was Franz Anton Egells Berlin at the time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I made an error, the engines were made by AEG Schichau. Knoop and Schmolke page 83 MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groner says 16 naval boilers with 30 fireboxes at 16 atmospheres, and four double-turbo generators and two diesel generators with a total output of 1800 kW at 225 V. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I took the data from the namesake Panzerschiff Friedrich der Große. SMS Friedrich der Große had 16 boilers (Marine-Wasserrohrkessel) with 28 coal fires, augmented with oil fires. Knoop and Schmolke page 83. This rendered a heating area of 5950 square meters at 16 atmospheres. The generators were two "Turbo generators" TurboDynamo and two diesel generators for 1,800kW. Knoop and Schmolke page 84.
British Admirality sold the ship for 750 GBP to Cox & Danks Ltd on 27 June 1934, towed to Rosvth by Zwarte Zee, Witte Zee and Indus on 31 July 1937. It arrived on 5 August scrapping started on 25 August MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knoop and Schmolke page 89; According to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, v. 3 page 147 the bell was handed over to the German Naval Attaché KsZ Kray in Faslane on 30 August 1965. The Scheer then took the bell to Wilhelmshaven where it was on display in the tradition room of the Ebkeriege naval barracks before it went to Glücksburg (building 6) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do but I'm not sure if you can use it, it is German: "Dörr, Manfred (1996). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte der Kriegsmarine—Band 2:L–Z (in German). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag. ISBN 3-7648-2497-2." MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention for Reichpietsch - Köbis served aboard SMS Prinzregent Luitpold and should be mentioned there. I question whether its important to note that Saalwächter served aboard the ship. You can take it for granted that every admiral served on a variety of ships in their career - with the exception of the really big names (like Raeder or Dönitz), it's noteworthy to mention the ships in their bios, but not vice versa (at least in my opinion). Parsecboy (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crew size according to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, v. 3 page 125 was 1,084. According to Knoop and Schmolke page 80, who detail this a bit more, 41 officers and 1,043 sailors, Friedrich der Große, as a fleet flag ship had a crew of 1,163 MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, according to Gröner, the standard crew was 41 officers and 1,043 enlisted (which agree with both), but state that as a squadron flagship, an additional 14 officers and 80 enlisted were added, which would be a total of 1,178 (he doesn't give figures for the fleet flagship). I find it odd that a squadron flagship would have a larger command staff than the fleet flagship. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent article in the series. Be careful translating high quality German sources which might be considered WP:OR by a FA reviewer and should be limited; the two Koop references in this one are kind of extreme minute details (the name of the ship which returned the bell? who attended the launching? really?) probably not in line with WP:Summary and I wouldn't have noticed if they were deleted. Also, I personally want to know why no one has translated Koop into English but that's isn't your problem! Kirk (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Why are certain items in the infobox bolded? Looks very odd.
Hmm, I think I found a link that I added to one of your FACs for one of the older BBs with that layout, but I'm having a brain cramp right now and nothing comes to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've sent MisterBee and The Land a message asking them to take another look. I just want to make sure that they are happy that their comments have been addressed. I'll look to close it in the next 36 hours or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's been no response, so I will close this now. As the article has three explicit supports and it appears that the remaining comments have been addressed, I have closed it as successful. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do not usually nominate American articles for A class review. Walter Bedell Smith was an American general who served as Eisenhower's chief of staff at SHAEF. I did not create the article but rewrote it in 2010 while updating articles on SHAEF personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Smith and Dykes worked in partnership to create and organize a secretariat and to build the Combined Chiefs of Staff organization.": I don't know what this means, and I'm thinking that the 4 related sentences could be reduced to 3.
"Its structure was generally American, but with some British aspects.": I don't know what this means.
"He acquired a reputation as a tough and brusque manager, and was often referred to as Eisenhower's "hatchet man". However, he was also capable of representing Eisenhower on missions requiring diplomatic skill.": It would be best not to duplicate the language from the lead.
It's safer at FAC (and also better per most style guides) to rewrite a little for sentences that have words or phrases that are emphasized, that the FAC reviewers might remember, such as "hatchet man". You can often copy unremarkable sentences from the lead with no problem. I'll do it if you like, although you probably know better how you want to rephrase. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best to say briefly what "Ultra" was.
We tried to express what we're looking for in the checklist (that is, add a quick description in addition to the link if the reader will have no idea what you're talking about). So that's the judgment call, and it could go either way, a lot of readers who would get this far in the article will have heard of Ultra ... but I'm guessing some people (including, notably, FAC reviewers :) won't know it, so I added "(British codebreaking)". But if that's a digression or insults the reader's intelligence, feel free to revert. People don't like to read things that make them feel like they're not smart enough to get it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"750 officers and 6,000 other ranks": help me with the slang here, guys ... I've seen "ranks" meaning non-officers in British ship articles. Is it also common in AmEng?
"The former was considered to be more successful.": by whom? (or, reword without "considered")
Will do. There was an inquiry. The whole segment is a bit overblown, but some editors misunderstood it, so I wanted to make it clear what Smith was saying. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, GeneraloberstAlfred Jodl and GeneraladmiralHans-Georg von Friedeburg.": English please. My preference for the German terms would be in either a note or on the other side of the links, but since the foreign terms in this article aren't oppressive, I wouldn't object if you want to put the German in parentheses after the English terms.
"Post-war" is an adjective (in AmEng, and I believe in any Eng), and it's not hyphenated in AmEng. Postwar years would work as a section title (if we're talking about just a few years); Postwar can't work since it's not an adverb. (I made the edit, I'm just mentioning this because it keeps coming up, in a variety of articles.)
I don't like after the war because that sounds to me like after the war ie the Great War. Is there an American term for "Public service"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Astonishingly, four months after the outbreak of war, the Agency had produced no coordinated estimate of the situation in Korea.": Why was it astonishing that a new Washington agency didn't do its job competently and quickly?
Kind of a pain to do this much work and not be able to support, but I agree with HJ that some of the prose is choppy, and it's hard to make out what some of it means. I can revisit this after people have had a chance to look it over and respond to HJ's and my concerns. I understand that a lot of this wasn't your writing, Hawkeye, and we're doing the best we can here. Here and here are my contributions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've checked the text, and everything I brought up is dealt with. I don't want to support or oppose until I see what you and Harry do with the prose flow; it could be better in places. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked over at WT:MHC#ACRs for closure if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have another look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you'd get the commas after "Fort Sheridan, Illinois", "Fort Benning, Georgia", and any other commas after a city-state pair starting at World War II. The ones I noticed were all linked, if that makes them easier to find.
Not yet. Oops, I said everything was dealt with but the comment I just moved to the end still hasn't been dealt with, maybe there was a reversion. I'm going through my final pass now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per choppy prose—some sentences are very short, others run on too long and the phrasing feel a bit formulaic. I'll give a few examples, but this isn't an exhaustive list
Just to clarify, "the director of the X" isn't capitalized, but proper names such as "Director of X" are always capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too many sentences start with a date and the sentence structure doesn't vary a lot throughout
Very choppy from second paragraph of WWI until the second paragraph under "Washington"—lots of short sentences, interspersed with longer (often too long) ones
Prose improves from here, but gets choppy again at the end of the "North African Theater" section and then again in the middle of the "European Theater" section
Closing coordinator's note: HJ has been without internet access since Hawkeye posted this acknowledgement and made changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Support - looks good, only minor comments from me:
"Smith was wounded by shell fragments in the attack two days later." Seems grammatically incorrect. This might work better slightly reworded as "Smith was wounded by shell fragments in an attack two days later.";
prose here seems a little off: "which was consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee." Maybe: "which consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee.";
Prose again here (and capitalisation) "Smith was empowered to draw up an Armistice between Italy and Allied armed forces", specifically "Armistice between Italy and Allied armed force". Maybe an "armistice between Italy and the Allied armed forces". The same language is used in the lead so you might consider changing it there too; and
I think the images are correctly licenced (no action required);
in the World War I section, this seems a bit awkward to me: "Smith was returned to the United States for service with the War Department General Staff for duty with the Military Intelligence Division" (repetition of the word "for");
in the World War II/Washington section, this sounds awkward to me: "Combined Chiefs of Staff, which was consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting as a single body." (Perhaps change to: "Combined Chiefs of Staff, which consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting as a single body";
in the North African section, this seems a bit abrupt: "One cause of the debacle at Kasserine was faulty intelligence at AFHQ, where over-reliance on Ultra codebreaking sources..." Perhaps it could be smoothed out by using a linking phrase or clause, for instance: "Eisenhower also relieved his Chief of Intelligence (G-2), Brigadier Eric Mockler-Ferryman, pinpointing faulty intelligence at AFHQ as a contributing factor in the defeat at Kasserine. In Mockler-Ferryman's place, Brigadier Kenneth Strong was appointed";
Done.
in the European Theater, I think these two sentences should be merged: "Heavy casualties since the start of Overlord resulted in a critical shortage of infantry replacements, and even before the crisis situation created by the Ardennes Offensive. Steps were taken to divert men from Communications Zone units." (The first sentence doesn't go anywhere);
in the References, "Smith 1956" is presented, but it doesn't appear to be specifically cited in the Notes section;
It is referred
Are you sure? I can see "Smith 1950" in the citations, but not "Smith 1956".
in the References, I think that the title "Eisenhower's six great decisions: Europe, 1944-1945" should be "Eisenhower's Six Great Decisions: Europe, 1944-1945" per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
in the References, watch out for overlinking, for instance "Westport, Connecticut", "Greenwood Press", "United States Army Center of Military History". At FAC they might have a problem with it;
I don't usually take the US articles to FAC, although I did for Leslie Groves. My FAC queue is so long it is unlikely to be sent there until 2012. if at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the citations appear to be linked using the {{harvnb}} template, however, currently they are not fully functional links. If you wish for the links to highlight the full reference in the Reference section when clicked upon, some more wikicode needs to be added to the References section. This follows the format: "| ref=CITEREFPogue1954" , or for multiple authors "| ref=CITEREFAncellMiller1996" . (This is not a requirement, just a suggestion.) AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:HJ Mitchell is having computer problems and is "unlikely to be able to get back to the ACR before the 28-day window is up". So User:Nick-D has kindly stepped in as the reviewer in place of HJ. If you have any questions, please ask Nick. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because at present all the historical information we have is on the page, but it might not be enough to pass FA, but enough for A-Class, from what I am told by more experienced editors. A biography is being released about the subject of the article sometime in "late 2011 or early 2012", so we would have more information then, information that would more than put the article into FA territory. With the information from news sources, the US Census, old newspapers and other information is the best we currently have. The article passed GA and I think it is A-Class quality, hence my request for review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers could probably be re-worked. "Life" is redundant, because we all live, and splitting them at C20 and C21 implies that the last 11 years are as important as the first 99
The opening of the Life during the twentieth century section consists of several very short sentences in a row; could do with smoothing, especially if you want to take it to FAC
What did his parents do? Was his father of fighting age during WWI?
Your guess is as good as mine. Of the information we have been able to find, is on the page. Buckles' early life is either a closely guarded secret or just long forgotten, cause I can't find anyhting in documents in Harrison County, Missouri (his birthplace), at the National Archives in Washington, DC, or at the Library of Congress about his parents. We actually had to rely on very old US Census documents to source his parents. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is why I like this guy. :) Finds something I searched all over God's country for, couldn't find. He finds it. Good editor right there. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
at the age of 16 years should be either "at the age of 16" or "at 16 years old".
I removed all by General of the Armies as it does work, but I changed it to an easier to find General of the Armies#World War I and John Pershing, as that links to John Pershing, who was General of the Armies at the time. I also added some clarification on the piping and put "commander of all United States Army forces" (emphasis mine, for this page only), as previous is looked like Pershing was in charge of the Navy, Marines and Army Air Corps too. (Note: The Army Air Corps wasn't part of the US Army, just shared the name.) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The prose in the latter part of the "Life during the twenty-first century" section is not great and it starts to read as "he did this. Then he did that. Then he did the other..."
Do the honours and awards need their own section? I would suggest amalgamating them with some stuff from the C20 section to form a section about his WWI service
I would, but a good portion of his awards and honors were given long after the guns of WWI had fallen silent....I mean LONG after. His first award came in 1941 from the US Army. Everything else was from 1999 and on, so it would literally qualify as "21st Century". - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reason I used Non-Free is because the images are already on Wikipedia and sourced (see the "Source" section under "Summary" for the complete list), I just created an image version of the ribbons so we didn't have to instead of a big table of code for them to be on. Just seems more easier to work with too. Non-free was to properly template what we already have. It is just a rough version of what User:Melesse did with File:InTheNews Barnstar.png. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be protective of the images and really wasn't sure how to template that, but feel free to template the image how you see fit. Since it is a work of three free images, you could make mine combination image a CC-BY-SA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most glaring problem atm is the references. You must have publishers, authors, page numbers, publication dates and retrieved on dates. See {{cite web}}. It would be nice to see this article on the main page as TFA on November 11 of this year. Don't know if that's possible. Brad (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Cite, retrieval dates are only recommended when publication dates are unknown. Most of the sources in this article are from newspapers, and for those sources WP:Cite recommends:
(1) name of the newspaper in italics
(2) date of publication
(3) byline (author's name), if any
(4) title of the article within quotation marks
(5) city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
In most of the refs (if not all), we have the newspaper or magazine, or website, the date it was published (in most cases, the retrieval date is within a week of each other on most), the author's name (though some newspapers don't give an author's name, just "Staff" or nothing at all) and the title of the story. We have done that with almost (again, if not all) refs. As AYW said, I think we did a pretty good job with the almost 100 refs on that page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if you want to take it beyond GA, and certainly if you have any hope of going to FAC, you'll need the publishers and access dates. I wouldn't worry about locations, because that's more hassle than it's worth and the information will be accessible by clicking through to the paper's article if it's notable. Also, you should format your dates consistently—why do you use mdy in the body and ymd in the references? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the YMD/MDY thing, that is kinda how I thought the references were supposed to look. Personally, I would rather have the references as MDY and the dates in the article as MDY, but I thought the refs were supposed to be in YMD version. I can change that. As for the access dates, I don't know them off the top of my head anymore, so I could just put down today's date en masse. The publishers are on each one, in some cases as the newspaper (which is the publisher) or news network, etc. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today's date is fine as long as the current version of the webpage backs up the material you're citing it for. As for publishers, just the title of the publication isn't enough—for example, you need to state that the NYT is published by The New York Times Company or the Daily Mail by Associated Newspapers. This is especially important for less well-known publications like the Nevada Daily Mail. The likes of CNN and Voice of America should be OK, because they're not newspapers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie, let me see what I can do. I will work on the dates as well. I just finished tracking down a couple sources that had gone 404. Gotta love CheckLinks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking. Many wikilinks are repeated; in some instances twice within one section. Link the first occurrence only. The exception to this rule is to not count the lead section. ie Arlington National Cemetery should only be linked twice in the entire article. This applies to the references as well; ie the first occurrence of The Washington Post and never again. Brad (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Finished both the delinking of the references and in the body of the article. Also, fixed the references to have the "work=" field as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done by any means. Just scanning the article I've seen The Pentagon and Pershing linked at least twice in the body of the article. The references are still a mess. ancestry.com and United States Census are linked multiple times. Wikilinks are supposed to help a reader learn more about a subject related to the article. Therefore linking to things like Speaker of the House and The White House is not helpful. The main subject of this article is about World War I events and persons related to it. Brad (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of wikilinks is to allow the reader to gain a better understanding of something, like Speaker of the House, they might not be familiar with but without clogging the article up with explanations. No non-American is going to understand something like Speaker of the House, so that's a valuable link. Repeated linking isn't really an issue in the references section—it's common even in featured articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Brad: Actually, I think the subject of the article is Frank Buckles, not World War I, he just served in that war. It has a place in the article, but isn't the subject of the article by any means.
@HJ: I agree, we need to link things like Speaker of the House and such, for those who are from other countries to better understand. Like if we were talking about a Brit, we would link to Speaker of the House of Commons. Just makes things more understandable for non-American readers, just like we would do for non-British readers and the like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is overlinked and I will not support its promotion to A-class until this issue is resolved. If you have plans for A-class and eventually FA, this is what needs to be done. Brad (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of taste, to some extent, but I think it might be slightly overlinked. The ones that stood out to me were:
driving ambulances - in a fairly heavily linked article, I'd be inclined to leave this one out.
Corporal, General of the Armies, Vice Chief of Staff and the other military ranks. Corporal is going to be widely understood by English-language readers, and the other ranks usually occurred alongside a specific example of someone famous for holding that rank (e.g. Pershing); I suspect that anyone who didn't know what the General of the Armies would probably click on Pershing to find out, without the rank being separately linked.
financial services - wasn't sure this added much.
"Japanese, and was also fluent in German, Spanish, Portuguese, and French" - I don't think you need to link each language, as they're common English words, but that's a personal opinion.
Amphitheater of Arlington National Cemetery - two links here, when one would probably do (the ampitheater one goes to an Arlington specific page anyway)
I just delinked "White House", because it was EGG'd to George W. Bush, because the source didn't mention Bush, and because just about every reader will know what the White House is, especially with the clues provided in the article. I'm not in favor of delinking "Speaker of the House"; I think a lot of readers outside the US won't know what that is. What other links are a problem, Brad?
It might be a good idea to figure out how many of our writers prefer to link things just once in the text (not counting the lead); WP:Linking says it's okay to link more than once, but a few reviewers at FAC are against it. Personally, when I'm skimming an article to check for links, I can remember whether something has already been linked; I generally can't remember how many times it was linked, so as a writer, it's easier for me to verify that I linked everything exactly once. I don't have a preference for how others handle it, and I generally don't review links. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just unwlinked some more stuff. Per WP:Overlink: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first...." So if something is wlinked in the first section, I think it's okay to wlink it a few sections later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked over at WT:MHC#ACRs for closure if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. (Although with this article, that might be a while.) If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, please edit when are ready, we can always use another pair of eyes and hands working on this article. The more the merrier. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm covering a lot of articles at A-class and FAC, it's easier for me if the article is in approximately the same state both places, so I like to do the A-class copyedit late and the FAC copyedit early, if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A minor point on Hitler, which happens a lot with coincidence. If Hitler had turned out differently, would anybody remember what Buckles had said? That is, wasn't it pure luck? It's being made out like he had some special foresight. (I'm also not sure how an encounter on the stairs is notable in itself.) TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about we did this: "In Berlin, Buckles had a chance encounter with Adolf Hitler, bumping into him on the steps of a hotel." It has a source and doesn't give the "warning" at the end. Kind of a one liner. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the warning is the only thing saving it. How many people had chance encounters with Hitler? Had he not turned out how he did, would we care? I'd want it to be more than passing him on the stairs, which this appears to be. Otherwise, do we mention when Joe Average passed a teenage Obama at the supermarket? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 14:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Watchlisted this pending outcome.)[reply]
You do have a point there. So, after rattlin' it around in my head, I removed the mention about him "bumping into Hitler". Please do let me know if you see anything else that needs tinkering. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of omitting Hitler, how about putting it in parentheses? Like this: "he listened as his German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and Buckles witnessed anti-semitism and its effects upon his Jewish friends firsthand while ashore in Germany; he warned acquaintances in Germany that their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler (whom he met by chance at a German hotel)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, except it comes back to "prediction": if Hitler hadn't become notorious, who'd care? Being lucky isn't notable in itself in this instance IMO. If Buckles was Winston, FDR, Hull, Dewey even, I'd say, leave it in, 'cause they were (or would be) in a position to make a difference (depending on when the encounter was...). Buckles doesn't rise above Joe Average. I'm looking at this like I would if somebody predicted Amelia Earhart would disappear. If she hadn't, who'd remember the prediction? If Lindbergh did, maybe they would, 'cause he'd have some grasp of the issues & of her capabilities (presuming he'd met her, which IDK offhand). Can I call it "undue weight"? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 18:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler was notorious when Buckles encountered him. As Buckles later recalled, Hitler was with his advisors, and Buckles was surprised that he was not more heavily guarded. Buckles was warning people that Hitler would bring down Germany. Anyway, the rest of that paragraph (aside from the parenthetical) seems okay, right? So I don't see that the very brief parenthetical does any harm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda have to agree. I got an email from Barack Obama before he was president and was named Time Person of the Year for 2006, but these aren't things that would get mentioned for a second if I would ever become famous as they were chance happenings. So, it really should be taken out I feel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hid the parenthetical for the time being. But note that Wehwalt wants to keep it.[106] Did Obama send you a mass mailing, or was it personally to you? Anyway, I think it's pretty amazing that Buckles met Hitler (not just received a message from him).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a mention of the meeting only you want to keep, I'd say keep it. (Meeting Hitler or meeting meeting Mick Jagger, famous is famous.) It's the added remark about the ruin that's bugging me. I don't see the connection between a casual contact & the prophesy, which Buckles doesn't seem specially-qualified to be making. As I said, if it was Winston or FDR, whose political judgement about Hitler I'd take as astute, it would be a different matter, nor do I see how Buckles' casual contact equals enough depth of understanding to make that call. Leaving that in is pure lucky guess. Does that sound pissy? I feel a bit like I'm complaining about nothing, & I confess, I'm not sure if this makes me sound like I'm on both sides of the issue. (Yes, I also have issues with being a fussy perfectionist. ;p ) TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't call it a lucky prophesy at all. Buckles had a deep knowledge of war (he and Hitler served on opposite sides in WWI). In the 1930s, Buckles spoke with German Army officers who said Germany was re-arming. His friendship with a Jewish antiques dealer was cut short when she came under Nazi surveillance. He observed Mein Kampf prominently displayed in everyone's homes. He attended the Olympics in 1936 and observed how the Nazis removed their antisemitic signs for that occasion, without any real change of the antisemitic attitude. He listened as passengers on his ship frequently cried about the rise of Hitler and the impending wars Hitler would cause. So, when Buckles warned German acquaintances in the 1930s that Hitler would bring down their country, Buckles was about as qualified as anyone on Earth to deliver that warning, IMO. True, his brief encounter with Hitler probably did not contribute very much to Buckles' understanding of the danger Hitler posed, but parenthetically mentioning that brief encounter doesn't seem to imply that that was the basis for Buckles' warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "While on board Carpathia, Buckles spoke with crew members who had taken part in the rescue of RMS Titanic survivors five years previously". Is it me or does that read as bloody obvious. Without apparently anything coming of the interaction, it reads like padding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a neat tidbit instead of saying "Buckles sailed on the Carpathia, which had rescued people from the Titanic years before, to Europe." That's just a sad, one line blurb. The other has a little something interesting for the reader to take away. We don't want reading Wikipedia to be drudgery and something boring, we want them to get these little tidbits they won't get anywhere else. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you'd need to establish a prior interest in Titanic, or rescue at see; otherwise, it seems like "passing the time on the way". Did he select Carpathia deliberately, so he could talk to crewmen? Or did he just take time to talk to them, because they didn't have Internet service? ;p TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 03:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that one. I am not sure if the Army put him on that transport ship (the Carpathia was being used to transport US Soldiers from the States to England as part of WWI) or he got on it himself, I really can't tell you. That, I don't believe, is given in the references, just said he was on the ship. I will look though, so stand by. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I was able to find was this: "He shipped off to England in December 1917 on the RMS Carpathia, the ocean liner that had rescued survivors of the Titanic in 1912." That's it. That's all the reference says. :( So...yeah, that is just "passing the time". I had heard he was interested in talking with the crew, but I can't find a direct source and still, if he wasn't on that ship, it would be a non-story. So, remove it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part about him talking to the crew, but left "Later that year, he embarked for Europe aboard the RMS Carpathia, which was being used as a troop ship." as it kinda leads the paragraph, how he got to Europe, etc. Think that is OK or should the whole thing go? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think mention of the ship he went across on is in-bounds. IDK if a parenthetical mention of her in connection to the Titanic rescue is OK (it seems a trifle OT), but I'd add a fn, myself. (Some on WP frown on those for info, like this, tho... :/) TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 07:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
What's the relevance of McKinley being president at the time of Buckles birth? We already know that he lived a long time from the lead, and this seems unnecessary unless there was some kind of direct connection.
Good point. Removed. - NH
The paragraph on Buckles' ancestry ("In 1702, the first American ancestor named Buckles..." seems unnecessary - everyone has families. The military service of his ancestors appears unremarkable - pretty much all young men would have participated in those wars.
I think we were trying to tie together his ancestors to him being a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Also, we were giving the tidbit about his family moving to Charles Town, WV, because that is where he moved (and even said he moved for that reason) in 1954. - NH
Was it unusual for men of his generation to be members of these organisations? If not, I'm not sure what the special relevance is (and if he was a member of these organisations, it's self-evident that his ancestors had fought in these wars). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For someone of his age, yes. For his generation, no. In this area (I live south of Charles Town in Virginia), there are still plenty of young members of both groups. - NH
The sentence which begins with "As the interwar period began... " is covers a lot of ground and should be split into two sentences
Split. - NH
How did Buckles manage to get captured in Manila on 8 December 1941? - this was the first day of the Pacific War on that side of the date line, and the Japanese didn't capture the city until January 1942
I can't answer this one. This information was taken from a Library of Congress interview with him in December 2001. - NH
With respect to Buckles, the statement that "On December 8th, just one day after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese invasion took control of Manila." which is attributed to him in the vva688 newsletter is simply wrong. I'd suggest not using this as a source for anything - we normally don't consider autobiographical material to be a good source of information, and material written by a 108 year old or one of his carers seems particularly unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was changed previously as I don't see it on my end. - NH
It was there when I checked a while ago. The claim that Buckles was captured in Manila on 8 December 1941 and use of this source are the only things stopping me from supporting this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected this mistake that I made. Buckles never claimed he was captured on December 8. He said in the Library of Congress interview that the Japanese attacked on that date, which is true. They bombed Manila on December 8. Then MacArthur declared Manila an "open city" just as Buckles said, but that did not really make the city or its residents safe. Buckles said he was captured 3 years and 2 months before his release on February 23, 1945. That's about right. He was captured when the Japanese occupied the city at the beginning of January, 1942. I'm sorry about this error I made. It was mine, not the subject's. I've added a further footnote, which says he was captured in January 1942. With regard to the Vietnam Veterans newsletter, that source is not now used for his date of capture. In that newsletter, he said: "On December 8th, just one day after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese invasion took control of Manila." That's an oversimplification, in that the invasion began on that date but was not completed for a few weeks. Anyway, we're not using the Vietnam source now, except for a direct quote from Buckles that is verified in a reliable newspaper article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this - the bombing of the city on the first day of the war doesn't seem very relevant - it's the Japanese invasion which led to Buckles' ending up an internee Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was Buckles freed as a result of the Raid at Los Baños? - the dates match up and that article says that he was present (though this is uncited)
Put it in and sourced it. - NH
What's a "high profile record"?
It is a record of people with celebrity status. Jimi Hendrix's Army record would be one. Oddly, on this list, I can't find Frank Buckles' name. Trying to confirm it by a source from say CNN or a newspaper provided fruitless. So, I have removed the sentence for the time being. - NH
The amount of detail on Buckles funeral and the various memorial services seems greatly excessive - this could probably be spun out into a separate article Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much sourcing there because there was so much information that came out that day. I know, I was up for 26 hours getting all that information. We could move that section, but then we would have a broken article and it would be even less than GA class. So, I feel moving it would be a bad thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the information is of pretty marginal interest in an article focused on Buckles - for instance, which non-notable people attended which service, what the music was and its order isn't very relevant. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took the one section out about the music and order it came in, should I remove the section about the Blackfoot as the honor guard? - NH
I've taken the liberty of removing the detail I consider unnecessary for this article - please feel free to revert some or all of it back in. I really do think that this topic would support a separate (and very interesting) article. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that the Blackfoot was part of it, but I wanted to make sure before taking it out. For the moment, I am trying to get A (and FA eventually, one day) before I start hacking the article up into other articles. It's a good idea though. - NH
As another thing, Buckles was an internee during World War II, not a prisoner of war (see [107]) - POWs are military personnel and received even harsher treatment from the Japanese than internees. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with those changes. But, please note I'm not 100% convinced that all civilians taken prisoner in war are "civilian internees" under the Geneva Conventions. The article on prisoner of war says: "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, PsW) or enemy prisoner of war (EPW) is a person, whether civilian or combatant, who is held in custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the exact legal definition is, 'internee' is the common usage and the Japanese treated civilian and military prisoners differently. If he'd been a prisoner of war he'd have had a much lower chance of surviving the war (POWs were used for heavy labour and fed less and were moved around in unescorted and unmarked ships which were attacked by Allied submarines). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments are now addressed. As a final comment though, if you're planning to take this to a FAC I'd suggest that you review the article and sources first for material on the less successful aspects of Buckles' life - at present the article is all about his successes and adventures, and no-one passes through life without stuffing things up occasionally. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the very good comments. Regarding his failures, I think he regarded being in Manila in 1941 as not the smartest or most successful move he ever made. :-) Plus there's his failure to get approval for a World War I monument, which is discussed extensively in the article. There might be other failures in his personal life, but I haven't read about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I can see the point of talking about war mementos ("Can you prove you were in the war?") and his claim that he fed starving children ("What did you do over there?"). This is a feel-good piece, and we don't need to be uptight about NPOV. Some reviewers may disagree, and we'll deal with it then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took out a bunch of links to states in a paragraph about state governors. It seemed to me that the relevant links were to the names of the persons rather than the states or even moving to a link to the various "Governor of [some state]" articles. I fixed a little bit of spelling. Looks good!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reviewing the mistakes listed by the former A-class review, I have decided to put this article up again. Although Sevastopol was an obscure ship, I have found as much info as possible on her. This has more than usual personal meaning for me as this was the first article I created de-facto, although it only was moved to mainspace in early October. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments:
no dabs, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
the infobox says "Completed: 1897", but the prose says: "Sevastopol was finished in 1899" - seems inconsistent;
the infobox says "Commissioned: 1899", but the prose implies commissioning took place in 1900 - seems inconsistent;
in the Wartime service section: "On 26 March 1904, Sevastopol was rammed by Peresvet, damaging a propeller" - was this an accident? If so it probably should be stated;
in the Wartime service section: "On 9 August, with the Third Army assaulting the..." Is this the Japanese Third Army? If so, it probably should be stated for clarity;
"Peresvet" and "Peresvyet" - is this the same ship? If so, the spelling is inconsistent, also the wikilink should be moved to first mention;
"Sevastopol had had one 6-inch" - probably don't need the second "had";
this sounds a little awkward: "A breakout attempt was made on 23 August that consisted of Sevastopol bombarding". It might sound better as: "On 23 August, a break out attempt was made. As a part of this, Sevastopol bombarded a Japanese battery in an effort to escape along with nine smaller ships, but after she neutralized the battery, a Japanese lookout spotted...";
"By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the army". Would probably sound better as: "By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the Japanese";
"Captain Essen decided to scuttle" - probably no need to restate rank here;
after the ship was scuttled, do we know what happened to the crew? Were they rescued by the Japanese and taken as prisoners, or did they drown? Was Essen's award posthumous? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might expand the lead a bit. While it reads well enough, and two paragraphs is fine, what's there could stand a little more flesh to more fully summarise the article's contents.
You mention the ship's class in the lead, but not directly in the main body. This also means you haven't actualy cited the class it belonged to. You could perhaps rework the Design section's first sentence to read "The first design for Sevastopol and her sister ships of the Petropavlovsk-class pre-dreadnoughts was approved in January 1891", or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finished reviewing the whole article now. Having copyedited a bit, it looks good to me in general. Just a couple of further points:
The ship was redesigned, however, so that it did not resemble Imperator Nikolai I at all. The armor plating was redesigned... -- Be nice to avoid "redesigned" in successive sentences. How was the armour plating redesigned? That might give us a different word to use in the second sentence...
For some references you have OCLC as well as ISBNs. I think the convention now is to use ISBN if applicable, and OCLC if not, rather than both, but I won't make a fuss about that. On the other hand some of the entries have neither, and they should have at least one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. I seem to recall that the issue of ISBNs/OCLCs for the Russian sources came up in the peer and previous A class review and I don't think that anyone was able to locate them (I've looked myself, too). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand that and if you've looked but the data isn't available, that's fine. Happy with your mods in response to comments, so well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - mostly quite good, only a few points:Support
In the references: Spector is lacking a place of publishing, while Taras is also missing this and a year. Is this information available?
The citation check tool reveals two errors: "Forczyk, p. 54" = "Multiple references contain the same content" and "forczyk54" = "Multiple references are using the same name".
Sorry, but there just is none. There is a forward dated 31 December, 1999, but I don't know how much insight that would give me into the year of publication. Buggie111 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"machine-gun" but then "machine guns". The Macquarie dictionary indicates that "machine-gun" with a hyphen is correct, so it should probably be hyphenated in all instances except direct quotes;
I think there is a word missing here: "All three of its battalions, 2/4th, 2/8th and 2/11th Infantry Battalions, were initially..." (I think there should be a "the" inserted before "2/4th");
there is a typo here: "The reflected an extraordinary endorsement of Robertson". I think it should be: "This reflected an extraordinary endorsement of Robertson";
I think that there is a word missing here: "became commander of the 6th Division, leading through the final days". I think it should be: "became commander of the 6th Division, leading it through the final days";
Grey 2002 is in the References, but doesn't seem to be specifically cited in the Notes. Probably best to specifically cite the work or move it to a Further reading section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Reviewed/passed for GA and see no reason it shouldn't get A-Class. Done another pass just to check for overlinking and any other obvious prose issues but little leapt out. As ever, structure, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials all look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
because at the time junior officers required the Army's permission to marry, and at age 20 Robertson would not have received it. Leaves the reader begging to know why—why he wouldn't have received permission and why he needed it in the first place
Is there anything more known about his wife, in particular where they met?
Jeff speculates that it was because Jessie's mother lived near Robbie's, but I left it out because it is just speculation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about omitting "regiment" from 10th Light Horse?
Why is "machine gun" hyphenated? OK, in "machine-gun officer" and "machine-gun sections", it's a compound adjective, but not in "the machine-guns were brigaded together"
Hmm, I have a concise OED in front of me (which I'll concede is for Brits, not Aussies, but the two are similar), which says the noun should be "machine gun" (2 machine guns) and "machine-gun" should be used as a compound adjective (machine-gun brigade) or a verb (to machine-gun). I don't want to make a capital case of it, but Wiktionary seems to concur. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit lineball. Agree proper English rules suggest "two machine guns" but "machine-gun company", i.e. the double-barrelled adjective is hyphened, but in common usage (not just in WP) it often seems hyphenated no matter what. As long as one method or the other is applied consistently within the article it should be reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australian English used to use more hyphens than we use today, but Bean always says "machine gun" as two words. Consistently used this form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was he promoted straight from second lieutenant (preusmably his rank on commissioning) to captain or did he pass through lieutenant first?
Afterwards, Robertson was promoted to captain and became second in command of A Squadron. On 28 August, Robertson assumed command of C Squadron.[4] The next day he participated in the fighting at Battle of Hill 60. That's a bit choppy—could you smooth it out so we don't have three short sentences in a row?
This was as far as he could go, for Duntroon graduates could not be promoted above major. Why not?
Some nebulous policy. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (talk)
His substantive rank remained that of lieutenant and he would not be promoted to the substantive rank of major until 1932 You'll need to explain the concept of acting/substantial ranks for readers not familiar with military terminology.
Linked to Military rank#Types of rank.
Robertson was finally breveted as a lieutenant colonel in June 1936. Why "finally" and how did he get past major, which a few paragraphs above was the highest rank he could hope to attain.
Probably worth including the abbreviation KBE, since some readers may be familiar with the initial, but not the full title and because we have the post-nominal "KBE" in the lead
fired off seems very informal for an encyclopaedia
Changed to "sent". "Bugger's muddle" probably isn't the best way to talk to a British field marshal but we can't help that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have a hyperlink to The Metropolitan Golf Club?
Inconsistent full stops in the refs section. Since the full stops are part of {{London Gazette}}, it would probably be easier (if tedious) to add them to the non-template refs
Support - I've read over it once and looks very good. Only one point: did he have any children? I might of missed it but I don't think any off spring are mentioned. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the positive feedback during GA review. I now want to take the article to the next level. Please let me know how to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I saw a mix of ways to indicate the language; I would be consistent about italicizing the German words.
Another way this is commonly done is to indicate the translation in the prose but put the first German word in parenthesis with a language link: ex. Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine), and then subsequently leave out the german link: i.e. Captain (Kapitän zur See) since its (mostly) obvious that the word is German.
In the references, use the {{de icon}} template after the ref tag but before the citation so we know which ones are German vs. English. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ranks of Tiesmeyer in the early life section are confusing - was he a Kapitän zur See in 1910 or a Fregattenkapitän? If KzS was his final rank, it would be better to simply refer to him as Fregattenkapitän in the sentence, or make clear that he hadn't been reduced in rank or something. Also, is it known which ship he commanded?
"2nd Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet (II. Geschwader)" makes it sounds as though II Geschwader is the translation for High Seas Fleet. You might consider adding (II. Geschwader, Hochseeflotte).
Just a little nit-pick: the {{convert}} can be tricky - for conversions that describe an object (in this case, Bayern's guns) you'll want to add the "adj=on" parameter, which inserts a hyphen into the conversion. I fixed it here, but you'll want to keep that in mind.
This is personal preference, but I normally use the contemporary names for places (like Danzig instead of Gdansk) - I'm speaking about the Baltic islands seized during Operation Albion.
Again, personal preference here, but I really don't like "the" before a ship name, especially if the prefix is used (think of it this way: expanded, what it says is "the His Majesty's Ship", which is grammatically incorrect).
"Pocket battleship" is an invention by the press - I'd suggest calling Admiral Scheer either by the designation at the time "panzerschiff" or "armored ship", or its later designation as a heavy cruiser.
"Eye-witness" is something of a term of art - in general, it means that the person was present during the event in question. I don't know that I've ever heard the term "ear-witness", which is mainly what I was getting at. You could simply say "...is attributed to his account" and drop the witness bit altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You introduce Gunther Lutjens the second time he's mentioned, not the first. This should be reversed. You also don't need to link him again in the Rheinubung section.
In the second para in the Rheinubung section, the secrecy of the mission had been blown long before. The ships were observed by the Swedish cruiser HMS Gotland (1933) in the Kattegat, and subsequently overflown by British reconnaissance aircraft in Norway.
Oppose. I'm sorry. I like the article, especially since I'm comfortable with German, but I can't support it for A-class; it's a sea of German, to the point where most Wikipedians would probably say it's a violation of our policy to use English. I didn't make the policy, and I'd rather not summarize the many, many discussions on the talk page (WT:TITLE) that got us there; there are many good arguments on both sides, and people interested in the question should probably read them. Even though most of the German terms are translated, it's going to give readers a headache (other than German speakers and amateur and professional historians). You have many tools available: you can use an English term and link it to the article on that term, which can immediately give the German term; you can give a list of German terms in the notes; you can point readers to our glossary of German military terms. Only give the German in the text if the term actually appears in the German form quite often in English sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what Dan is saying; I think he means that many of the German words are superfluous (like "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft", "bedingt tauglich", for example), and that only the ones commonly used should be retained. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that this can't pass, only that it needs to lose some German to get there ... the German that doesn't often show up in English sources that are scholarly, but intended for people who don't read German. I'm not the expert on this, I can only say that this article appears to go too far, and most of the German needs to move to the other side of a link or into a Notes section. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft" was the name of the bank he worked for. This bank through a number of mergers is now part of the Eurohypo. I think naming the bank adds value to those readers who want to research on the subject. "bedingt tauglich" is a formal medical rating in the German military service for over 100 years. Even when I was examined for military service they used the term "bedingt tauglich". I am willing to discuss how to best address or lessen the German content but I am a bit reluctant to eliminate it. It would deprive the article of information to the knowledgeable reader. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style section on foreign terms (here) says to use foreign words "sparingly," which is somewhat vague. What you might do is reverse the order for the ranks and (like Captain [Kapitän zur See]) and then use Captain throughout the article. That's just an idea though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving a lot of the German words into the notes ... that's a huge relief. I may be taking my duties here too seriously, but my thinking is that if we walk into FAC with something that looks just completely wrong to them, then that means we all get extra scrutiny. No reason to make our lives harder. For this article and also future reference, I'll defend the German that's left in the article this way:
a list with a greater density of German than this one just passed FLC. (Of course, the text part is shorter, so the total number of German words in the text is probably less.)
English-speakers reading about Nazis German military in WWII often know some of the German words, and don't mind seeing German in the text. It just goes along with an interest in WWII.
Comment This may be the English WP but a Nazi implies a certain political affiliation which Lindemann did not have. In Germany calling a person a Nazi can get you into a costly law suit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have anticipated that that was offensive; informally, the word simply means "Germans in WWII" over here. (Even the best writers, such as Christopher Hitchens, use it that way.) I struck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're almost there; a few more notes. I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert.
I removed the underline under "Ernst". I know what the underline means in German, but it's almost unknown in English, it's not supported by style guides or MOS, and there's no way it'll fly at FAC. See for instance Paul McCartney ... we assume that the reader isn't going to get confused when they see James Paul McCartney, because we just told them he's known as Paul.
Per MILMOS (I think), lowercase all the English-language ranks unless the rank occurs just before someone's name. (Even then, it's lowercased if there's a comma before the name.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever there's an English translation for a rank that makes it reasonably obvious what the German rank was (Captain at Sea, for instance), use the English term without the translation after the first occurrence.
Your English is excellent, of course, but FAC-compliant English is hard to learn. I'll make you a deal: I'll copyedit the whole thing, and keep copyediting the articles you bring to A-class and FAC, if you'll check the diffs, ask questions for anything that looks odd, and try to learn from what I'm doing.
"In 1940 he ranked second out of Crew 1913 and was considered an outstanding leader.": Ranked second in what sense, and considered by whom?
I reread both Von Müllenheim-Rechberg and Grützner. The ranking criteria within the German Navy are not defined in these books. All that is mentioned is that he initially ranked 5th in his class and by 1940 he ranked 2nd in his class. It does not explain how the evaluation process worked. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's important is who he was ranked by or what he was ranked in, not what the method was. What "class" are we talking about? Was there a yearly school? If it was a naval ranking, we need to know either what the ranking award was given for or what the name of the it was, otherwise we probably need to delete it as too vague to be verifiable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinate graphics shouldn't be displayed inline ({{coord|60|19.49|N|5|14.48|E|display=inline}}). I think the issue came up in one of Cam's FACs, maybe Haruna or Hiei; I don't remember the details.
Okay I read the paragraph but I am unsure about the consequences you want me to take here. Remove the coordinates from the article? Move them to a footnote? Ideally I would like to use the coord template without it rendering the globe, which I haven't figured out how, that is done. Please comment. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The makers of the coord template haven't provided an option not to display the gaudy globe, so it's useless inline (or even in the notes section) at FAC. You could make an argument that it wouldn't be out of place in the External links section, since it is in fact an external link and some templates in that section have icons. I'll ask at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This quotation is cited by Burkard Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg, who at the time was in the rear gun director watching for Suffolk and Norfolk and listening to Schneider's gunnery commands over the fire control intercom. It was most likely reported by a surviving crew member who overheard the conversation between Schneider and Lindemann over the gunnery telephone.": I think maybe this should go in a note.
"Lindemann's Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the 94th presentation within the Kriegsmarine.": Guys, this doesn't sound right to me; anyone have something better?
P.S. For both "vice admiral" and "rear admiral", which are spaced in AmEng (even when they appear right before a noun), can someone tell me when they take a hyphen in BritEng? (And if they take a hyphen, then check the text for both, MisterBee.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update (I prefer not to strikeout because then you can't tell the difference between points where I changed my mind and points that were dealt with, and I want my stuff to be easy to read in case I link back to the discussion in the future): everything's been dealt with except (possibly) "vice admiral" and "rear admiral", icons in the text, "This quotation is cited by ...", "In 1940 he ranked second ...", and the one that's going to take some work: whenever there's an English translation for a rank that makes it reasonably obvious what the German rank was (Captain at Sea, for instance), use the English term without the translation after the first occurrence. I'm fine with giving the English and German (in either order) the first time the rank is mentioned, but usually, it will be possible for you to choose an English translation so that if you use the English translation after the first occurrence, Germans won't have to wonder what rank is meant and go hunt for your translation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, User:The Rambling Man said in the FLC I linked above that it's his understanding that, per WP:ACCESS, all German words (maybe other than proper nouns?) should go in a {{lang-de}} template. It's possible we'll be asked to make that change at FAC. That's not as ugly as it sounds, because when the template is working right (it doesn't always), it only displays "German:" for the first templated word; after the first occurrence of the template, it just displays the words in italics. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Been going back and forth on whether I want to insist on a couple more English sources ... I don't think I have a choice, per our policy V (actually WP:NONENG). We're talking about the captain of probably the most famous German battleship who went down with the ship; there must be a big pile of useful, scholarly English-language sources. This article makes only minor use of English sources. If you're not currently living in a country with easy library access to a wide range of sources, then hopefully we can get someone to help out, and if not, I'll do it. I've asked for help on this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only English book I own on the subject is "Boyne, Walter (1997). Clash of Titans: World War II at Sea. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-83914-8." I believe Von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book was translated to English and I knw that Parsecboy owns a copy (I only own the German version). The 2010 published book by Grützner (to my knowledge) is the only book published that covers Lindemann's early life. I don’t think that we have another choice here (to my knowledge). MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if anyone responds at MIL. It seems likely to me that scholarly English-language sources exist. For some questions a reader might have, clearly a German source would be preferable, but not for all questions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nate. I just have the policy concern, and for that, all we need is something from sources originally in English supporting a few of the main points. But if you want to go on to FAC, MisterBee, then citing the English edition of that book would help a lot, as well as finding a few more English sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do they need to be originally in English? I never had that understanding (I always thought NONENG was an extension of the general principle behind WP:V, in that ease of verification by our readers/editors should factor into the decision on how many foreign-language sources should be used). Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've replaced the German version with the English translation of von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book, and added a few citations to another English-language source. I don't think we can get around using Grützner as the core of the article, as it appears to be the only biography written on Lindemann. We can probably replace or double-up a few more citations with other sources, but nothing dramatic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me? If so, then yes. I don't see a way around relying heavily on Grützner, as his appears to be the only biography. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, there are a couple of other issues: the link to bismarck-class.dk should go, as it's not reliable. It's also double-citing material, so it's not necessary. Second, I seem to recall IMDB as having been the subject of several contentious discussions over whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. There appear to be a number of books on Google Books that might be used to replace it (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nate. I believe there's only one of my issues left, I think I'm just not understanding something: MrB, when you say "ranked second out of Crew 1913", do you mean he had the second highest naval rank of the graduating class of 1913, the incoming class of 1913, or is it not exactly the graduating class or the incoming class? - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue was explained above. The cadets who graduated in 1913 were known for the rest of their careers as "Crew 1913." It's a bit like the "Class of '68." Being ranked second means that Lindemann had achieved the second highest navy rank of all the ex-cadets of that year. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graduating or incoming? The text says: "On 26 March 1913, Lindemann traveled with his parents to Flensburg-Mürwik for his medical examination at the Naval Academy at Mürwik. The strong financial background of his parents made him a suitable applicant for the Imperial Navy ..." and "After a second examination he was accepted on probation, and Lindemann became one of the 290 young men of Crew 1913" Sounds like he was applying, not graduating. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a guess on the last of my issues, I added "(incoming class of 1913)" after the first "Crew 1913" since the term is used a lot, and I'm going to assume we're talking about "naval rank" rather than some special award. That's it for me, although I'd like to see Nate's points (just above) dealt with. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: Good work so far, I have the following suggestions/observations:
according to the Featured article tools, there is one dab link that needs fixing: [108];
external links all appear to work as advertised (no action required);
according to the tools, some images have alt text and others don't. I would like to suggest adding it in for all for consistency: [109] (suggestion only, not a requirement);
I think that "Naval Captain" is incorrectly capitalised - in this case it is not being used as a proper noun hence it should simply be "naval captain";
Yes, I understand that, but I believe that it is an improper noun, just as "dollars" is. Its not a war stopper for me, though, so I leave it up to you to decide. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is awkward: "Lindemann talked with his uncle and heard his seafaring adventures in Asia's Far East." Firstly the Far East is not Asia's, indeed the term relates to it being far to the east of Europe. Secondly there appears to be a word missing, e.g. "heard of his seafaring adventures";
there is repetition in this sentence: "With the German declaration of war in August 1914, all further training at the naval academy was terminated and the normal compulsory officer examination was terminated." (the word terminated is used twice);
I'm not sure if it is wise to use the German language template in the short citations. It might be simpler just to display it in the long citations in the References section. Currently having it in each citation is a bit distracting and including it in the refs means it only needs to be listed once for each reference (suggestion only);
": A lot of what we know today about Bismarck's final days is attributed to his eye- and ear-witness account". Incorrect use of a colon here, I think. It should just be a full stop;
in the same sentence, I am not sure about using the phrase "a lot of what we know today". Perhaps reword to: "A lot of what is currently known about...";
"attributed to his eye- and ear-witness account". I'm not sure about "ear-witness". It sounds awkward and, to be honest, I've never heard this term used before;
there is some inconsistency here: "4th Gunnery Officer" but also "first gunnery officer" and "2nd wireless telegraphy officer" - should be consistent in the style used - both in terms of using words or numerals and in terms of capitalisation;
in the Notes, the date ranges are incorrectly spaced. For instance "1859 – 1868" should be "1859–1868", although "20 January 1896 – 26 April 1945" is correct and doesn't need to be changed;
All of my concerns have been addressed. I am happy to support this article for A-class, although I do agree with Dank and Parsecboy that some of the German words could be trimmed. I'm not really in a position, though, to decide what should go and what should stay because I don't speak any German. Sorry if that sounds like sitting on the fence! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport
It is a well researched article, but as with some of the editors above, I have concerns about the way the German terminology is treated in the text. The first paragraph of the World War I section, for example, becomes really hard to read in this format. I'm not sure that having the German in the paragraph is essential for the typical reader, particularly as much of it (and I'll admit, my German is only basic) looks like a straightforward translation issue (i.e. there's no particular doubt over what English term is meant by the German). I'd be strongly inclined to note most of these German phrases, or, as suggested above, move them to the other side of a link. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding German terms I added a section called translations to the article. Here you will find my translations of the German terms used for which I believe we don't have a semantic correct equivalent in English. I retained some German terms, quotes and ranks in the flow of the text. The terms that have been translated are in single quotes. Please let me know if this helps the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on brackets The phrase Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaf which is explained above as being the name of the bank his father worked for, can this be displayed other than being in brackets? I know it's incredibly picky, for which I apologise, but with brackets being predominantly used for translations, it looks like Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaf is the German for bank. NtheP (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at that and groaning. I would prefer we use the English name for the bank and either give a translation in the notes section or link to a stub article that gives the German name. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note explaining what the bank was. The bank seized to exist in 1930 and I feel that a literal translation would only make things more complicated. Please have a look if this works for you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that OR is undesirable. I did a gsearch on "Prussian Land Credit Company" and "Prussian Land Credit Corporation"; some will translate the name wrong, of course, but the best I could tell, the latter was most often used as the English name of the bank. See if you agree. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used www.leo.org to translate the name term by term and the British English equivalent is best matched by "Prussian Land Credit Company" MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've put nearly 300 edits into it over 16 months and after a successful GA review, a bit of copy-editing and a recent peer review, I think it's ready. I would like tot take this to FAC if possible, so I'd appreciate detailed commentary. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sorry for the seven days with virtually no comments, we're normally better than this. I only have a minor quibble: "and one of its most high-profile generals since the Second World War" may be a tad controversial, could you cite a source? I don't doubt the claim, I just think it could use a source. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: not much to say as this article looks quite good to me. I have a few comments:
CorenSearchBot reveals no copyright violations: [110] (no action required);
Unsurprising, but reassuring nonetheless.
no dabs, ext links work according to the tools, alt text is present (no action required);
Ditto
the abbreviation "BNP" should be formally introduced. For instance, just add "British National Party (BNP)" upon first mention;
Done
the abbreviation "MoD" should be introduced on first mention. Currently it is listed in the High command section, but the term "Ministry of Defence" is used earlier in the previous section;
I believe it is, at least before the first time it's abbreviated to MoD; should I introduce the abbreviation the first time I mention the institution?
Yes, sorry I didn't explain that well. What I mean is that I think you should have "Ministry of Defence (MoD)" on first mention of the institution. In this case, I think that would be in the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused by the headings. You have "Military career" and then "High command". Given that the "High command" section is still part of his military career it seems counter intuitive. I suggest renaming "Military career" to "Early military career" or something similar;
Done.
in the References section, most of the Specific citations end in full stops, but a couple do not. For instance # 3, #11, and # 19. For consistency, I suggest adding full stops to these citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very nicely written and comprehensive article, but I've got some concerns about some of it's wording:
What's meant by "He was present as the battalion's adjutant during the events of Bloody Sunday"? - the use of "he was present" implies that he played a role in these events, in which case what he did (rather than just his position) should be specified (particularly given that the article says that he apologised for the events - did he do /not do something that warranted an apology?).
He was there, and involved in the same operation, but he didn't fire a shot.
Do we know what he did? (eg, was he in the battalion HQ, with the troops that fired on the protesters or elsewhere). Given that he apologised after retiring, it would be good to know what his role in the affair was. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"he was seconded to a staff position at the Ministry of Defence in 1982 during the Falklands War, and thus missed the opportunity to serve in the conflict directly" - what's the relevance of mentioning 'missing out' on the Falklands War here? - rotations to staff positions are a standard part of military officers' careers. Did he play any part in the war (which only involved a smallish part of the Army) in his staff position?
This relates to your last point, so I'll explain it down there
"He took command of 1 PARA in March 1984 and held the command until September 1986, during which time he undertook winter training in Norway" - was it just him, or the whole battalion who went to Norway? (senior officers do sometimes deploy individually or with their staff for map-based exercises)
I'll have to check the source... Added, after consulting his book
"who, at the time, were on NATO exercises in Norway, training for the possibility of a Soviet attack" reads strangely - this implies that the battalion was stationed in Norway, which I don't believe was the case. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Jackson think that he wasn't going to be promoted beyond colonel? (particularly as he only held this rank for two years before being promoted)
Had to consult his book again, but added
"a post he held until 1992, thus missing the Gulf War" - what's the purpose of this? He was serving an important operational deployment to Northern Ireland at the time, and the article doesn't say that he 'missed a deployment to Northern Ireland' everytime he was posted elsewhere. As a light infantry specialist, he probably wouldn't have been sent to the Gulf anyway as Britain's contribution was an armoured division.
See response to your last point
"a blue beret, signifying UN allegiance." - I don't think that 'allegiance' is appropriate here - my understanding is that blue berets are issued to indicate that the soldier is taking part in a UN deployment, not that they answer solely to the UN chain of command.
Changed to command, but open to suggestions
"He spent nearly 45 years in the army but never fought in a conventional battle" - that seems an unnecessary qualification for someone who served successfully in Northern Ireland during The troubles as well as the very tense and complex deployments to the Balkans and held the most senior position in the British Army during the Iraq War. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His only two chances for "conventional" combat were the Falklands (where a large part of the Parachute Regiment served) and the Gulf and his one regret (according to interviews and his autobiography) in 45 years of soldiering is that he didn't participate in a conventional battle, hence the mentioning of the two conflicts. That's why they're mentioned and I'll add something on that to the retirement sectionAdded. 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC). Thanks a lot for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The list for another warship topic, this one on the handful of armored cruisers built in Germany at the turn of the century. Every other article in the topic is GA or higher, so once this makes it through this ACR and an eventual FLC, the topic will be ready for a WP:GT. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the list meets our A-class criteria and the Featured List criteria as well. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "SMS Fürst Bismarck" you mention that the ship was named after Otto von Bismarck. You don't name the patron in the sections "SMS Prinz Heinrich", "Prinz Adalbert class", "Roon class" or "SMS Blücher" but again in the section "Scharnhorst class" they are mentioned. Is this intentional? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, probably just a result of basing the entries on the lead sections of the class articles. Would you prefer I remove the namesakes or add the rest? I don't think I included namesakes in the lists of battleships and battlecruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport - changed from Comments
Good work so far, but nonetheless, some true naval geek comments. The first 2 are important for A-class in my opinion, the others are more optional (though to me they'd make the difference between a good list and a great one worthy of a place on Featured Lists).
Displacement: What is the "full combat load"? Is this a term used in Groner - if so how is it defined in terms of the fuel, ammunition, crew supplies, feedwater etc? I am unfamiliar with the details of how the Germans did things, but the British in this period typically quoted a "design displacement". Displacement is rarely standardised until 1922 and it is important not to give a misleading impression of precision.
Gröner states that the maximum displacement "equals type displacement plus full load fuel oil, diesel oil, coal, reserve boiler feed water, aircraft fuel, and special equipment." More broadly, he states "Displacement includes outer plating and external fittings, bilge keels, rudders, propellers, shaft brackets, shaft fairings, and exposed shafts. The specific weight of water is calculated at 1.105 in German practice...Design displacement includes 25 to 50 percent full load as above, and has been used in the German navy since 1882 as a basis for performance and speed calculations." I chose to list the full load rather than the design displacements as the ships would be operating at full load. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Do you want to include the first bit of that in a footnote?
Armament: I think this article ought to list the secondary guns as well as the main battery. During this period the secondary guns were often considered just as important as the heavy guns. We are still in the "hail of fire" school of thought.
It would be easier to add this to the text. Is that ok, or would you prefer it in the tables? My main concern is avoiding squeezing too much information into the tables. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely prefer it in the tables - for these ships the secondary armament is just as important as the primary.
That's a good point. I had based this list on the lists I had done for the battlecruisers and battleships, the secondaries of which were of, well, secondary importance. I put them into the armament box - that doesn't look to crammed, does it? Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propulsion: Ideally I would like to see horsepower figures (and I wouldn't object to ditching the mph/km/h conversions, or accomodating the conversion formula in the key)
Horsepower added - I don't think removing the speed conversions would fly at FLC though. We could always discuss it there and see how FLC reviewers feel about it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Agree about talking about it at FLC.
A figure for costs for each ship (or for a given ship in each class) would be really helpful.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While John Treloar seems to have never fired a shot in anger, he was the chief archivist of the Australian military during both world wars and one of the key figures in the establishment of the Australian War Memorial. This article is my first attempt at developing an A class biography, and I'd be interested in comments about whether it makes the cut. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a bit thin. For an article almost 4,000 word long, I would think you could easily get away with another paragraph—remember it's a summary of the article.
There seems to be a slight tendency towards praising him, of example, phrase like: "worked tirelessly", "Treloar worked enthusiastically and intensely as commander of the AWRS, and had to be ordered to take holidays", "he was only 26 years of age, but was responsible for the difficult task of establishing the Museum", "led him to spend long hours at work. He typically worked for six days each week, normally staying until late at night"
This reflects the tone used in all the sources, but I see what you mean and have tweaked the wording a bit. I've also included all the significant criticisms of him as well (eg, that he was a workaholic, obsessive, didn't collect enough artefacts from World War II, didn't get on with many of his colleagues and was basically ineffective in his last six years as head of the AWM).
You seem to be lacking a few commas, mainly at the start of sentences: phrases like "while in Melbourne", "On [date]" and "in [month]" should be followed by a comma
I've added a few extra commas, though I generally err on the side of not adding commas as they can break sentences up and read oddly. Please do add more where you think they'd help though.
The prose gets a bit choppy in the second paragraph of #World War I: three short sentences in a row doesn't make for a great read
Fixed
While in Melbourne he resumed a friendship with Clarissa Aldridge..., this is the first time she's been mentioned, which leaves the reader a little confused. You should explain who she is there or mention her earlier in the article
Unfortunately none of the sources on Treloar provide any background on her or context to work in their pre-war friendship.
You need to be consistent in linking of ranks: lieutenant is linked, but captain, three lines down, isn't.
Fixed
After arriving to London, to me that sounds like terrible grammar. I could be wrong on that, but I think "arriving in London" is more common.
Fixed
Treloar considered resigning in July 1922 to take up a position in the Department of Immigration but decided against doing so. It would be nice to know what changed his mind if the facts are available
There are no details on this unfortunately
Why are there quotes around 'Australian War Museum Memorial'? If they;re necessary, they should be double quotes (" not ') per the MoS
Removed
Ditto "'service annual'"
Removed
Why is WWII linked for its second mention in #World War II but not the first? If it's going to be linked, it should be linked the first time
SupportComments: All my concerns (below) have been addressed.
no dabs, ext links all work, alt text present (no action required);
images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
in the lead you use "Australian Imperial Force", but then in the World War I section "First Australian Imperial Force" - probably should be consistent;
Fixed
in the World War I section, "7am to midnight". I think that per WP:MOSTIME this should be "7:00 am to midnight" (using a non breaking space) - I'm not certain of this, though;
Changed to '7 am to midnight' (7:00 am seems unnecessary and looks a bit odd in this context, so hopefully this is OK)
in the Establishing the War Memorial section, there is a contraction - " wasn't". While there appears to have been some recent debate about whether this is acceptable, I suggest rewording to "was not" to make the language sound more formal (suggestion only);
Fixed
in the Establishing the War Memorial section, "traveled" - I think this should be "travelled" per the Macquarie dictionary;
Fixed
in the Establishing the War Memorial section, I think paired commas are needed in this sentence: "In that year, Treloar and 24 other Memorial staff moved into the uncompleted building in Canberra and the museum in Sydney closed to enable the collection to be relocated". I suggest adding them after "Treloar" and "staff"
Done
in the Postwar section, "hemorrhage" - I believe this should be "haemorrhage" per the Macquarie dictionary;
Fixed
in the Postwar section, "labeled" - I believe this should be "labelled" per the Macquarie dictionary;
Fixed
in the References section, some of the hyphens should probably be endashes, for instance "1917-1990", "(1885 - 1952)". I'll leave this as suggestion only, though, as there appears to be some backlash to WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the style in the titles of the original sources for consistency with how they were presented. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Completed my usual copyedit but the prose in general was very good I think; other aspects -- structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials -- all look fine. Great to see a quality article on a figure so important to Oz military history, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained in the next sentence ("an equivalent of The Anzac Book, which was a collection of anecdotes written by Australian soldiers during the Gallipoli Campaign"), but I've clarified this.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominating for A-Class review following a successful GAR and because I think it has the military detail commensurate with ACR. FWIW I won't be taking to FAC until or unless I find more on his civilian life, which is admittedly a bit brief, but should be sufficient for here. As for the chap himself, I found him more interesting and admirable as a leader the more I researched him, and I think you will too as you read it. Any and all comments welcome, as usual...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As usual Ian, this is a comprehensive and well written biography. I've got a few suggestions for further improvements to the article:
The second sentence sits a bit awkwardly with the first - it seems out of place as a whole sentence and implies that he became an ace after becoming a senior officer
Mmm, originally it was going to be longer and also mention that he commanded at squadron and wing level but I decided that was too much. What if I stuck the sentence at the end of the first para of the lead (which is chronologically where it belongs as his 5th victory was with 234 Wing)?
Tweaked a bit here and there, hopefully an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Do we know the name of Jeffrey's mother? - it seems a bit odd to say only that he was the 'son of A.L. Jeffrey' when he isn't important enough for a red link
Heh, hope this doesn't sound too defensive but a) I wouldn't normally bother with parents' names at all except it seems a de facto standard even when they're not notable in themselves and b) the only source I had was Who's Who which, traditionalists that they are, only considered his father worth naming. Really, if no-one has objections I'm happy to lose it as the source doesn't even give the old man's profession, which would be worth keeping if only we knew it.
He listed 'Colleen Jeffery' as his next of kin during his World War II service: [111]. I suppose we can't really assume that's his mum though (though I'd be surprised if it wasn't). His NAA file hasn't been digitalised unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now Nick, my dear friend and colleague, are you sure you read the whole thing? See the sentence with the red link for Alan Rawlinson... Don't feel too bad, making me check revealed a typo at any rate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jeffrey flew obsolescent Gloster Gladiator biplanes" - it should be noted that the entire squadron was operating these aircraft
Not all actually, but most, so fair point nonetheless -- I think that was laziness... ;-)
Do we know why Jeffrey was selected to command No. 3 Sqn? - given that his service in the RAAF was relatively short and the article doesn't mention any significant personal successes, it's interesting that he was appointed to this role.
Wish I knew myself for sure, I always like to include motivations if I can find them but I don't recall any of the sources saying. As a flight commander he would've been one of the next in line, and actually would've been considered mature by virtue of having joined well before the war.
Is there an article about the German offensive in April 1941 that can be linked to?
Believe me I looked -- it seemed that every campaign and battle in North Africa has its own article but this one...
Support: I reviewed this for GA and believe that it has improved since then to the extent that I feel it meets the A-class requirements. I have the following comments for the sake of this review:
"He was Mentioned in Despatches": I saw this capitalized in another article recently; when they checked, it wasn't capitalized in the source. We don't have "proper verbs" over here, that I know of. I'm not sure how we would write this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I think this was the subject of some debate many moons ago and this was the agreed convention. I agree "mentioned in despatches" isn't always capitalised, but a "Mention in Despatches" is (see here for instance) and I guess everyone decided the capitalisation should be applied to the verb as well. I'm not enormously fussed about it but I prefer the consistency and suspect that if we go lower case someone will just come along and "upper case" it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link ... based on that, I'd prefer "He received a Mention in Dispatches" (if their spelling is more common than yours). My problem here isn't that you're using the word wrong, but that you're making up a new part of speech, the "proper verb". Actually, I lie ... we do sometimes have "proper verbs" over here, but only very briefly. I imagine when people first used their Xerox machines, they wrote "I Xeroxed it...", but in general, these proper nouns used as verbs either quickly become common nouns, or don't succeed in entering the language at all. (Probably the one with the most staying power right now is "Googled".) - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we could do that, but that's not addressing the root of any issue here on WP. If I link Mention in Despatches it'll get redirected to Mentioned in Despatches and one prefers to avoid redirects where possible (or pipelinking something minisculely different). The question perhaps should be taken up on that article, not this one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that I'm not reviewing that article, I'm reviewing this one. I can't support. I'm not going to accept the burden of fixing articles other than our peer reviewed, A-class and FAC articles; that seems like a big enough job to me. (To be clear, I'm not angry, I just can't take on any more duties right now.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, if there's a burden to doing anything on WP, it's generally a self-imposed one anyway... I just think you'll save youself work in the long run by addressing it at the source rather than in individual Commonwealth military bios. Anyway, that's up to you... ;-) Having had a look round, I don't think that capitalising "mentioned in despatches" is as ubiquitous as it used to be, so we'll go with that and avoid the redirects/pipes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
←On the point at hand: works for me. On the larger point: so many issues here, I hope I do it justice. I'll talk about all these issues in the context of FAC reviewing, where the roads are well-traveled; the extent to which any of this applies to A-class reviews is really up to the project, not me (although I hope the FAC context carries some weight). At some point, after a certain number of reviews and a certain amount of diligence, a person leaving a comment in a review stops being "just some guy who made a comment" and starts being seen as a "reviewer", one of those guys whose integrity (and hopefully competence, but no promises there) is central to the whole question of whether the process is even worth doing. Being seen as a "reviewer", whatever that is, has one big downside: you start getting in all kinds of conflicts that you were previously able to avoid, because writers assumed your support or lack of it wasn't a big deal, and because you were always able to get away with, "Well, I'm not sure, it's just a wiki, revert if you like, it's up to you." At some point, people (especially the closers) figure out that you do actually have the relevant sources and training and you know something about grammar. So then your reviews start to get a level of push-back that they didn't have before. One thing I see at FAC, in one form or another: "You can't oppose this, because you haven't done your homework ... you need to go fix this other article first." (I'm not accusing you of bad behaviour, of course, that would be a first for both of us ... I'm just taking this opportunity to remind people that we haven't found it practical to ask reviewers to do anything more than focus on the job at hand.) Another complaint: "This is a wiki, we have no experts, and 3 other articles do it this way, therefore by our rules it's not wrong." I can't claim omniscience on language issues, but I do have a lot of the books, and I've been doing this a while. My objection in this case was that I can't find sufficient support in 5 or 6 relevant guides for the idea of a "Proper verb"; they do exist, but not in an "official" sense, and they tend to be ephemeral. That was why I recommended either lowercasing or using a noun. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"he organised for his men to be accommodated by a beach": not familiar with this meaning of "organized"; we'd say "arranged" I think, but feel free to keep it if it sounds right to you. Also, I think we'd say "near" a beach. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Organising" to do something is certainly a form of words I've seen elsewhere (perhaps it seems more "military" than "arranged") but I'm quite happy to go with your suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did not trace down the cites and review them as I sometimes have done, but take them on good faith, especially since I respect Ian Rose's reputation for probity. I found the article itself well-written and comprehensively cited. Stylistically, this article goes well beyond the usual dry encyclopediac recitation, and leaves me with the feeling that I know and admire Peter Jeffrey. I do have one tiny quibble; the sentence that begins, "Survived by his wife and sons" seems awkward; I expect news of his death first, and the survivors later. Can you smooth this out, Ian? Georgejdorner (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all the newer, bigger ships get all the love. I aim to remedy this in time for the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War. This article will make a run at FAC after this so suggestions for improving the writing, etc. would be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very good article, but I think it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
The lead could probably be expanded a bit to two paras
"The ship spent most of her career bombarding Confederate fortifications defending Charleston, South Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1863–65" - this suggests that she spent most of her time firing her guns, which obviously isn't right.
"The Union Navy ordered three substantially different ironclad ships in late 1861" - this is a bit confusing (I was wondering what they were "substantially different" to). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "In late 1861 the Union Navy ordered three ironclads of greatly differing designs"
"The more conservative design" - what was this more conservative to, and why?
What role did Merrick & Sons play? - did they come up with the concept for the ship, or design her? (or both)
"but recent analysis" - it's best to specify the date as this won't be 'recent' forever (and the reference for it is to a 22 year old publication)
The role the ship was intended to fill should be specified in the design system - was she intended to be an oceangoing vessel, or an inshore vessel like the ironclads?
Can anything be said about the crew?
The contracting and subcontracting arrangement used to build the ship is described in both the 'Design and description' and 'Construction' sections and should be reduced to just a single mention Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - not bad and nice to see some ironclads getting attention! - but some thoughts:
A bit more "why" in the design section would be a good thing (and probably necessary for FA) Why did the USN order 3 completely different designs of ironclad? Why did they chose one conservative design? Why was the armament changed mid-construction? What were the people who designed, built & commissioned here thinking?
How does it work now?
Ditto the service history: why was she ordered to do these things? What was her role?
Not sure how to respond here as her armor and relatively shallow-draft dictated that she'd be used against Confederate ironclads and fortifications as shown in the article. I'm not sure that I can find a citeable statement saying as much if that's what you're looking for.
Partial repetition between paras 1 and 3 of Armament section
As often as I've been accused on using unlinked jargon, I'm not really sure that there is really any such thing as low-value wikilinking, with the exception of dates.
Prose suffers a bit from longwinded and/or unclear sentences and misplaced commas: e.g. "A new iron carriage was built where the gun rode in a cradle that slid on iron rails that pivoted at the gun ports." or "With the completion of her overhaul in late August 1864, New Ironsides was recommissioned, but did not join the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron in Hampton Roads until October when her crew finished gunnery training. "
Reworked both of these, how do they read now?
biofouling -> fouling in every naval book I've ever read
Done.
Sourcing 1 - is any of this material DANFS? (It reads like DANFS!) If so a template ought to be added.
Nope, not even consulted.
Sourcing 2 - Inline cites are heavily reliant on one author. Don't think this is a problem for A-class but someone will raise it at FAC I'm sure.
There's not much published that I haven't tapped here, other than compilations on Civil War ironclads that merely duplicate material already provided.
Can we have some kind of reference for the statement about the current price.
Straight from the wiki template, whatever its source.
Should really be a reference in the article rather than requiring the reader to work out it's a template, find the template, and look at the template documentation...
Images. Currently there is only one. FAC will certainly ask for more.
One low-value image added. Can't really provide any fair-use images with a legal one already provided.
images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
there are two disambig links that need attention according to the tools: [112];
Done.
there is some inconsistency in the date format, for instance: "October 5, 1863" and "6 June 1864";
Good catch, fixed.
Note 1 probably needs a citation;
Footnote located, but I can't get it to display inside the inflation note without an error message. Perhaps one of y'all is more familiar with the intricacies and can figure out how to get it to work.
in the References you have "Olmstead" but in the Footnotes "Olmsted". Please tweak so these are consistent;
Fixed
in the References Roberts 2002 appears, but doesn't appear to have been specifically cited. I suggest perhaps adding it to a Further reading section, or adding a citation to it. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're inflating a capital expenditure item in terms of a CPI measure. You can't do this. You should inflate by either share of GDP if this was a megaproject, or GDP per capita if this was a standard Capital item. Given that the 1.5m authorisation amounts to 2.3% of the national debt of the day, I'd say treat the inflation as a megaproject and use relative share of GDP: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ . $780,000 US 1861 is, by relative share of GDP, equivalent to $2,390,000,000 US 2009 by calculation using Samuel H. Williamson (2010) "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed it to this measure. Still can't link to the external website from inside the note. But maybe somebody at FAC can figure out the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A techno-military article about the famous Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons. This article is a top-level one, rich in links to its many sub-articles. Like the project, the article covers many administrative, military and engineering subjects. I hope that the most important sub-articles can one day be lifted to form a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's excellent to see a high-quality article on this important topic and I think that it meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvement are:
I think that the military unit infobox is a bit confusing - it's labelled 'Manhattan Engineer District' (which will confuse readers), and identifies it as having taken part in fighting in Europe, which could very easily be misunderstood.
The third paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing - I'd suggest structuring it in chronological order so that it starts with the first bomb used in the Trinity test and finishes with the Nagasaki bomb
"The committee reported to Roosevelt in November that "it would provide a possible source of bombs with a destructiveness vastly greater than anything now known."" - is unclear - this implies that it was the committee that would produce bombs. More generally, I think a sentence is needed about what the Einstein–Szilárd letter covered.
The fact that the bombs probably would have been used on Germany had they been ready in time should be noted in the part of 'Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' section which discusses target selection (the 509th Bomb Group apparently trained to operate against either Germany or Japan) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article during the last ACR and believed it met the A class criteria then. IMO this article has improved further since then. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd really like is to change MOS:BIO, because I usually see these names with commas, but I stopped fighting the style guidelines a while ago. If you want me to reinstate all these commas, we can always cross our fingers at FAC, or argue that they're the preference of the individual (and they usually are). If I do reinstate the commas, then we need a second comma after "Jr." unless that's the end of the sentence (with minor exceptions). - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about "UC Berkeley" (after the first "University of California, Berkeley")?
I would rather not. I try to avoid abbreviations whenever possible. And where I live, "UC" means "University of Canberra". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okey doke. The 4-word phrase sounds fine once or twice to me ... people generally shorten it in some way if they're repeating it, but what you've got is basically fine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow your preference for "At a meeting between President Roosevelt, Bush and Vice President Henry A. Wallace"; the top 3 US style guides say "between" is wrong here. Should I look at more style guides? Would either "of" or "among" work for you?
Right, meeting between two ... not between three. Chicago, AP and the NY Times Style Guide all say to avoid "between" with three, unless you're saying something like "trade between the European countries", where it's clear that you mean trade pairwise between the countries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, someone is quoting a style guide (and an excellent one, if a bit worn). Do it again, and I'll give you a (very small) barnstar. But in every one of the examples I read of "between" used with more than two objects (reading quickly), it means either "pairwise" or "one compared with all the others" or "in-between" or something idiomatic ("between you and me and Jack Mum"). None of those meanings seems to apply here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Idiomatic to you often sounds normal to me; for example, we often use "amongst" instead of "among"; the latter may sound better to American ears. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The typeface is too small for me to make it out, but does the map next to "Oak Ridge" say "Alabama Ornance"? Should that be "Ordnance"?
You asked for help with WP:MHCL#commas. Here's the diff of what I've done so far tonight; please have a look at the commas I added (or subtracted, to avoid having to add a second comma). (Commas don't show up well in Wikipedia's diff engine, but the "improved diff" version of WikEd shows them nicely.) [More to come tomorrow]. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff so far today, up to Manhattan Project#Raw materials. The majority of my edits are per just one easy-to-follow rule: WP:MHCL#commas. I don't know of a style guide that disagrees with that point. (References on request.) You offered before to fill in the commas if I told you where; those are the ones I'd like you to do, starting at Manhattan Project#Raw materials. I'll get the rest of the copyediting, including all the commas that follow other rules. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind (for this article), I'm farther along now and I haven't seen too many of these. I'm getting them as I go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on undersecretary vs. under secretary, but you use both and it's safest to be consistent at FAC. I see "undersecretary" more often. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the the 1940s "Undersecretary" was used in AmEng and "Under-Secretary" in BritEng; but the former has been on the retreat for some decades now, and the US government now uses "Under Secretary". Note that the article is called Undersecretary. Should it be renamed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. WNW gives "in U.S. government, under secretary", as you say, and gives the main spelling as "undersecretary". - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting at Manhattan_Project#Uranium, I'm inclined to leave the % symbols alone. You're averaging more than 5 % symbols per subsection at that point, and I interpret WP:% to mean that that's enough that we don't have to convert them to "percent", but some at FAC may disagree.
WP:% says that we can use % "in scientific or technical articles"; I would argue that this is a scientific and technical article. One problem: "percent" is used in the lead. (Do you also have "pergallon" and "perdiem" in AmEng?) (Originally I wrote 7‰ but then decided on 0.7%.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a good argument for "%" in the lead, now that I see we'll have to keep them elsewhere, if you want to change it back. I'm happy either way. It's helpful at FAC whenever we can make the argument, "We know this is a technical article, but we worked really hard to give it a non-technical look-and-feel in the first part of the article." - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get the meaning right here? "A cost plus fixed fee contract was negotiated, eventually totalling $2.5 million." Although "cost plus fixed fee contract" is a standard term, would "a contract with fixed fees" be an oversimplification? I'm thinking readers may get a little lost on "cost plus fixed fee contract". - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... yes, that would be a great article, I'd be happy to help with that one. So, what I had is right, right? "A cost plus fixed fee contract was negotiated, eventually totalling $2.5 million." (I really want to stick some hyphens in there, is that doable?) - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's an issue I don't touch except when it's an easy call, both here and at J. Robert Oppenheimer, because it's tough and subjective: how much detail is too much? If we're talking about weapons engineering, then I draw an analogy from science fiction movies ... viewers can be entertained even when they have no idea what's going on, as long as it sounds exciting and they're vaguely familiar with the words, but they may lose interest if the details have a "mundane" feeling. Personally, in "Steam obtained from the nearby K-25 powerhouse at a pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (690 kPa) and temperature of 545 °F (285 °C) flowed downward through the innermost 1.25 inches (32 mm) nickel pipe ...", I'd lose the "innermost 1.25 inches (32 mm)". We regularly get fights at FAC over questions of the right level of detail, but I'm not convinced that the fights produce a better outcome than the personal preferences of the writers ... and even when the end product is better, it's not worth the time IMO ... so I don't get involved. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? "The purification methods that were eventually used in 231-W were still unknown when construction commenced on 8 April 1944, but the plant was complete and the methods were selected by the end of the year." - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While most of the experiments conducted were of slight value, important lessons were learned concerning the mundane but vital aspects of conducting a test.": It would be better if this said either more or less; it raises more questions than it answers. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note on "however"; it had crossed my mind to talk about this while I was copyediting this one, and I responded to Nikki yesterday when she asked someone never to start a sentence with "but". Just now, I reverted Ian on this point, so let's talk about it; I'm not wedded to the idea, but ... well, you'll see. The text was: "The thermal diffusion process was developed by US Navy scientists, and was not one of the enrichment technologies initially selected for use in the Manhattan Project. But in April 1944, Oppenheimer noted the progress of Philip Abelson's experiments on thermal diffusion ..." Ian changed this to "In April 1944, however, Oppenheimer ..." Chicago, at 5.206, says: "There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so." (They go on in the same tone of voice for a while ... odd for Chicago, which suggests that they feel really strongly about this.) 5.207 says:
However has been used as a conjunction since the fourteenth century. Like other conjunctions, it can be used at the beginning of a sentence. But however is more ponderous and has less impact than the simple but. However is more effectively used within a sentence to emphasize the word or phrase that precedes it: The job seemed exciting at first. Soon, however, it turned out to be exceedingly dull. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I preferred using it in the sentence you note above. I don't deny that in AmEng it's quite acceptable to start a sentence with But, however in this instance I felt it read better the way I rewrote it. Because this is an American-themed article I shan't push it (though if it was BritEng I would) and you should feel free to change back the other instance I altered before I saw your comment here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respect your eyes and ears, and our rules about AmEng are of course constrained by the reality that everyone reads our articles, especially articles like this one, so I hope it will sound right to everyone. Basically, I have three requests, and I think these are okay outside AmEng but tell me if they aren't: 1. use however when you want to draw attention to a surprising contrast, 2. if the sentence or clause begins with however, it's better to follow it with a comma, and 3. if however follows a word or phrase, then that word or phrase is the surprising contrast you're pointing to. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wrote it the way Ian phrased it. Dank changed it to the form beginning with "but". For me, no amount of Canberra Times editors preaching that it is okay to start (but not end) sentences with "and" or "but" will erase years of teachers drilling us not to start sentences with conjunctions. The Commonwealth Style Manual allows "however" (and nonetheless, thus, accordingly etc) to be used as conjunctions, but only after a semicolon (and not at the end of a sentence). Teacher used to strike out usage for emphasis.
I'm cool with that preference; remind me if I ever forget. I just changed "But in April 1944" to "Then in April 1944" and "But the biggest problem" to "The biggest problem". "However" wouldn't be my choice in either sentence; it signifies something surprising and contrasting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Silverplate, an operation to modify B-29s ..." or "Operation Silverplate, the modification of B-29s" instead of "Silverplate, the modification of B-29s".
Sometimes you italicize Thin Man, Fat Man and Little Boy and sometimes you don't. My call would be not to italicize; the capitals get the idea across. It wouldn't be wrong, exactly, if done consistently, but the idea of italics is to designate the title of some "larger" unit ... we italicize books but not chapters, ships but not parts of ships, etc. Bombs, even famous bombs, seem like the smaller unit to me, compared with for instance Enola Gay. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is equivalent to what you wrote, but revert me if I'm wrong: "no alternatives were considered after the Japanese rejection of the Potsdam Declaration."
I was just trying to figure out whether to revert myself on "393d" -> "393rd" when Ian did it for me :) None of the examples in Chicago (at 8.111) or AP are helpful. All the USAF squadrons on Wikipedia that I could find use "d". OTOH, when I browse the external links to see how people refer to their own squadrons, they generally use "rd". AP and Chicago both recommend "rd" in general, although Chicago mentions that "d" is possible in some contexts, and I'm inclined to use that as my weapon if someone says at FAC they don't think readers will know what "393d" means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Certainly as high a caliber of work as FAC is used to seeing; I just wonder if any of the reviewers will be willing to read this long, somewhat technical article carefully. Can't be helped, I suppose; as you say, this is a summary article that branches out in a lot of different directions. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well I managed to get round to reviewing it this time, as I told Hawkeye I would. A tremendous undertaking and, apart form my usual—in this case fairly minor—copyedits, I really can't fault it for prose, referencing, detail, structure and supporting material -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Overall I believe that this article meets our A-class requirements and I am happy to support its promotion, however, I have a couple of comments:
I made a couple of small tweaks, which you might like to just check you agree with.
one dead link according to the link checker tool: [113]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article on a Royal Australian Air Force squadron with a fairly convoluted history was assessed as being a GA in January. Since then I have further expanded it, and think that it may now meet the A class criteria. Please note that there isn't any dedicated book on the history of this unit (other than a self-published account of its World War II service), so the article is sourced from a number of references - despite this, I think that the account here is comprehensive. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Explain or link Permanent Air Force and Air Force Reserve for readers unfamiliar with the RAAF.
No, it was a detachment of the RAAF force in Malaysia and aircraft were rotated between the two countries - I've clarified this in the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technical review
No dab links.
External link to NAA gives a warning but works fine from article.
Support -- Nice work as usual, Nick; made my usual minor copyedit but generally prose, structure, detail, images, and referencing look sound; couple of minor things:
The squadron has been formed on four occasions since it was first established in 1943... --"First established" (or "first formed") always sounds a tautology to me (like "new initiative"). How about The squadron has been reformed on three occasions since it was established in 1943...?
I think it needs to be clearer that the 8 Sabres from 77SQN were used for the reformed 79SQN at Ubon (via Singapore); at the moment the uninitiated can assume a connection but it's not explicit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was very little to fix. A few judgment calls I didn't make: - Dank (push to talk)
"initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots": I think I'd prefer the word you use in the last section, "introductory", to "initial", because "initial" can be misinterpreted as redundant to "jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots".
Done
"as a result of wounds": That's not wrong, but I recommend "from wounds", and there's a little more to this than simply reducing 4 words to 1; there's something of a trend in formal English to replace some phrases that are synonyms of "because" with prepositions.
Done (the few words per sentence the better in my view!).
"In exchange" usually feels wry and metaphorical to me when used to describe trading casualties; it's not wrong, but it's just a little more "clever" than the context supports, I think.
Fair enough; I've replaced this with a 'however'
"later further improved": I think I prefer "later improved".
I think that the current wording is OK - the issue is that living conditions were improved from a low standard and then later made even better.
"The squadron was equipped with 12 Mirage III fighters that had previously been operated by No. 3 Squadron, and a single DHC-4 Caribou transport." There are exceptions, but see WP:MHCL#series; more often than not, a sentence is a little easier to read if you put the complex element in the series last: *"The squadron was equipped with a single DHC-4 Caribou transport and 12 Mirage III fighters that had previously been operated by No. 3 Squadron."
Given that the squadron was formed to operate the Mirages and the Caribou was assigned to it for administrative-type reasons, it seems best to lead with the Mirages.
Changed to Southeast Asia (which is what the Australian official history uses, so is presumably common usage here as well). Thanks a lot for the comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have a small problem with The squadron was reformed... due to the ambiguity of "reform" which might mean "form again", or perhaps "remake in a more suitable form, to remedy previous defects". Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the Macquarie dictionary supports "re-formed" here. I have made the edit, but if any one feels strongly it could probably just be reworded. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article looks good. I made a small copyedit, but under "Construction" there is a mention of a "commission" which apparently reported on the suitability of the vessel. Did I miss being introduced to this earlier? Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rumiton: thanks for saying it looks good, I value your copyeditor's eye. Several of us have worked on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
One question for Rumiton or Sturm: Rumiton changed "did nothing to alert the other ships" to "did not alert the other ships". I don't think they're equivalent, and the first seems stronger, although it raise the question of how many different ways they could alert the other ships. Do you have a preference, Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nikolaev Admiralty": the linked page doesn't contain the word "admiralty", so people following the link to find out what "Nikolaev Admiralty" means are going to be disappointed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alexander's guests, parties and diplomatic visits to Istanbul regularly interfered with the crew's duties, but he limited such occasions to a reasonable minimum": I don't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...turned the installation of its engines into an engineering nightmare, and the Navy...". Again, perhaps change to something like "made the installation of engines very difficult, to the point that the navy..."D2306 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"to harass the Reds in Taman", "...to prevent the Reds from breaking out into the Black Sea". Change "Reds" to "Red Army" or "Red Army forces". I am also not sure "out into the Black Sea" is grammatically correct.D2306 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couple other things - it probably needs another image or two based on the length (more of a FA criteria).
All of the other images have sourcing issues so I'm not going to use them.
I watch out for 'firsts' so I noticed ...making Rostislav the first capital ship in the world to use fuel oil., which made me wonder: what was the theory behind having one set of boilers using coal and the other oil? Might be worth another sentence to explain what was going on here; the later version of having boilers use either seems more efficient to me (and obviously this system did not work very well as you discussed later).
SupportComments: mainly just focusing on presentation and style
CorenSearchBot shows no copyright violation (no action required) [114];
in the Diplomatic incidents section, is there a need for a single sentence paragraph? I think it would be best just to merge the three paragraphs all into one;
Agreed.
there is some inconsistency in the Notes, for instance "Melnikov, pp. 41 and 42." should probably just be "Melnikov, pp. 41–42.";
Fixed.
Note # 24, "Prices for Armor Plate" -could publisher and date details be added;
Done.
I'm a little confused between the Notes and the Footnotes sections. Some of the Footnotes appear to be sentences/commentary that should probably go in the Notes section because they seem to fulfill the same role as Note 1. For instance Footnotes # 3, 6, 23, 41, 46, probably should be "Notes"';
Agreed.
in the References section, some of the year ranges have endashes and some don't. E.g. Willmott and Shirokorad don't. I'm confused about WP:DASH now (there seems to be a bit of a backlash against it of late), so I will only suggest that the hyphens in the year ranges be changed to endashes. If you don't think its required, that's fine (suggestion only);
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have to say I'm surprised by the paucity of scholarly journal articles... I wonder how they slipped through the cracks. 1 Provisional is mainly used as an example / exemplar of small insertions (landings, air landing, etc) or mentioned in passing in relation to OOB litanies on Korea. But the list is also fairly book heavy, and maybe publishing in this area has been book heavy. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broken ref links: Varhola 2004, p. 106 (wrong year); Alexander 2001, p. 131 (No such reference, wrong year?); Fehrenbah 2001, p. 124 (spelling?); Millett 2000, p. 532 (not given in bibliography)
The unit number shorthand (i.e. 3/5) is rather informal, and not appropriate. In most instances, you can write out the name for better form, especially when listing the battalions in a regiment (i.e. replace "1/6, 2/6, and 3/6" with "1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalions").
I love the detail of the Korean War history, but it seems to lean unbalanced in that direction compared to the other periods. There has to be a way to not make that three-month period seem to dominate the unit's history without trimming that valuable content. Perhaps you can flesh out the other three active periods a bit more, if possible? I know that referencing is heavy towards Korea, and if you can't, I certainly wouldn't oppose over this.
The problem I've found is the brigade's other actions were so brief they merit only a line or two in books. I might be able to add another source on the Guam operation but in the eyes of history, the brigade is by far most well known for its actions in Korea. —Ed!(talk)04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I read unit histories or battle summaries, I expect to see a few names (commanders, notable awardees, etc.). Seems like this article only mentions Craig and higher commands. The article could benefit from some more of the "human side" of the brigade.
I've named the commander of the brigade in each iteration, unfortunately none of the other Marines in the unit was particularly notable as far as I can tell — no Medals of Honor and no Navy Crosses mentioned. —Ed!(talk)04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I went though the list of articles that link to this one, and aside from the commanders I didn't find anyone else. I suppose some links could be to the respective battalion articles but this one was around long enough before I touched it I feel like anyone known for being in it should have such a mention in their own article if they are notable enough to deserve a mention here. —Ed!(talk)05:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greenlinks: while redirects are not bad in and of themselves, the sheer number of them seem to give off a sloppy feel to me. A few of them seem to overlink (as in, several different redirects all leading to the same article in a way that multiple blue links would be overlinking).
Ref the unit shorthand mentioned above - this sort of numbering convention is very common in historical writing about US military units, especially Marine units. I wouldn't consider it informal or inappropriate at all in an article about Marine units. Typical convention is to use the full name first with the shorthand in parenthesis and then use the shorthand for future references.
Overall writing style is good and IMO avoids bias.
I think the Korean weight of the history is somewhat unavoidable as this was the Provisional Brigade's main action. The Guam action could be extended a bit, I think, but it will be hard to do the same for Cuba.
Not sure if using a temporary badge as the unit image is a good choice. I know it's got strong historical association, but it might warrant some more detail in the Iceland section if it's going to remain.
Given that Iceland doesn't have a long section in the article, I think it might be advisable. Since this was a provisional unit I doubt that there was any long-term identification with that badge. I think one reason it's so prominently featured is that Marine units don't normally wear shoulder patches (and in fact they were prohibited by the Corps in 1947 according to this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partly true (I was actually going to post that link myself to demonstrate my next point). While the wearing of patches on uniforms was discontinued, most Marine units continued to keep (or create) unit logos, and use them as an identification symbol on forms, signs, placards, etc. I think given the lack of any other logo for the brigade (official or otherwise), the use of the polar bear would necessarily be inappropriate (especially with the given caption); although it is indeterminant if that logo was used subsequently. But it's your judgment call. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know they use unit symbols and the like...it's the shoulder patch that was pretty much discontinued. I'm not especially wedded to keeping or removing the bear, but I did want to point out that it could be misunderstood by folks who didn't read deeply into the article. Your call, really. I won't fuss either way.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. I tried to make the caption indicate this more clearly but if it doesn't work I can change it. The problem is this unit was so radically different each time I feel like few other images would adequately belong in the infobox conveying its identity. Any ideas? —Ed!(talk)05:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External links all check out (no action required);
The citation checker reveals 4 errors (Catchpole 2001, p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCatchpole2001 (help), Fehrenbach 2001, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFehrenbach2001 (help), Appleman 1998, p. 464 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAppleman1998 (help) and Fehr127 - all errors reported as "Multiple references contain the same content");
This is a little repetitive: "In each of its iterations, the brigade was typically not organized as a permanent formation. Typically it was..." (specifically 'typically' used twice);
This seems poorly worded: "occupying 26 towns and all rail traffic in the area." Specifically I'm not sure how to occupy rail traffic... perhaps "controlling all rail traffic" or something similar?;
"In May of 1940", shouldn't this just be "In May 1940";
As it stands it is grammatically correct. I believe in American English it would be corrected to "May, 1940"
Repetitive: "However, as post-war military spending was drastically cut, the brigade at this time was drastically undermanned." Specifically use of 'drastically' twice;
Not sure about the capitalisation here: "The Force surged forward";
I'd actually go with either "it surged forward" or "they surged forward" ... the problem is the Task Force is treated as singular in the previous sentence and plural ("they") in the following sentence. Either approach is okay, but it's better to be consistent with this, in the whole article in fact. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a need to wikilink "killed" (currently linked the Killed in Action) (very minor almost petty point I accept);
I thought it important to link to an explanation of how the number is calculated (why people who died of sickness or non-combat wounds aren't "killed in action" —Ed!(talk)21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These two paras are repetetive: "On the morning of September 1 the 1st and 2nd Regiments of the NK 9th Division, in their first offensive of the war, stood only a few miles short of Yongsan after a successful river crossing and penetration of the American line.[100][101] Division commander Major General Pak Kyo Sam felt the chances of capturing Yongsan were strong. On the morning of September 1, with only the shattered remnants of E Company at hand, the US 9th Infantry Regiment, US 2nd Infantry Division had virtually no troops to defend Yongsan.[100] Division commander Major General Lawrence B. Keiser formed ad-hoc units from his support troops but they were not enough to counter the North Korean attack." Specifically they both start with "on the morning of September 1";
Some inconsistency with presentation of Marine battalions: in places "2/10 Marines battalion" in others "The 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines". Personnally I'm more of a fan of the latter but I think a Marine might correct me on it! Whatever you chose needs to be consistent though;
"The company with help from Marine tank fire eventually overcame heavy resistance, but this early morning battle for the line of departure delayed the planned attack." Which company?
Ed!, I'm sorry I was behind on my A-class work and couldn't get to your current FAC before it went up. I still haven't had a chance to look at it, but no one is complaining about it. Would you rather I do that one first, or ignore that as long as there are no problems and start here first? - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreed with all of Anotherclown's prose notes above except the one I mentioned. It will help if you could fix those before I get started. Also please run down the checklist if you haven't had a chance to do that yet ... note that "Acronyms" isn't on the checklist any more, there were a lot of hard questions about acronyms that we didn't have consistent answers for. - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to everyone for the slow response. I have had a lot of trouble finding time to work on Wikipedia, but I fully intend to address everything above as soon as I can. —Ed!(talk)05:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Co-ordinator comment: this A-class review has been open for 28 days now. It appears that the nominator may have satisfied the comments above, so before I close it, could reviewers please state whether or not their comments have been addressed and whether or not they support or oppose the article's promotion to A-class? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note on Anotherclown's talk page asking him to revisit this review before I close it. He is quite busy in real life at the moment so may not get to it for a couple of days. I think, however, in the issues of fairness to the nominator that this review should stay open until then. I trust that no one will have an issue with this but if there are any concerns, please let me know and we can discuss. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article covers a little-known but significant air campaign of World War II. I've consulted a wide range of sources on the air campaign and I think that the article may now meet the A class criteria. I might take the article to FA class, so any comments how it could be further improved would be great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here are a few things i noticed after reading the article -
You cover the attacking forces quite well but go into little detail of the ground defenses on the American held islands, did they have heavy aa guns? What was the troop strength of the american garrisons on the island at the time? Ect.
I haven't been able to find anything out about what the AA defences around the airfields comprised (beyond this source, which doesn't seem to meet the RS criteria), though I'll keep looking (Shelby Stanton's US Army World War II Order of Battle should be useful, though this probably won't say exactly where the units were stationed on the island). The islands didn't really have a troop garrison (as it was impossible for the Japanese to mount a counter-invasion) and the ground units which passed through don't seem relevant to this air campaign.
I've added a generic mentions of fighters and AA guns to the infobox. I fear that it won't be possible to be more precise. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Shelby Stanton's US Army World War II Order of Battle book yesterday, and it confirmed the units listed on that website, so I've added this to the article. There's no information on where on Saipan they were stationed, however. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you list the fighter and bomber units by name, might the names of the anti-aircraft units be listed in the background since they were engaged as well? Does Stanton give any numbers on the stregnth of these units on saipan?XavierGreen (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I've got no details on which of the battalions were actually involved in the fighting (some would have been stationed around the airfields while others would have been assigned to port areas and other key facilities which weren't actually attacked), that seems unnecessary detail. Stanton doesn't provide any information about the strength of these units. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More detail should be put into the infobox if possible, for example if american troop strength, number of fighters based on the islands, ect.
As above, I can't find this kind of detail I'm afraid. I've identified the USAAF units which took part in this campaign in the text, but they don't specify how many aircraft were involved in air defence duties.
All the sources say that the Japanese raids were focused on the aifields (as this is where the B-29s were coming from), so there were no naval losses. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing i just realized, there is no campaign box on the page. Perhaps adding the Mariana and Palau Islands campaignbox might be helpful to readers.XavierGreen (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though these raids formed part of the air campaign against Japan, and not the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign - I've added the campaign box for the appropriate campaign. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: I have the following comments and copy editing suggestions:
no dabs, ext links all work, images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only, not a requirement);
Done
in the lead, I think "mid 1945" should be "mid-1945";
Done
in the Background section, "...Yap to the south west" I think this should be "southwest";
Done
in the Japanese attacks section, "These raids typically comprised twelve Japanese Navy-operated Mitsubishi G4M bombers (labeled "Betty" bombers by the Allies), or Army operated Mitsubishi Ki-67 bombers, operating from bases on mainland Japan and staging through Iwo Jima" (should be Army-operated for consistency, also there is slight repitition here "operated" and "operating": perhaps reword slightly?;
Tweaked
in the Japanese attacks section, this sounds a little strange to me, "damaged its propeller on a wave" (on a wave, or in a wave?);
Good point - I've changed this to 'struck a wave' and left out the damage (as this is implicit)
in the Japanese attacks section (and also in the United States counter attacks section), I think the capitalisation might be wrong here: "The United States Military..." (The United States military, as it is not a proper noun?). You have displayed this as "United States military" in the Background section;
Good point, fixed.
in the Japanese attacks section, "that the MEW still wasn't in use" (contraction "wasn't" probably should just be "was not");
Fixed
in the Japanese attacks section, I think a paired comma is needed here: "Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, the commander of the Pacific Ocean Areas" (after Areas);
Well spotted! I meant to include that - fixed.
in the Japanese attacks section, "Despite this, it still wasn't" (contraction wasn't, as per above);
Fixed
not sure about this as it is US English, but should "air to air" be "air-to-air"? (per this US English dictionary);
As I struggle with Australian English, I'll take that dictionary's American English usage over mine! Fixed.
in the Japanese attacks section, "damaged three beyond repair and caused minor damage to a further eleven" (maybe "further 11");
As all the numbers in that sentence are written I think it would look odd to swap to numerals.
in the Japanese attacks section, "eleven B-29s", maybe this should be "11 B-29s";
Done (with 35 at the end of the sentence this works better)
there is some inconsistency in the presentation of times, e.g. "01:30 am" as opposed to " 9.45 am" and "11.00 am" (colon vs dot as seperator);
All changed to use a dot as a separator
in the United States counter attacks section, "B-29 bombers in conjunction with a bombardment by the heavy cruisers USS Chester". Perhaps "...naval bombardment by the heavy cruisers..." (this would just clarify aerial vs naval bombardment for those not paying attention);
Good point, done. I've added a link to the article on Naval gunfire support as well (this seems to be the closest thing we have to a generic article on naval bombardments).
in the United States counter attacks section, "Small scale night attacks" (I think this should be "Small-scale night attacks". Per this US English dictionary);
Done
in the Operation Tsurugi section, "before the G4Ms crash landed upon them" (I think this should be "crash-landed", per this dictionary entry: [115];
Done
in the Operation Tsurugi section, there are some inconsistencies in capitalisation: "naval commandos" and "Naval commandos", "Army commandos";
As these aren't the names of anything I've removed the capitals from Naval and Army here (except for 'Army-Navy' as the commandos aren't mentioned here)
in the Aftermath, "US Military" or "US military" (as per previous comment)?
Fixed
in the Aftermath, "it was considered that it may be necessary". Perhaps this might sound better as: "it was considered that it might have been necessary";
I've tweaked this sentence so it's written in the active voice, which I think should fix this problem
in the Notes section, "Morison (1960)" - are you citing from the 1960 version, or the 2002 reprint? If the later, I think maybe it should be "Morison (2002)" in the short cites;
The 2002 reprint. I've made this change (I think that the page numbers are the same as the 1960 edition, but using 2002 as the short form is safer)
in the References, the two dates for the Morison work might be better displayed as "|origyear=1960 |year=2002", this will display the dates in separate brackets;
Done
in the References, the Advisor script is reporting a possible ISBN error for the Francillon work, could you please check this? (I think it is because of the spacing);
Descriptive titles should not be bolded in the lede per MOS:BOLDTITLE
Done
The article could use a location map for the islands. Many readers probably don't know they are in the Pacific, let alone where in the Pacific.
Great idea - done
It's a pity the source of the intelligence on Operation Tsurugi is not given (probably ULTRA?) but if there's not a source, it can't be said.
No, it's not specified unfortunately - the sources talk about generic 'intelligence' and 'reconnaissance'. By this stage of the war Allied aircraft were flying over Japan more or less at will, so the build up may have been spotted from the air (though I suspect you're right about ULTRA).
"from 12 October": "starting on 12 October". Non-AmEng. "From 12 October on" would also be fine for Americans, but maybe not for Brits and Australians. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with taking this to FAC, and if it's going there, see WP:MOS#Chronological items and WP:MOSTIME. Also, over the last 10 months, people at SHIPS and MILHIST have either used the colon themselves or been happy when I inserted it. It's not something I have any strong feelings about one way or the other, but it does seem to be the standard. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"(labeled "Betty" bombers by the Allies)": "labeled" isn't wrong, but I'm wondering if "nicknamed" would be easier for some readers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Betty' was the official Allied reporting name for the aircraft, so 'nicknamed' isn't accurate - this implies that it was an informal name.
A 'Hikotai' was an unit which comprised only aircraft and their crews and no groundcrew. Attack Hikotai 703 was formed by separating the flying element of the 752nd Kōkūtai (air group) from the non-flying personnel in April 1944. I've tweaked the wording so its clearer that this was a military unit. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is "carried by" good enough for "landed on the bases by"? - Dank (push to talk)
That works for me, and looks better.
"Moreover, due to the high cost of the heavy bombers the": "Moreover, due to the high cost of the heavy bombers, the". See WP:MHCL#commas. - Dank (push to talk)
From what I understand, all IJN bomber and fighter units were redesignated on 1 November 1942 with numerical designations. Each numeral was a discrete identifier of information related to the unit. Therefore, the 252 Kokutai, for example, would be more correctly expressed in English as the "252 Air Group" or "Air Group 252" rather than the 252nd Air Group. If I'm correct, then a hidden message should probably be inserted in the text explaining this or other editors who are unaware will be forever changing the text to "252nd Air Group," believing they are correcting a mistake.
That seems in line with my sources for the names of units and a good idea (the '252nd Air Group' redlink I included was only used to be in line with one of Wikipedia's few articles on Japanese WW2 air units)
You appear to have used all the mains sources which likely have important information for this topic. I'll check a few other books that I have, but I doubt they will provide any further information than you were able to find in English language sources. If I find anything more, I'll add it.
Thanks for that - anything more would be great.
If the sources support it, you might try to explain in greater detail at the beginning of the article a little more of the "big picture" surrounding the article's topic, i.e. one reason the US high command took the Japanese raids so seriously was because the B-29 bombers were considered to be strategic, not just tactical, assets and the B-29 bombing campaign was one of the major initiatives by the Allies to attempt to directly bring about Japan's surrender. For Japan's part, it was a severe embarrassment for the top leaders of Japan that the homeland was being bombed, and therefore a high priority was placed on trying to disrupt the bombing.
I'd really like to include something on this, but unfortunately the sources don't really link the raids to the wider strategic scene like this. I've added a little bit on Arnold's concerns being partially driven by the high cost of each B-29, but I don't think that it's possible to go beyond this. I chose to develop an article on this topic as it's a good example of how the Japanese made serious efforts to stop the B-29s (something which also often isn't recognised) but ultimately fell far short due to the imbalance between their military power and that of the US by this time.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last König class ship to grace the ACR process, Markgraf saw heavy service during World War I, including the Battle of Jutland and Operation Albion. This article passed a GA review last month, and I feel it's very close to meeting our A-class criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets and exceeds our standards, in preparation for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article follows the same layout as the last SMS battleship article I had a chance to review. The German WP article mentions five commanding officers during the ships service history. Could this be added? At least mention the name of the captain that was shot (Walter Schumann).
Unfortunately, the German WP article is completely unsourced, so I can't take any information directly from that. I found a reference to Walter Schumann in Van der Vat's The Grand Scuttle, which I just ordered on Amazon - hopefully I'll have it in a week or so. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. (10 Bände)ISBN3836497433 or Linienschiffe: Von der Nassau- zur König-KlasseISBN3763759948. There are many German publications available which you could consult. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is right - the names seem to all indicate the titles held by Emperor Wilhelm's predecessors: King (in Prussia), Great Elector (of Brandenburg), Markgraf (of Brandenburg), Crown Prince. Probably worth researching more - I'll see what I can find. Kirk (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I browsed a half-dozen ship history books - its very uncommon for any battleships to have an explanation for the name, and I didn't find any reason for the names of the König class, or the SMS Markgraf (or the names of the Kaiser class either). The only one I found was an unsourced caption for a picture for the Grosser Kurfürst in the Encyclopedia of Ships, page 321 that linked the name to Der Grosse Kurfürst]. Kirk (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check Koop, Gerhard; Schmolke, Klaus-Peter (1999). Von der Nassau- zur König-Klasse (in German). Bonn, Germany: Bernard & Graefe Verlag. ISBN3-7637-5994-8. on page 131 it reads "Namensgeber: Eine Ehrung des badischen Herrscherhauses" my translation "to honour the house/dynasty of Baden" MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the article now but I still think that it should be mentioned that the ship was named on behalf of the margrave of Baden. A further testimony of this is the fact that the ship was christioned by Frederick II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
III Battle Squadron, III Squadron , 1st Battlecruiser Squadron ... I have no clue what this is or how this is organized. Could you add footnote or a dummy stub article that tells me what this is.
According to Koop and Schmolke launched on 4 June 1913 (correct in Construction and design) not 3 June 1913 (see lead section and info box). see page 20. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but English is too poor to understand what this means "when Moltke and the four Königs covered the landing of ground troops". Four Königs!? Do you mean four König-class ships or does this mean something else? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Kalkgrund Bank in the Förde but this is somewhere in the Gulf of Riga. Larina Bank is on the eastern side of the Gulf, so I'd imagine Kalkgrund is as well, but I can't find it anywhere. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
("His Majesty's Ship Margrave") I am having a problem with translating the name of the vessel this way, especially as it implies that the ship was somehow connected to the Royal Navy. Proper names are normally not translated. Am I missing something? Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined to be the best way to explain what "SMS" means , along with the translation of the word - there are plenty of navies that use "His Majesty's Ship" as the prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still ill at ease with it, and I'm pretty sure others will be as well. Normally no attempt is made to translate a proper noun, whether of a person, a company, a state, an animal, or as here, a ship. And I can't think of any other monarchy with a navy that uses that prefix in English. Rumiton (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've been doing it at least since July of last year, and no one else has raised an objection. Most other royal navies use the term (though it's usually altered, as in the case of HNoMS Stord (G26), for instance, even though the insertion of "No" isn't strictly accurate.) As for the translation, the name in this case is a thing that should be explained (i.e., it was a title held by Wilhelm II, and it has an English translation). Would you prefer [[Margrave|Markgraf]]? Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found HMS always to be altered in English to avoid confusion. eg His Danish Majesty's ship, His Swedish Majesty etc. I think I would prefer if it were made clear that we are translating (or attempting to translate) the name and title, rather than providing an alternate or previous name (which is the way I read it at first.) Having spent 29 years in a navy, and being a German speaker, if I made that mistake, then probably others will. Rumiton (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beautifully argued. Parsec, are you okay with substituting "His German Majesty's ship" for "His Majesty's ship" in all our SMS articles? Rumiton, on the point of spelling out the acronym, we're following Chicago 10.3: spell them out at first occurrence, except for the most common ones, the ones with pronunciations given in Merriam-Webster. Chicago doesn't say what to do with foreign acronyms (probably because they believe they're covered by their advice to avoid unfamiliar acronyms), but I think it's safe to say that few readers need to see "Seiner Majestäts Schiff" in the lead sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The two shells killed 11 and wounded 31" and then later "which killed eleven men and wounded thirteen". Seems inconsistent in style;
I changed it to "11 men and wounded 13", but I've never seen a satisfactory interpretation of WP:ORDINAL on this point. I think Parsec was writing "eleven" because of the "five" earlier in the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"this, however, forced Grosser Kurfürst to haul out of formation" ("fall out of formation", perhaps?);
In 'Battle of Jutland' section, you use "III Battle Squadron" and "III Squadron", are these the same? This is repeated in the 'Subsequent operations' and 'Operation Albion' sections. I accept this may be an attempt to avoid repetition but I think consistency is probably more desirable;
This doesn't seem quite right to me: "fired on an imaginary submarine." perhaps "fired on an submarine which turned out to be imaginary" or something similar?.Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made the edits; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
Not a lot of comments, not a lot to fix, and almost all the things that I'm tweaking aren't things we've covered before ... which makes me really happy. You've made a remarkable effort here. - Dank (push to talk)
"8-inch thick": I went with "8-inch-thick", but "8-inch" is also okay. Probably, the reason "8-inch thick" looked right to you is that we're usually converting the unit, so we've been omitting the final hyphen, because 8-inch (20 cm)-thick would look awful. - Dank (push to talk)
I've reworded in a few cases where the pronouns "this" and "which" were some distance from what they were modifying. This was a stylistic call, and you were quite right that there was no serious possibility of mistaking the subjects of these pronouns. - Dank (push to talk)
"one of the only remaining sources of radiation-free steel.": You're restricted to what the source says, of course, but there's a lot of steel underwater and underground, so "only" seems like an overstatement to me. I went with "among the few accessible", but feel free to revert. Also, there was a lot more long-term radiation released through above-ground tests than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki so I said that ... but of course, if the source included those as sources of radiation, I guess you have to as well (unless you have a better source). - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with the steel is, there's plenty of radiation free iron ore, but to make steel you have to use a lot of oxygen, which contains trace radioactivity from nuclear tests. The steel in these ships is quite literally some of the only radiation-free steel on the planet. Everything else looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, but you're talking about comparatively minuscule quantities of metal; there are thousands of tons of steel in these ships. This is also high quality steel we're talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No supporting citations for the armor, crew or the range figures in the infobox. Add cites there, or, the better solution, IMO, add a descriptive paragraph with cites. I suspect this is also an issue with your other ACR so do the same over there so I don't have to repeat myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Launched, commissioned, mine jumped out at me, but I'm sure that there are others. It's really annoying to have do these for each article, but not so bad if you can just copy-paste from an older article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're over-abbreviating. This is most annoying when dealing with ranges and speeds as I can't really see a need to abbreviate yards or knots. But I that's just my preference and I'm not opposing over that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel (again ) that this article meets the citeria. Please be especially thorough in looking through this article, I plan to take it to FAC directly after promotion. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A1 passes citation consistency and completeness of research. Mea culpa Maxima, excuse me while I get new eyes. I was completely wrong when I said: Oppose on A1Same reason as the last two times, and the material supplied in September appears to have fallen out of the article (M Renneberg, M Walker (2003) Science, technology, and national socialism). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? What is the problem with this article that you're talking about? M Rennenberg and M Walker is use already, but under the name Albrecht (it says so in the biblography). Albrecht is currently Ref 4. Ref 4 is used in key spots, so why would that be a problem? WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies for my blindness. When you take this to FAC, please ping me so I can comment, and especially do so if you find you have difficulty with complaints about depth of research. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft to Allied aircraft but none were ever completed." When you say none, are we talking about the carrier ship or the Arado E.381? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine was planned to be used to power the airplane[3] after being carried aloft by its jet-powered Arado Ar 234 mother ship." If this is the same mother ship eluded to in the previous sentence why not make mention of it there? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft, the jet-powered Arado Ar 234, to Allied aircraft but no E.381s were ever completed." Now it sounds like the Nazi Air Force would be launching to this vehicle to assist Allied forces, not launching the plane against allied forces. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft, the jet-powered Arado Ar 234, to attack Allied aircraft but no E.381s were ever completed." This is now wordy and reads awkwardly, so how about something more like "Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been launched from the Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but plane was (canceled before completed, incomplete at the end of the war...)." TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine was planned to be used to power the airplane[3] after being carried aloft by its mother ship.[1]" If I was the plane and was introducing myself to a pilot I do not think my planned engine would part of my suit, smile, or firm handshake. Understandably, that would be material better left body of the interview. I would recommend removing this section from the lead then so that the article's introduction will appear more businesslike to passers by. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing the rocket model number, but I restored "with a rocket engine" because that seemed like a key point ... feel free to revert, either of you. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Sorry Wikicopter, but I still can't support this article's promotion. As with the previous nomination I'm concerned that the article's wording about the level of development this design reached is unclear and doesn't make it clear that this never progressed beyond mock up stage and didn't fly. Text like "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine powered the airplane" and "full production of the aircraft was canceled before any could be used on the battlefield" is confusing, for instance. This isn't that big a deal to change - all you need to do is tweak the wording (eg, to something like "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine would have powered the airplane" and "no aircraft of this design were ever completed"). I hope that this is helpful - if you'd like I could have a go at tweaking the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from Nick's phrasing concerns, the third pearagraph under 'development' bugs me. Is it really necessary to have the names of the books being referred to in the prose? That bugs me somewhat. - The BushrangerOne ping only16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems Dank took care of that. ;) But I do have one other concern: "...None of the designs were ever realized, though some wooden airframes and a single mockup were constructed...". I think "though" should be "although"? And "realized" sounds a little awkward, although I'm not sure if there is a better wording there. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Though" seems okay to me. Oxforddictionaries.com says: "In formal writing, although tends to sound better than though as the opening word of a sentence." (But they also say that though is "less formal"; I don't know that guide well enough to know what that means.) It's the same in AmEng, I think, and the word isn't the first in the sentence here. "Realized" was mine; I meant it in the sense of "made real", but you have a point that maybe not everyone will get that. I didn't like "constructed" because you don't actually construct a design, you construct something per a design. Anyone have a better word? - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just made some copyedits that I hope are acceptable. The phrase "According to Arado..." sticks out. Does it refer to the book on the defunct manufacturer? Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th usage of Arado in the lead is, "According to Arado..." To me this implies that the Arado company is still functioning, and their advice was sought for the article. Rumiton (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (That would make the source a primary one.) Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an informative but succint article in my opinion. My only point relates to the way you refer to you sources in the prose. I personnally wouldn't do it and think you should consider rewording, however I am aware of no policy which prevents this, so its really a question of editorial judgement. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
There are still a few phrases that make me grimace, but I've failed this article at FAC and at A-class previously, and everyone likes the article now, so per WP:DICK, I'll leave it alone. It's a great improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the man in the cockpit" was inside a quotation. I see a copy editor inserted the "the", but if that wasn't in the original, then it should be "[the]". - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be equating the frontal cross section with the fuselage cross section in the first paragraph; can I just say frontal cross section? - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources state that ...": This is Wikipedia jargon; I've deleted it. - Dank (push to talk)
"Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II states that "nothing came of the idea", while Arado, History of an Aircraft Company says "the Projekt E.381 was never built" and Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft says "construction of a mock-up and a small number of unpowered wooded airframes for the purpose of providing prone pilot training was started." Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II states that prototypes were designed in 1944 but no production of completed aircraft took place.": I'm really not clear what's going on here. Normally, you shouldn't say who said what unless there's disagreement and you're trying to be clear about the dispute ... but the best I can tell, these authors aren't contradicting each other. So, I removed the attribution ... but feel free to revert or discuss if there's something I'm not seeing. - Dank (push to talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe I have improved the quality of the article to near FA-quality; an A-Class review would help to point out any remaining deficiencies and improve it to FA-quality. I am pushing this article for FAC at the end of January/beginning of February so that it can make it to the Main Page on 29 March 2011 or 17 April 2011 (whichever day is accepted as the 550th anniversary of this conflict). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009's comments
I'll read through and summarise any thoughts below...
Lead:
The first sentence doesn't really tell the reader exactly what the article is about. It could read, for example, "The Battle of Towton was fought in the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461, near the village of the same name." or something like that - it needs to make instantly clear what the topic is.
"a civil war in which York and Lancaster sought to elevate..." You've said that they are houses in the first para, but I think you probably need to repeat the "house of..." in the second para for clarity.
The second para of the lead could probably be condensed; it's covering quite a lot of the wider background to the conflict for the lead for this article.
I weeded out a few things (although I doubt I had condensed things...); but I think the Act of Accord and Wakefield were responsible for this battle and why it was fought. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Battle of Towton was to decide which..." This could be misread to imply that the battle was fought in order to decide which would rule. Might be worth rewording it slightly.
Actually, that was the intent. Henry was the king by tradition, and Edward's claim was supported by the Yorkists and a fair number of neutral lords. Whoever won the battle would be the "true" king by destroying the other. I reworded it to make this clearer. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Yorkists were outnumbered by the Lancastrians, and their situation was exacerbated by the absence of one of their forces under John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk" The sentence isn't clear if Mowbray force's absence simply made the numerical odds worse, or if it produced additional problems.
"Lord Fauconberg and his archers turned the tables around by taking advantage of the strong wind to outrange their enemies, inflicting casualties and provoking them into abandoning their defensive positions. " You probably need to clarify who Fauconberg was (e.g. "the Yorkist leader Fauconberg...")
"The arrival of Norfolk's men invigorated the Yorkists..." do you mean invigorated, or reinvigorated? (invigorated would imply to me that they lacked spark throughout the battle before his arrival; invigorated would imply they were tired before he arrived, but had previously been suitably lively)
"The battle was remembered by most people as to have happened..." by who? How about "William Shakespeare's play Henry VI... heavily influenced later generations' image of the battle." or something like that?
The references backing some of the paragraphs sometimes give quite wide page ranges (e.g. Ross, pp.11-8). I have a personal bias towards trying to give more precise page references, giving several separate citations if necessary, in order to make finding the location of a fact and later editing easier (e.g. Ross, pp.11-12, or Ross, pp.14). This is my personal opinion, however, and not wiki policy, so don't feel obliged to follow it! :)
"Such actions proved detrimental to their cause:" Two bits from me. Were these deliberate actions by their leaders? (it wasn't easy to control armies in this period). Secondly, the wording felt odd. How about "As a result, the city of London..."?
"Running short on supplies and with no adequate means to replenish them, Margaret withdrew the Lancastrians to York in the face of Edward's march towards London with an army that had won the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in Herefordshire" A long sentence; probably worth breaking it in two.
"On 4 March, Warwick took the opportunity to proclaim the young Yorkist leader..." Unclear which opportunity he was taking.
Reworded. 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
" On 4 March, Warwick took the opportunity to proclaim the young Yorkist leader as King Edward IV, an action that gained greater acceptance than the previous duke's claim; several nobles previously opposed to letting Edward's father ascend the throne viewed the Lancastrian actions as a betrayal of the legally established Accord." Another long sentence. It probably also needs a "because" in it (or similar word): e.g. "The proclamation gained greater acceptance than Richard Plantagenet's claim, as several nobles...".
"he refused to extend his offer to 22 nobles " - 22 specific nobles? You probably need to indicate what was special about these 22.
Reworded to show the greater scope of his act, the reason behind the 22 were not mentioned (nor were the bounties specifically for them), guess I misread the source here. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Yorkist army broke into three detachments—a common deployment at that time." - as written, it makes it sound like a military formation. What does the source say? It just sounds a bit odd to say that it was common to divide forces into three groups in the 1400s, but I may not be understanding it.
A mistake: I was thinking of the three-battle formation—vanguard, main, rearguard—when I wrote this. The formation would only apply to the fight. Far better to write they were moving on three different paths. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On learning the encounter..." > "learning of the encounter"
" The religious nature of the date led to the naming of the engagement as the Battle of Palme Sonday Felde, which failed to gain long lasting recognition" Wording felt a bit odd. How about something like: "As a result of this, there were later calls for the conflict to be called the Battle of Palme Sonday Felde, but these did not gain wide acceptance."?
There are not really "calls" for it to be named; some documents pointed to the name, but historians and chroniclers did not adopt it. I will think of another phrasing later. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! Comments on the next section follows:
Force compositions:
"Contemporary sources declare that the two armies were huge in terms of manpower..." Is the "in terms of manpower" clarification essential? I wasn't sure how else a "huge army" could be measured, and wondered if it could just go "..were huge, stating that..."?
"In William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century)" - Is Gregory counted as a contemporary account in this paragraph? (the flow of the text needs a little tweaking either way)
"...they were on the average 30 years old..." > "they were on average 30 years old" (or "they were on average 30 years old at the time of their deaths" if you wished to be very precise)
"Many knights and noblemen were among the ranks..." - in the sense that they fought in the battle, or that they fought in the ranks of the common soldiers?
" approximately three-quarters of the English lords stepped onto the field of battle" Two issues. I'd recommend "took part in the battle" as opposed to "stepped onto the field". Secondly, what do you mean by "lords" in this sentence? Depending on context, "lord" can be quite a wide term at the time, or can be quite narrow (a member of the nobility). Looking at the numbers you then give, I think the latter is what's being described - might be worth checking the original source again.
"It was a battle to decide which of the two kings would rule over England, but while Edward fought with his men, Henry remained in York with Margaret. Regardless, the presence of the Lancastrian king might not have been much help to his followers. They regarded him a puppet; it was his wife who was in charge. Furthermore, they were wary of his mental instability." The way this was worded seemed a bit, well, judgemental. How about something like: "The Lancastrian forces were commanded by the Duke of Somerset, while Henry commanded his army in person. Henry, who remained in York with Margaret, was not well regarded by his men - they considered him a puppet of his wife, and had concerns about his mental instability."?
The paragraph was to compare the the two kings (in effect introducing Edward as a more "hands-on" ruler). I am wary to adopt your suggestion as it repeats the later Lancastrian commander paragraph. I removed the judgmental sentence and tweaked the sentences. Please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Yorkist strategy" - strictly speaking, I think this should be "Yorkist tactics", not strategy.
"Norfolk, although in charge of gathering men in the east, likely never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age." I was unclear if this mean that because he was gathering men in the east, he should have made it to the battlefield? (NB: it didn't make sense to me if that was the case) I can see it's trying to contrast with the previous leaders though. How about "By contrast, Norfolk, in charge of gathering men in the east, probably never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age."
"establish a seat of power for himself" - a seat in this sense would mean a castle or a stronghold. I think you probably mean "establish a power base for himself", i.e. make himself a powerful lord in the east of England.
"with plenty of wide open areas and small roads to manoeuvre the armies" > "on which to manoeuvre"?
Second paragraph: I'd advise sticking to a single tense - sometimes you are saying "was", and sometimes "is". This is clearly accurate, but throws the reader between past and present tense all the time.
"According to Gravett and fellow military enthusiast Trevor James Halsall (who is also a geologist)" - I'm not sure that Halsall's background as a geologist is worth mentioning here - perhaps as a footnote?
I liked the description of the terrain here, BTW!
"frontline" NB: I'm not sure, but should this be "front line"?
"the notion that" - "notion" in this context implies a rather fanciful idea. That may be what you're after, but would "the suggestion" be a softer way of putting it?
"forming up; line after line of soldiers crested the southern ridge of the dale and formed up" - repetition of "forming"
Fighting:
"The Lancastrian archers failed to perform." I'd have gone for "perform well", but its only a thought!
"lending his sword arm to the fight" I rather like the description in this section, but this phrase was probably a bit too rich for me. How about "engaging in the fight"?
"The armies clashed against each other" "against each other" is superfluous, given the "clashing" verb.
"three according to English Heritage" - are you sure it is really English Heritage being quoted here, and not a specific historian writing or working for them? (I might be wrong, but it sounds unusual for the organisation to have an official view on something like that). NB: Ah. Looked up the reference. "three according to research by English Heritage" would be a better form of words.
" the entire fight lasted 10 hours" I might have gone for "lasting 10 hours".
Aftermath:
"Tired men flung off their helmets and armour..." Because you're starting a new section, you'll need to clarify who these are, e.g. "The tired Lancastrian men..."
"the brutality in these killings" - brutality is quite a judgemental adjective - I'd be inclined to consider an alternative way of describing the level of force used in these final stages of the battle.
"Lancastrians were killed not just by their enemies, but also by their fellow soldiers and nature." This sentence didn't quite work for me - how about "Lancastrian casualties were increased by the panic as the soldiers attempted to cross the Cock Beck river."?
"which Charles Ross and other historians believed" Charles Ross is dead, but the other historians (I presume) are still alive and still believe it. Given that Ross is a contemporary historian, you could therefore probably safely go with "believe" rather than "believed" in this context.
" a bur (elderberry) tree" - I'd simply go for "a bur tree" and just link bur to elderberry.
"one notable gentry" - I don't think (?) you can say "one gentry", I think it should be "one notable member of the gentry"
"becoming exiles subject to the mercies of their hosts." - true enough, but I'd suggest closing it off after "becoming exiles." - the rest feels a bit dramatic.
"remaining in the care of the traitors' families" - traitors feels POV in this context (given that it was a civil war...) I'd suggest "remaining in the care of their families"?
"the English people no longer suffered the doubt over the country's state of leadership since the Act of Accord. They were assured that there was one true king—Edward—for the time being" - I've absolutely no evidence to back up my next point (!), but I find it really hard to imagine the typical rural dweller of the period being racked with doubt about the country's state of leadership. Is it worth checking back on how Carpenter says this?
Literature:
"Sixteenth century playwright William Shakespeare occasionally wrote dramatizations of historic figures." - I'd have said that "he wrote a number of dramatizations..." - there are quite a few of them.
"it was thanks to Shakespeare's dramatization of the battle that the weak and ineffectual Henry was at least remembered by English society in a manner," "in a manner" doesn't feel right at all.
"comes right after" > "comes immediately after"?
"Both killers had acted out of greed" > I think you need the present tense here, because of the tense of the preceding sentence, e.g. "Both killers have acted out of greed and fall..."
"Shakespearian scholar Arthur Percival Rossiter names the scene as the most notable of the playwright's written "rituals". The delivery of the event follows the pattern of an opera: after a long speech, the actors alternate among one another to deliver single-line asides to the audience." - that's correct, but I'm not sure that it is unique to this play is it? (i.e., the sentence would fit well in an article about Shakespeare, but I'm not sure you need it in an article talking about the battle).
I liked the sourcing for this section - IMHO, really good to see secondary works being used in this way.
Legacy:
" The ruins of the structure were still evident five centuries later." - this implies that they're not visible today - is this correct?
Comments: (just a technical review from me at the moment):
no dabs, ext links work, images all have alt text (no action required);
in the Notes, "Carpenter 1997" - probably should be "Carpenter 2002" given that was when the version that is cited was published, also changing it to that will fix up the broken harvn link;
"Wolffe 2002" or "Wolffe 2001" (currently both appear in the Notes [Citation # 6 v. Citation # 11], but according to the References it is Wolffe 2001);
Comments: I have the following copyediting suggestions. So far I have just looked at the first couple of sections up to and including the Force compositions section. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If they are not to your satisfication, just let me know, cheers:
in the lead, "The Battle of Towton was fought in the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461..." I suggest tweaking this slightly to: "The Battle of Towton was fought during the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461...";
in the lead, "Henry's wife, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the dispossession of her son's right to the throne and along with fellow Lancastrian malcontents raised an army". I think there should be a set of paired commas inserted: ", along with fellow Lancastrian malcontents,;
in the lead, "Several taken as prisoners were executed". I think that this would sound better as: "Several that were taken as prisoners were executed";
in the Background, "...which ruled the duke and his heirs would succeed the throne on Henry's death". I think that there is a missing word. I think "that" should be inserted: "...which ruled that the duke and his heirs...";
in the Background, I think a "however" should be inserted into the first sentence of the second paragraph so that it links to the previous statement, e.g. "The Queen of England, Margaret of Anjou, however, refused to accept this agreement...";
It would not be totally unexpected of her to reject the agreement (it was about her son, and those who thought it up never consulted her), so the contradiction "however" would not serve here. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the Background, "by a small band of Lancastrians, approximately 500 men led by John Clifford, 9th Baron de Clifford". I think this should be: "by a small band of Lancastrians, consisting of approximately 500 men led by John Clifford, 9th Baron de Clifford";
in the Background, I think there is a word missing here: "Learning the encounter, Edward led the..." I think that this should be: "Learning of the encounter, Edward led...";
in the Background, "approximately 2 miles north" - you might consider adding the {{convert|2|mi|km}} conversion tag, as this will translate miles to kilometres and display both figures (some readers can't conceptualise miles);
in the Force compositions section, "Contemporary sources declare the two armies huge in terms of manpower..." I think that this would flow better if it were reworded slightly: "Contemporary sources declare that the two armies were huge in terms of manpower, stating that more than 100,000 men fought in the battle";
in the Force compositions section, "A soldier in the Wars of the Roses claimed in William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century) that the Yorkists had 200,000 soldiers and the Lancastrian army even more". This might sound better as: "In William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century), a soldier who had served during the battle claimed that the Yorkists had 200,000 soldiers, while the Lancastrian army even more";
in the Force compositions section, "Later historians agree these figures were exaggerated, and believed 50,000 a more probable number. Regardless, the armies were among the largest gathered in those days". This might flow a little better as: "Later historians believe that these figures were exaggerated, however, stating that the figure of 50,000 is more likely; nevertheless, the armies that were gathered were among the largest at the time";
in the Force compositiions section, "Many knights...; as many as..." (repitition of the word "many" - is there a way to reword);
in the Force compositions section, there is a tense issue here: "Regardless, the presence of the Lancastrian king might not be of much help to his followers." ("might not be of much help" is present tense). Perhaps reword to : "...might not have been much help to his followers" (this would give it past tense);
in the Force compositions section, I think this clause needs a couple of linking words as it stands in opposition to the examples of the other prominent leaders: "Norfolk, in charge of gathering men in the east, likely never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age..." For instance: "Norfolk, however, although in charge of gathering men in the east...";
in the Force compositions section, I think a linking word is required here as it stands in opposition to the first part of the paragraph: "According to several historians, Sir Andrew Trollope, and not Somerset, was the Lancastrians' primary strategist". For instance, it might improve the flow if it were written like this: "However, according to several historians, Sir Andrew Trollope, and not Somerset, was...";
in the Force compositions section, I think a word is missing here: "His betrayal was a big blow to the Yorkists, for he was familiar with their men and played a key role in their victories in France". It might sound better as: "His betrayal was a big blow to the Yorkists, for he was familiar with their men and had played a key role in their victories in France";
in the Force compositions section, "There was also..." This sounds a little informal to me. Perhaps: "Other notable Lancastrian leaders included Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter, who had a reputation for violence and stupidity, and Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, who military historian Christopher Gravatt described as lacking in intelligence";
in the Force compositiions section, "...and the recently deceased Clifford". I think "recently" is subjective, so perhaps: "...and the then recently deceased Clifford" might make the narrative flow a little more smoothly? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the Deployment section, "Detailed accounts of the battle were few..." might sound more definative as: "There were few detailed accounts of the fighting written at the time of the battle. Even though it was written 70 years after the battle and there have been questions about its sourcing, Hall's chronical has subsequently become the main source used by historians";
None of the primary sources, save one, was written near the time of the battle. I have reworded the sentences.
in the Deployment section, "Later reconstructions of the battle were based on Hall's version..." Maybe: "Later reconstructions of the battle have been based on Hall's version..."?;
in the Deployment section, "...supplemented by bits and pieces..." this sounds a little informal. Maybe: "supplmented by other minor details drawn from other sources"?;
in the Deployment section, "...which connects the English capital..." I think the use of "English capital" here is slightly problematic. Is not London the capital of the UK as well as England? The UK is a modern concept, of course, so it is probably best not to use it as a term in this article, so in this case I'd suggest replacing "...to the English capital" with "to London";
I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is not major. It depends on the tense you are using, e.g. "which connects the English capital" is present text, my understanding from previous encounters here at ACR is that currently "London, England" is not correct, while "London, United Kingdom" is. If you were to say "connected the English capital" (i.e past tense), then I think it would be okay to say English capital. Like, I said, though, it is a minor thing and if you don't want to change, its no drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the Deployment section, I suggest wikilinking "plateau" on first mention;
in the Deployment section, this sentence probably needs a citation directly following it as it sounds like a judgement call: "Somerset's decision to engage the Yorkist army on this plateau was sound";
in the Deployment section, "London-Towton road" should have an endash per WP:DASH, e.g. "London–Towton road";
in the Deployment section, "...or an old Roman road to the west..." I think this should be "...or the old Roman road to the west" (the former is passive language, while the latter is a bit more definate);
in the Deployment section, "...letting the valley act as a "protective ditch". I think that this would flow better as: "...using the valley as a "protective ditch";
in the Deployment section, the first part of this sentence almost seems like it should be the opening sentence of the section: "No primary sources give the exact deployment of the armies..." I wonder if you could find a way to fit it into the first paragraph of the section. The second part (about the commanders) can probably stay where it is;
in the Fighting section, "...maximum range of their longbows". Do you able to provide a figure for this distance? It might make it a little clearer for the reader;
None of my sources give a range to this exchange, and with different materials and skill requirements between those bows and modern reconstructions, it would be original research for me to insert a modern estimate. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the Fighting section, "...had gone on for hours—3 according to...". Per WP:MOSNUM this should be "had gone on for hours—three according to" (numbers less than 10);
in the Fighting section, "By the end of the day, the Lancastrian line had broken up, small groups of men deserted their comrades, fleeing on their own for their lives". I think this should be reworded to: "By the end of the day, the Lancastrian line had broken up, as small groups of men began deserting their comrades, fleeing on their own for their lives";
in the Aftermath section, "...stated forty-two knights..." per WP:MOSNUM, I think that this should be "stated 42 knights";
in the Aftermath section, "....In 1996, workmen at a construction site in the town of Towton uncovered a mass grave. Archaeologists believed the bodies in this grave were slain during or after the battle in 1461. The bodies..." I think this would flow better as: "In 1996, workmen at a construction site in the town of Towton uncovered a mass grave, which is believed to contain the remains of men were slain during or after the battle in 1461. The bodies..."
in the Aftermath section, I suggest wikilinking the term "peerage";
in the Literature section, "3-part" should be "three-part" per advice above;
in the Literature section, I think there is a missing word here: "...albeit for his pining to have been born a shepherd than a king". I think it should be: "albeit for his pining to have been born a shepherd rather than a king";
in the Legacy section, "...well maintained, albeit several of its panels had been weathered away". I think that this would sound better as: "well maintained, even though several of its panels had been weathered away";
in the Legacy section, "Centuries after the battle, various relics found in the area include rings, arrowheads, and coins". I think this should be tweaked to read: "Centuries after the battle, various relics that have been found in the area include rings, arrowheads, and coins";
in the Legacy section, "it was the largest if not one of the largest fought in England..." I think this is the wrong way around. Perhaps reword to: "it was one of the largest, if not the largest, battles fought in England...";
in the Legacy section, I'm not sure about this, but I think "reenactors" should be "re-enactors";
in the Legacy section, given that there is a photo of people re-enacting the battle, would it be possible to briefly mention this? You might consider stating who takes part, wow often it occurs, whether it receives significant coverage, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is almost no reliable source that talks about the re-enactments. There are a few guide books but I think the quality of them and their scanty promotional sentences would be suspect at FAC.The Press has only one newspaper article about it and it is a press release by the Towton Battlefield Society (and for only last year). Thus, to build a paragraph or give details about this would seem to be of undue weight. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'd suggest trying to find a way to maybe even just include a sentence about it before FAC, if there is any way to do this, but its not a major deal for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AustralianRupert has asked me to comment as I have time on his reviews, and my comment is: fantastic job, both of you. Except as noted, I agree with every one of AR's observations, except where Jappalang resisted, in which case I agree with Jappalang. It's interesting how some BritEng feels like a completely foreign language to me, and other articles ... such as this one ... feel so comfortable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - only a few very minor points
The maps are very good (no action required);
This seems awkward: " to let York and his line to succeed Henry as king." should it be " to let York and his line succeed Henry as king." (remove the 2nd 'to')?;
"to covertly conceal itself" seems like a tortology to me, maybe reword to just "to conceal itself"; and
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominating this article for A-Class review because it's been a while since I scored my last bauble... ;-) Seriously though, yet another RAAF Duntroon graduate from the same time/space as McCauley, Scherger, Hancock, Walters, etc, though never quite reaching the same heights. That said, found him a far more interesting character than I'd expected once I researched him, particularly his action-packed pre-war career... Enjoy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ashworth has a subtitle. Ashworth has named volumes. Ashworth appears to be published 1999 (check bibliographic page of your copy). Ashworth is a book in series "Heritage Series".
Subtitle, yes, but a very long one and life is short. Named volumes, yes, will add. Published, well the copy says first in 2000. Series, technically yes but not really meaningful to the reader (unlike say "Australia in the War of 1939-45").
Double check Gillison's title page to ensure that the work's title is correct... the complexity of this title with multiple potential series titles and volume titles...; similarly check other works with named volumes in series to make sure you have the work title correct, and to ensure that Series and Volume Titles are actually a part of the work title, or, if not |series= |volume=
All the words of the title as I have it are on the title page. I grant you "Australia in the War of 1939-45" is also the series title but I think what I have is correct and it's seen me through 25 ACRs and FACs without issue... ;-)
Template-wise, I wasn't aware there was a thesis one, there wasn't when I first started referencing this work (maybe I asked for one!). Subtitle, yes, another of those marathon ones that leave you out of breath. Publisher, well I kind of figured University College of the University of New South Wales was part of University of New South Wales but perhaps there's a subtlety I missed...
One of the subtleties is which department you have to door knock to get a physical copy of the thesis / who supervised. UC UNSW is obviously ADFA (though, UNSW loves to change organisational names). The reason to use UC UNSW is that is what is on the thesis itself! (I did, humbly, create cite thesis for this kind of problem, where the work is not "published" in the sense of commercially made available from a press, but it is available for consultation (thus meeting WP:V's definition of publication). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so we have you to thank for the new template -- well done! Actually I just realised it had cite journal before -- that wasn't my doing, I used to employ cite paper as the closest approximation to a thesis before, but another editor changed those recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephens, David, is a book in series PAPERS IN AUSTRALIAN MARITIME AFFAIRS with a volume number 15. Obviously use title case instead of all caps.
Personally I prefer title case myself but I was using the Wikipedia citation style generated by the NLA database, which seems to have been acceptable in the past. Thanks for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this for GA and believe that it meets the A class requirements. It uses a consistent citation style, all claims are referenced, it is comprehensive, well written, and has appropriate supporting materials. Any concerns I had were raised in the GA review and have been actioned as required. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've added a little bit to this article, but should be neutral enough to review it. I think that the article easily meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
Was Charlesworth in any way responsible for the crash in November to December 1937 - the current wording implies that might have been (and is a more exact date for this incident possible?)
ADB makes a point of 'overall' responsibility -- I take it it was meant because he was CO at the time and/or may have had a close hand in planning, but it doesn't go into such detail. In terms of date, yes I can probably get the precise crash time by checking Coulthard-Clark's Third Brother, I used the month range because the entire mission took place over that period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not accurate to say that two Spitfire squadrons were transferred from North Western Area - while this was proposed by Bostock in July, nothing had come of it by the time the war ended.
Odgers was describing Bostock's plans for No. 1 Wing's three Spitfire squadrons in the Darwin area here. No. 80 Wing moved to Morotai between December 1944 and March 1945. Alan Powell also wrote about negotiations between the RAAF and RAF to transfer the British squadrons to a forward area at about this time in his book The Shadow's Edge: Australia's Northern War (p. 187). Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't specifically referring to two squadrons but, in any case, the pages cited in Odgers include Bostock getting Beebe’s agreement to transfer 80WG to Morotai (p.297), as well as where 452/457Sqns are described as being "under orders" to leave NWA (p.299) -- those squadrons were part of 80WG by then, weren't they? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they became part of 80WG upon its formation in May 1944. I think that you should tweak the page reference for this statement (the last sentence of the 'World War II' section) to the above pages, as the two Spitfire squadrons which are mentioned as possibly leaving North Western Area on pp. 476-477 were No. 54, 548 or 549 Squadrons. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, we've been talking at cross-purposes the whole time -- I thought you were referring to By October, the wing had received orders to depart NWA for the forward base of Morotai to join the RAAF's main mobile strike force, First Tactical Air Force; this move would leave Charlesworth with twelve squadrons at his disposal... and you meant By July, Charlesworth's area command had been denuded of much of its strength as two of its bomber wings and two Spitfire squadrons were transferred to First Tactical Air Force.... Now I get it -- that's fine, I'll just drop "and two Spitfire squadrons"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! You could tweak it by adding a sentence stating 'In July Air Vice Marshal William Bostock proposed transferring two of NWA's remaining three Spitfire Squadrons to support the Borneo Campaign' to emphasise that NWA would have continued to have shrunk had the war continued, but this might be more relevant to the Command than Charlesworth. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might be useful for the area commands article I've got in draft, reckon for Charlesworth it should be okay if I just drop the sqns mention... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why Charlesworth was considered suitable for future roles after World War II? (some combination of ability and playing politics correctly, I assume)
Just following up, we can surmise the official reason... Because the WWI-era commanders like Williams, Goble, Bostock, Cole, Wrigley, etc, were ostensibly retired to make way for younger and equally capable officers, we could deduce that Charlesworth was considered to fulfill those last-mentioned criteria -- but I don't know that it's worth trying to put that in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"while in charge of North-Western Area" "briefly took charge of Eastern Area" - to me it read really oddly not having "the North-Western Area" or "the Eastern Area". I know they're military formations, and so this is technically correct, but it did look odd in the final section.
Thanks mate -- funnily enough I thought of that and almost added "Command" after those instances -- would that make it sound less odd without the definite article beforehand? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was wondering why there was no prose review and no evidence of copyediting ... turns out it's because the article doesn't need any. One question: I'm not certain, but I almost always see paired commas (or no commas, but not just one) around parenthetical words and phrases in non-AmEng, although I don't have a style guide to back that up. I notice there's no comma after "Royal Military College, Duntroon". Does this seem right to you guys? Do you by chance have a style guide to back that up? Should we remove "paired commas" from the checklist? - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the vote of confidence on the prose, Dank -- always welcome! I have no strong feeling either way on paired commas re. locations following institutions; I used to employ them religiously, then decided it wasn't so common, now I tend to use again -- so if I didn't do it with RMC, Duntroon, I probably meant to (like just then)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These operations continued through November–December": I'm not against dashes on Wikipedia when they actually make things tighter, but certainly in AmEng and I think otherwise too, they're best avoided (between words, not numbers) if it's just as easy to use words. I like "November and December" here, but I'll leave the edit to you if you want to make it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood hyphenating to be standard here and use it everywhere but that's just habit, I have no strong feeling on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Minas Geraes class cooked off a South American naval arms race and briefly catapulted Brazil into 'major power' status in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately for Brazil, crews onboard rebelled in the year they were delivered, and while they sat rusting at the anchors in the next few years, advancements in naval technology rendered them outmoded, and later naval additions by Argentina eclipsed their power. Still, the story of their order and the reaction the world had to it is one of the more interesting plots I have written about. Hope you enjoy. Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very detailed and high quality article, but I think that it needs a bit more work:
What's the purpose of including the Portuguese language translation of 'battleship' in the first sentence?
"As such, the order caused quite a stir among the powers, most of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a naval power" is a bit vauge (who were 'the powers', for instance?)
"where four Brazilian ships demanded" - the crews of the ships demanded this, not the ships themselves
"Two factions warred" - 'argued', perhaps?
"an Admiral Norhonha" - why the 'an'? (were there several?)
"The basic structure needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike" - what's a 'basic structure' in this context?
"Minas Geraes was completed and given to Brazil" - 'handed over' to Brazil would be more appropriate
"The British House of Commons discussed purchasing the ships in March 1908 to bolster the Royal Navy and ensure they would not be sold to a foreign country" - this is a bit unclear given that the ships were always intended to be sold to Brazil. Does it mean that the debate was over selling the ships to Brazil or over concerns that the Brazilians might sell them to a different country? (note also that British-style parliaments 'debate' rather than 'discuss' matters)
Were the British parliament's views on whether to sell the Battleships split along party lines? (its a big deal to argue against your party's policies in British-style parliaments, so members of the government party publicly opposing the sale indicate that there were significant divisions)
Calling Brazil "hitherto unknown on the world stage" seems a bit hard to justify (and is rather old-fashioned wording)
"The British thought either the Germans, Japanese, or Americans were actually buying the ships" - who are 'the British' here? It seems unlikely that the British government thought that the Brazilians would on-sell the ships.
"The ships were staffed" - ships are 'crewed' or 'manned' rather than staffed
We're tusseling about this on Almirante Latorre-class battleship. :-)
That was poor summarizing again, but the vagueness is somewhat purposeful -- I don't want to list a number of nations. New sentence: "As such, the order caused quite a stir among major powers in the world, most of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation."
Changed
Changed per your suggestion
The hull and a minimum of the superstructure, see File:Minas Geraes launch.jpg. I could not think of a better way to word this without needlessly complicating the narrative...
Changed per your suggestion
Many in Parliament felt Brazil would sell the battleships to Germany, Japan, or the US.
I was wondering the same thing, but my sources only give individual names...
I'm trying to give the perspective of the newspapers, not present a point of fact. How can I reorganize the sentence to make that more clear? I've partially altered it by replacing "hitherto" with "previously".
British newspapers. Good catch.
Hmm, that was odd wording... I've changed it to "crewed"
I can say a little (actually quite a bit) about how the crew was treated prior to the 1910 revolution, but otherwise my sources do not touch on this at all. Thanks very much for the review, Nick. Ed[talk][majestic titan]01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that 'encouraçados' should be removed from the lead as being pointless and confusing, and I'd like to see the bit about the British parliamentary debates fleshed out to clarify if it was the Government vs the Opposition or members of the Government expressing concern, but these are all more relevant to FA criteria than A class and all my other comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
I would clarify the dollar amounts in 2008 dollars citing [Measuringworth]. I would also suggest doing the same with the individual ship articles.
Also I'm curious why the cost is in dollars since the currency in Brazil at the time was the real - did they pay for the ships in dollars? I suspect since the source for this information used was from the US government in 1912 they converted the réis into dollars - this fact probably needs to be double checked, and ultimately cited in réis.
The Mineas Geraes ship article just specifies a beam, while this article splits it into mean and max. Also, the ship article specifies the displacement in tonnes, with Lt and ST in parens, while the class specifies the displacement in long tonnes with tonnes in parens and omits the short tons - I would make these consistent. Kirk (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous FAC of mine, it was found Measuring Worth uses US inflation numbers which do not apply to the relative worth of a Latin American ship. (see ARA Moreno's FAC)
I can't? My sources don't give a Brazilian currency figure, similar to the Argentinian and Chilean ships.
Which FAC had that discussion? I'd like to read it. I'll see if I can find you a better source for the cost figures. Kirk (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, we're looking at the value of the real in relation to its purchasing power over time & Measuringworth just covers the UK and US, and we don't actually know the cost of the ship in old réis, just the conversion made by some nameless government bureaucrat in 1912 to dollars; I'm going to try to find the 1910 value in old réis. Kirk (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the réis number, but the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica [117] has the value for the ship in pounds at £1821400, which converts to approximately the same dollar figure cited in the article, so at least it has more than one source. Kirk (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acquired Topliss in the time since I wrote the ship article -- I have to get around to updating it to Chicago citations, removing short tons, adding information from Scheina & Topliss, and updating the specifications (basically, I need to reformat it to conform with this article and the others in the series). :-) Thanks for the review, Kirk! Ed[talk][majestic titan]01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A1 is good; and, comments on inflation
I'm the nasty fellow who suggested that inflating 19XX USD amounts to 20XX using US GDP/Purchasing power is not good economics when the USD figure for the ship really represents Brazillian GDP at 19XX. You'd need a Brazillian inflation series (preferably in GDP: battleships aren't bought in individual's purchasing power, but out of a percentage of total economy).
One potential end around for inflation figures is to give a sense of historical scale. "The Minas Geraes class cost was given as USD$8,000,000 each by an American expert. For comparison purposes, USD$8,000,000 is equivalent to the Brazillian government 1910 budget for "xxxx", or equivalent to Brazil's thirty-xth largest 1910 export in terms of value, its video-game merchandise export industry." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nasty fellow? On the contrary, I'm certain I have purposely asked you to review my articles before. Definitely not nasty. :-) I'm sure Scheina has a price for the ships in Naval History. I had completely forgotten about it! I should be able to add this tomorrow or the day after. Ed[talk][majestic titan]09:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the FAC debate about comparing unlike forms of money to have been long and painful :). It feels nasty because FAC editors are the kind of editor who like to make their article readable, and it is great to give modern "equivalents" of past values. It is just that the measuring worth template on wikipedia only covers the most trivial, consumer goods, oriented form of inflation and value change over time. Lets not get into the economic problem of value over time for Marxist political economists... it is a biggie :). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked 'Naval History' - page 86 calculates the price of all three dreadnaughts (the Minas G class + Rio) to be £6,110,100, plus maintenance for 5 years, £3,750,000, ammunition, £605,520, docking facilities, £832,000, and uses this valuation which I think is along the lines Fifelfoo suggested:
A conteporary Brazilian newspaper calculated the sum would have been sufficient to lay 3,125 miles of railroad tracks or to provide homesteads for 30,300 immigrant families.
Later he discusses the problems of actually getting the funds to maintain these ships, which didn't happen all that often! Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk, that sounds great, we don't have to rely on wikipedians calculating anything, we can just quote a commentator of the time as to the massive economic impact. I like that he uses railway miles (perhaps not so immediate to today's reader), but 30,000 homesteads does start to make an impact for the contemporary reader. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kirk, I wasn't aware you owned it too! I'm about to go to bed, but I'm back from San Francisco again and with all of my sources, so I'll add that information tomorrow along with making sure I didn't miss anything else from my sources. Regarding 3,125 miles, that's double the length of the First Transcontinental Railroad's western part... Ed[talk][majestic titan]
Comments - the advantage of writer's block is that it has ended my copyeditor's block. From the top
Lead
In 1904, Brazil began a major naval building program that included three small battleships - I'm of the mindset that "small" should be narrowed down a little more (before reading the rest of the article, I ballparked 12,000-15,000LT as a "small battleship").
The ships surrendered after four days and a bill granting amnesty to all involved - for some reason this sentence is a little bit awkward. I'll see what I can do with it.
Background
...with Baron de Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as suzerain Cuba - citation at the end please
Bidding and Construction
In addition, many supporters of the small-ship plan were killed when the old Aquidaba exploded in 1906 - it's a bit unclear to me - are we talking literal deaths or metaphorical deaths. If it's the former you may want to explain it a bit more (why were they all on the ship?), if it's the latter I suggest a different word.
Perhaps mention the nationality of the Elswick Ordnance Company (or failing that, what city it's based in)
I'm just going to point out - at this point in the copyedit - that you do seem to love your commas Eddie...
International Reaction
Further points as well - you don't need to wikilink "Keel Laying" so much (I'm up to three in one article!)
I've removed the reference to Argentina and Chile being the other two naval powers in South America because you've already established that quite clearly in the previous sections.
Service Histories
Now in the revolt section you seem to be in love w/ semicolons. My one TA has really hammered this home this semester: you use semicolons to separate parts of the sentence only if each part can function as its own sentence. "low pay" is not a full sentence :P
Naval officers and the president of Brazil were staunchly opposed to amnesty, and quickly began planning to assault the rebel ships; the former believed that such ana ction was necessary to restore the service's honor - what was the president's rationale for opposing amnesty?
The main battery was arranged with four superfiring turrets, two each fore and aft, and two placed en echelon - en echelon is a rather jargon-esque term; could you use a more basic descriptor?
"Brazil became the third country to have a dreadnought under construction, before traditional major powers like Germany, France or Russia. As such, the order caused quite a stir among major powers in the world ...": "as such" dangles; it's not going to be clear to some readers what word or group of words this refers to. Danglers like this one are common and often fine in informal writing, but in formal writing, it's reasonable to expect the reader to understand that one sentence flows logical from the next one without using "as such" to point that out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"many of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation. These suspicions never came true ...": many of whom incorrectly speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Each ship would be armed with twelve 10-inch (25 cm) guns mounted in six twin turrets. These turrets would be mounted in a hexagonal configuration, similar to the later German Nassau-class battleships.": Each ship would be armed with twelve 10-inch (25 cm) guns mounted in six twin turrets in a hexagonal configuration, similarly to the later German Nassau-class battleships. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The basic structure needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike, but she was eventually launched on 10 September 1908": Construction of the partial hull needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike to 10 September 1908. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"astonished the naval world." [in quotes]: ""astonished the naval world". WP:LQ is important if you're headed to FAC; even the delegates check for compliance sometimes. Chicago disagrees, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the start of the rebellion was delayed": the rebellion was delayed. - Dank (push to talk)
"which included the use of whips or lashes (chibata), which eventually became a symbol of the revolt; being struck on the hand by a ferrule (a practice known as bôlo); low pay; a refusal to educate incompetent sailors, and long hours worked on a typical day.": They objected to low pay, long hours, inadequate training for incompetent sailors, and punishments including bôlo (being struck on the hand with a ferrule) and the use of whips or lashes (chibata), which eventually became a symbol of the revolt. See WP:MHCL#series. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The small amount of work done on the three battleships was torn up beginning on 7 January 1907.": This needs a little more detail. Are we talking about sending partial hulls to ship-breakers? - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally all I know. Most sources don't even mention that three ships were actually laid down before the actual ship class was built, and Topliss doesn't say give it more than a cursory mention. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Afro-Brazilian sailors—many of whom were former slaves freed under the Lei Áurea (abolition) but forced to enter the navy, or sons of former slaves—had been planning a revolt for some time, and Menezes became the catalyst.": I've been fiddling with this, and it's still unwieldy. Is it okay to delete "or sons of former slaves" and get rid of the dashes? That is, were there a lot of sons of former slaves? - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"despite a previous belief that an intact Brazilian Navy": I don't understand "intact", or the meaning of putting it in italics. - Dank (push to talk)
I tried modifying this to "During the revolt, the ships were noted by many observers to be well-handled, despite a previous belief that the Brazilian Navy was incapable of effectively operating the ships on a normal basis, even without being split by a rebellion." Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The 4.7-inch guns were often used for shots over the city": why would they often be shooting over the city? - Dank (push to talk)
"the Brazilian navy elite": who are the elite? - Dank (push to talk)
Admirals and higher-ups that believed lashing and corporal punishment was necessary to keep the black sailors in line. Basically they were the aforementioned naval officers, but I had already used that term previously. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"after salt water was run into the hydraulic system": This allows several interpretations. If "after salt water contaminated the hydraulic system" works, I'd go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the material condition of the ships", "poor material condition": I'm not familiar with the phrase, does it mean something different than the condition of the ships? - Dank (push to talk)
The amount of overlap between related articles isn't a subject that style guides generally try to tackle, so I really can't say. I think it's up to Wikipedians and wikiprojects to make these calls. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They had a beam of 83 feet (25 m), a mean draft of 25 feet (7.6 m), a maximum draft of 28 feet (8.5 m), and displaced 18,976 long tons (19,281 tonnes (t)) normal and 20,900 long tons (21,200 t) at full load.": "normally" rather than normal, and FAC reviewers sometimes object to nested parentheses unless you really need them. Also, please fix the WP:MHCL#series problem. - Dank (push to talk)
One more thing: "noted by many observers to be well-handled, despite a previous belief" ... it would be best to tell in general terms who these observers were, then say "despite their previous belief". - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this for A-Class review since I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list (already at FLC). The 1942 list is a featured list now, 1943 is also A-class waiting for FLC review. The 1945 list is still under construction once completed all lists will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: sorry lists aren't something I'm very familiar with, but I'll try to help out with this review:
I think there is a typo in Note # 32 - "According to Scherzer as commander of Greandier Regiment 4" (should this be "Grenadier"?). Also in Notes # 25 and 28: "A bestowal thus didn't occur". I think that the contraction "didn't" should be replaced with "did not" so that the language is more formal.AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
according to the tools, some images appear to have alt text, while others do not. While it is not an A-class requirement, you might consider making it all uniform;
in Note # 20: "nomination by the troop" - what does "troop" refer to here? Is this a military formation (as in a platoon-level formation?) Or is troop being used here to refer to personnel? If so, which personnel nominated him? It might need to be tweaked to make this clearer (this term also seems to be used in a number of other notes, so please look at those also);
I am using the term "troop" as a generic term for an unspecified military unit or formation of which neither size, type nor command structure is known. Please help me explain how to best formulate this. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in this case using "the troop" would imply that the unit has actually already been discussed/introduced earlier in the article/list, I believe. Additionally, saying "nomination by the troop" is problematic because it is implying that the nomination was done at troop-level (e.g. in a number of militaries a troop is the name for a platoon equivalent formation, usually commanded by a second lieutenant or lieutenant), which in most cases this would not be likely given the ranks of some recipients and the requirement in most military units for nominations to be made at least at battalion/regimental level. As such, my advice would be to just say "nomination" and remove "by the troop". For instance, this would be fine IMO: "Fritz-Hubert Gräser's nomination was received...". Same for the other instances of this phrase. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked this to just "nomination" as per my comment above. If you don't like this, feel free to just revert as it is not really major, and I'm happy to support either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in Note # 24: "Dönitz has never signed this list, most likely he has never even seen this list." (Because Donitz is no longer living, past tense should be used. Thus it should probably be: "Donitz never signed this list and it is believed that he never saw it."). AustralianRupert (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
"A total of 7 awards were made in 1940; 50 in 1941; 111 in 1942; 192 in 1943; 328 in 1944, and 194 in 1945, giving a total of 882 recipients—excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the award.": I couldn't see a reason for the semicolons, and I changed them to commas. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I believe the semicolons had been introduced by a review of either the 1940-1941 or 1942 review cycle. Please advise me on how to handle this on the articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone edits an article that's up for review and you're pretty sure their edit is wrong, it's fine to revert it and explain; if you're not sure, you're welcome to ask me or ask on the review page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
Why is "low-ranking" in quotations in the first paragraph of the lead? Is this a quote from a source (if so, should be referenced, even though it's the lead)?
The FLC for the 40-41 article is here, and the only thing I can find is a comment by Rambling Man that low ranking should be hyphenated (which it still isn't), not placed in parentheses. Am I missing something? Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead the award name is "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", but in the background it's called "Oak Leaves to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross"
Are there any summary statistics for this award that could go into the "Recipients of 1944" section? How many were awarded to various ranks, how many to officers versus non-coms, how many postumously, any special circumstances? Even three or four sentences would be helpful to the general reader looking for an overview of the 1944 awards but not wanting to sort through the whole list.
I have added a sentence to the lead of the recipients section listing the number of posthumous recipients as well as a breakdown for the Heer, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS. I want to refrain from breaking this down further. A rank comparison for instance is difficult for two reasons. First, the service branches had different names for similar ranks. Secondly, Fellgiebel and Scherzer occasionally state different ranks. I hope this is sufficient. Have a look please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a nice article. The last point is the only reason I'm commenting instead of supporting, but I look forward to supporting as soon as the above issues are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was an event of somewhat minor military consequence in the French and Indian War, but it had some fairly interesting (and unfortunate, for some) consequences. I've tried to balance the historiography of some of its more controversial aspects; I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano20:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: This article looks quite good. I have the following comments/suggestions, which should hopefully help take it towards A-class and beyond (apologies for the long list):
there is one disambig link that needs fixing according to the tools: [118]
in the Background section, this is slightly ambiguous: "The first few years had not gone particularly well for the British". The first few years of what?
in the Background section, this sounds awkward to me: "A major expedition by General Edward Braddock in 1755 ended in disaster, British military leaders were unable to mount any campaigns in 1756, and they suffered another setback that year when a French and Indian army led by General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm captured the garrison and destroyed fortifications in the Battle of Fort Oswego." I suggest, rewording to: "In 1755, a major expedition by General Edward Braddock had ended in disaster, while the British had been unable to mount any campaigns the following year. They had also suffered a significant setback when a French and Indian army led by General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm had captured the garrison and destroyed the fortifications at Oswego in August 1756."
in the Background section: "In July 1756 the Earl of Loudoun arrived to take command of the British forces in North America, replacing William Shirley". Is there a link between this sentence and the previous one? If so, it probably needs to be made more explicit. For example, are you saying that Shirley was replaced because the war had been going badly for the British? Currently it is only implied;
in the British planning section, "...included purely defensive postures along the frontier with New France, including ..." (repeated derivative "included" and "including" - can you reword, perhaps?);
in the British planning section, I think the comma is out of place in this clause: "...area between William Henry and Carillon was a wilderness dominated by Lake George, that historian..." (I don't think the comma is required, if "that" was changed to "which", it would be necessary);
in the British planning section, this wording seems confusing: "Loudoun's plan depended on the expedition's timely arrival before Quebec..." ("before Quebec" - how are you using the word "before" here? Are you using it to denote time, or to denote proximity? If the latter, I suggest changing it as modern readers will probably be confused by it);
in the British planning section, this probably needs rewording: " As a result of this turmoil..." (turmoil is repeated, having been previously used in the sentence before. I suggest rewording slightly);
in the French planning section, I think there is a word missing in this clause: "...since it provided the British a launching point for attacks against Fort Carillon..." (...with a launching point, perhaps?);
in the French planning section, "suggested that troop levels...might make an attack" - this doesn't seem right to me. A "troop level" doesn't attack - it refers to a size, or an amount, I think. "Troops" attack, though, and "troop levels" either expand or decrease. Depending upon your meaning, I suggest a minor rewording here;
in the French planning section, this sentence needs work: "This idea was further supported by questioning deserters and captives taken during periodic scouting and raiding expeditions both sides conducted, including the January Battle on Snowshoes." (the issue with this is twofold. Firstly, the word "that" is probably required between "expeditions" and "both", and also the "both sides" is confusing as it implies that "both sides" questioned deserters to confirmed the British intentions. Surely the British knew their intentions and it was actually the French that confirmed the British intentions through questioning deserters";
in the French planning section, this is an example of passive voice: "New France's governor, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, had begun the process of recruiting Indians as early as December 1756 for the campaign of the following summer". I suggest rewording thusly: "As early as December 1756, the New French governor, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, began the process of recruiting Indians for the following summer's campaign";
in the British preparations section, "Fort William Henry, built in fall 1755..." (I think there are two words missing here: I think "the" should be added between "in" and "fall"; and "of" between "fall" and "1755");
in the Prelude section, I suggest saying: "Webb, the British officer who commanded..." As you have already introduced him there is no need to be so formal as to use the officer's rank, but if you include the clarifying clause, it will reinforce to the reader who is being talked about here;
Well, I think the clarifying clause is also somewhat redundant, given that he's been introduced. The only reason for using the title there was that he was introduced several sections back; I've just removed the title. Magic♪piano17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Siege section, please clarify from where the advance force of French troops departed: "...his advance force of French troops departed...";
in the Siege section, "...Monro refused, and sent messengers south to Fort Edward, indicating the dire nature of the situation..." (I think you should add something like this here: "...Fort Edward, indicating the dire nature of the situation and requesting reinforcements"...);
in the Siege section, there is a disconnect between the two clauses in this sentence: "The garrison in the fort returned the fire, but it was largely ineffectual, and some of their guns were either dismounted or burst due to the stress of use". Essentially this sentence is implying that because the firing was ineffectual, the guns were dismounted or had burst, but this doesn't make sense. I think what you are trying to say here is that the firing was ineffectual because the guns were dismounted or they had burst. If so, it needs to be reworded to convey this meaning, but at the same time you need to say why this would be the case. The casual reader will not understand why this is the case (as an engineer that has only once fired an artillery piece, I'm assuming that being dismounted means that the guns need to be re-layed before they are fired each time, and without proper equipment this is difficult - maybe I am wrong);
As far as I know, the two clauses are not connected other than temporally. I'll have to poke at the sources to see why the fire was ineffectual. Magic♪piano17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Siege section, "...Monro raised the white flag." (I think here you should include a clause, "...indicating that the garrison wished to surrender" in order to clarify the meaning of the white flag);
in the Massacre section, "...refrain from participation in the war for 18 months" (I suggest replacing "war" here with "fighting" to avoid repetition with "honours of war" previously in the sentence);
in the Massacre section, the meaning of this is ambiguous: "They were allowed to keep their muskets but no ammunition, and a single symbolic cannon" (was it no ammunition for the muskets, or no ammunition for the muskets and cannon?) If the later, I suggest rewording to: "They were allowed to keep their muskets and a single symbolic cannon, but no ammunition.";
in the Return of the captives section, I suggest wikilinking "parole";
in the Aftermath section, I suggest briefly clarifying who William Johnson was. This could be done with a small clause, for example "...had reached William Johnson, Chief Brewer of the Colonies, on 1 August." ("Chief Brewer of the Colonies" is tongue-in-cheek (too much egg nog for me!) - here you will need to add his actual position/occupation);
in the Return of captives section, this sentence sounds a little awkward: "The fleet continued on to Europe, where a few more former captives were released that eventually returned to the colonies". ("that" should probably be "who", I think);
in the Legacy section this doesn't sound right to me: "Historians disagree on where the responsibility for the Indian actions falls" ("falls" is the issue here, as it seems to disagree with "actions");
in Legacy section, "...an explorer who was in the Massachusetts militia at the siege". I think this should be, "...an explorer who served in the Massachusetts militia and was present at the siege" (for clarity);
in the Legacy section, "...denying visible trophies. The terms of surrender at Fort William Henry effectively denied the ..." (repetition of derivatives "denying" and "denied" - I suggest rewording slightly if possible);
in the Legacy section, "...(the British) against their friends (the Indians), denying them any chance at promised war trophies..." (repitition of "denying", and "war trophies" - perhaps reword?);
in the Participating Indian nations section, the first sentence doesn't go anywhere. It should normally be followed directly by the list with a colon after it (e.g. "According to historian William Nester, the following tribal nations were represented in the French army: Abenaki, Algonquin...") , however, currently there is a whole paragraph separating the sentence that introduces the list and the list itself. I suggest re-arranging this slightly. Maybe reword the first sentence thusly: "According to historian William Nester, a number of tribal nations were represented in the French army. Some were only...The nations that took part in the siege included: Abenaki, Algonquin, Fox, ....";
in the References section, is there a requirement for both ISBNs and OCLC numbers? Usually, I believe one or the other is enough (this is not a war stoper, just an observation);
in the References section, the title of the works should be in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. Dodge, Jennings, Nester and Steele all need to be tweaked. For example, "Relief is greatly wanted: the battle of Fort William Henry" should be "Relief is Greatly Wanted: The Battle of Fort William Henry";
in the Further reading section (per above), the title of the Cooper work should be tweaked;
in the Further reading section, instead of having the long note "ISBN is for a modern edition available in 2010", I suggest just tweaking the mark up so that it presents both the original publication date and the updated version, this can be done using the {{cite book}} template as follows: "|origyear=1921 |year=2010". This will display as "(2010) [1921]". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In the infobox the British casualties are listed as not recorded. Are there any estimates at all on british casualties? Even a rough estimate would be better than the current listing in the infobox, if a number cannot be provided than perhaps a descriptive term such as light or moderate could be applied?XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources do not specifically enumerate French casualties (which is what I assume you meant). I haven't checked Steele (the most detailed account I have access to) yet, but French casualties were by all appearances quite light. I'll probably change the listing to "light", with a suitable citation. Magic♪piano01:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further Reading: Requires publisher location: Bellico, Russel P (1995). ; Requires date: Dwight, Timothy.
References: Spell out location and publisher in full per your style: Starbuck, David (2002).
Notes: "Nester, p. 57. He claims the second battery is at 900 feet; this is probably a copyediting error, based on later battery placements." Surely, "He claims the second battery was at 900 feet; this is probably a copyediting error, based on later battery placements"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nota Bene: Nester's "copyediting error" is actually a poorly-described (on his part) version of what the French did. Steele, it turns out, explains it much better; I've elaborated the text to explain more exactly where and how the French batteries were placed. Magic♪piano14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
"Indian": I'm glad this is BritEng so I don't have to make the tough calls here. See Native American name controversy. AP recommends "American Indian" or "Native American" when there are multiple Indian nations involved, although I suppose either term would get tedious if you repeat it enough, and many writers would start writing just "native" or "Indian" at some point. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've occasionally had discussions with others on the naming subject; as the article on the controversy says, no one is entirely happy with any alternative. I generally stick to "Indian" for aggregates and situations where tribal affiliations are unknown (I do go to some effort to get an identification if the documentary record suggests one might be available), but am open to dispassionate arguments on the subject. Magic♪piano18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this, but I typically see "north-east" and "south-east" in BritEng and "northeast" and "southeast" in AmEng. (Btw, the article reads very nicely in AmEng, and the nominator is American ... it looks like it would be a very small conversion job if you want to convert.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, oxforddictionaries.com supports "running the gauntlet", but only "gantlet" is supported by merriam-webster.com, Webster's New World Dictionary, and Chicago (at 5.220) ... although to be fair, Chicago does say the alternate spelling is "frequently seen" ... they just don't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"recently-arrived": recently arrived
"Cooper's description of the events contains numerous inaccuracies, but his work, and the sometimes lurid descriptions of the event by early historians like Benson Lossing and Francis Parkman led to the belief that many more people died than actually did." Fixed the comma error, which I believe is the same in BritEng, per Chicago 6.17, "Commas in pairs". - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs fixin'
"Colonel Monro died in November 1757, of apoplexy that may have been the result of anger over Webb's failure to support him.": Do you believe he was killed by anger, or is that what the source said?
Contemporary documents state he died of apoplexy; I believe the reason for the anger comes from Starbuck, although he is not alone in drawing this connection (Pargellis does as well). Magic♪piano17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In modern terms, the diagnosis "apoplexy" means roughly a stroke or heart attack leading to sudden death. What I'm saying is: doctors no longer believe that anger causes strokes or heart attacks, although sudden exertion can be a precipitating cause. Even if the sources believe something to be true, we shouldn't repeat it if all modern sources disagree.tweaked. Personally, I would have said "Colonel Monro died in November 1757, probably of a sudden stroke or heart attack." - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The poor outcome of the 1757 campaigns also led King George II to elevate William Pitt to Prime Minister.": Poor performance usually leads to a sacking rather than an elevation, so I'm not following. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the statement in question. This is slightly complicated to explain, and I don't think the article is necessarily the place to elaborate, but either Pargellis is wrong, or I misread (or misstated) him. Pitt was first given control over American affairs in 1756, but was limited by Newcastle's power in Parliament. Following the military failures of 1756, Pitt gained power by joining with Newcastle (who was as titular a PM as they were in those days), who promised him a freer hand in military affairs. This coalition did not take shape until after the 1757 campaign planning was well under way (hence the relatively late orders to Loudoun), and Pitt could not implement his more aggressive strategies until 1758. The coalition government was in power until 1762; Pitt was apparently not recognized as a PM until 1766. All of this implies that Pitt's rise in power did not actually hinge on the results of the 1757 campaign. Magic♪piano17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The two issues above don't affect my support. AustralianRupert, I've read your copyediting notes, and they're outstanding. One thing ... it's common and accepted to ask the writers to make all the edits themselves, for good reasons: copyeditors are often the scarce resource around here so it does make some sense to ask others to help when possible, and it's unlikely a writer will learn something if we do it for them. And, this particular writer is outstanding and probably really appreciates the notes. But, since you're asking for feedback ... personally, I don't think the writers want to, can, or should learn everything in, say, Chicago. And even if I held the position that it's best for them to learn this stuff, and even if every judgment call of mine were perfect, long copyediting to-do lists put some writers off. I can't prove that any individual was driven from the project by a copyeditor, but I've seen people's enthusiasm wane often enough that I think it's something to consider. My approach is to make most of the corrections myself (with an explanation in case they're interested), and to try to get writers to learn and help in two areas: clarity, and silly little problems (punctuation, repetition, consistent names) of the kind that I might have to fix 50 times in a long article. The checklist may or may not be helpful at communicating what we're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, and especially your insights on American vs. British English. My position on prose commentary vs. copyediting, for what it's worth, is a pragmatic one: if an editor is asking for prose commentary (or appears to be), I'll offer that. Otherwise, I'll tip to whichever (commenting or fixing things myself) is likely to occupy less of my time. Magic♪piano16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
French preparations, "a group of Ottawas was not stopped when it was observed that they were ritually cannibalizing another prisoner." I think the plural/singular nature of this sentence is a bit off. You say "a group" (singular) "was not" (singular) "they were" (plural).
Siege, "a spectacle the large Indian contingent relished." Why?
Well, the sources don't actually say why; presumably it's something they didn't get to see much. (Parkman, for example, describes them "[yelling] their satisfaction when they saw the splinters fly from the wooden rampart.") Magic♪piano17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Siege, "were either dismounted or burst due to the stress of use." Why? Were they overused? It would seem that guns, being guns, would be designed and mounted so that they wouldn't break as soon as they were used the first time.
Continuous use of period cannon could indeed lead to these sorts of events, especially older guns and mounts. While gun mounts and such were intended to take abuse, they could also fail under heavy use. Sources are fairly clear that the guns were under this sort of stress once siege activities began. Magic♪piano17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Participating Indian nations section. Does the analysis by Nester relate specifically to this siege, or is it for the entire French Army and the war as a whole? Does "some of the atrocities" refer to just the atrocities committed after the siege? If this section relates to the war/army as a whole, how much bearing does it have on this particular article?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, that does look like it. I'm not sure, but I think this might cause an issue at FAC. Won't they want some categorical proof that the image was taken by a servicemember to prove "PD-USGOV-MILITARY-ARMY" applies? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I've just removed the image. It's really not all that necessary to the article anyway, especially if it might do more harm than good. —Ed!(talk)12:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, I think that there is possibly a bit too much information in the first sentence. I have made an edit (which I have reverted), which provides a suggestion of how I think it could be tweaked;
in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, the first sentence sounds a little awkward. Perhaps reword to something like this, "On July 6, Major General Hobart R. Gay, Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, was summoned to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's headquarters to discuss plans for the deployment of his division to Korea. Despite its name, the 1st Cavalry Division was actually an infantry division and between July 12–14 it was loaded onto ships in the Yokohama area";
in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, I think the block quote for Walker's orders to Gay would be best either worked into a paragraph, or added to a quotation box;
in the American withdrawal section, this sentence is quite long and probably could be split: "The NK 3rd Division used essentially the same tactics it had employed against the 24th Infantry Division at Taejon that it did against the 1st Cavalry Division at Yongdong; a frontal attack to hold the division's elements in combat, with the bulk of its force enveloping the American left flank and establishing strongly held roadblocks behind the front positions and making them untenable";
in the References section, the capitalisation of the Alexander source looks strange. I understand that it is presented as such due to a comment of mine in a previous ACR (for which I tender an apology and will naturally give myself an uppercut immediately...), however, having reviewed WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, I now think that Korea: The First War we Lost should be Korea: The First War We Lost. Once again apologies for the dud advice previously;
I've done some copyediting. I was impressed with the lead and Battle of Yongdong#Outbreak of war. The next subsection, Battle of Yongdong#US 1st Cavalry Division arrival, needs to be rewritten. When you're going over what you've written, put yourself in the reader's shoes and keep track of how many unanswered questions the reader will have to juggle in order to follow along. It's okay to leave a few questions hanging in the air till you can get to them ... you can't say everything at once, and readers understand that. If there are too many things hanging in the air, the reader's patience runs out.
"Major General Hobart R. Gay, Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, was called to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's headquarters on July 6 and informed of plans for the 1st Cavalry Division to move into Korea.": Okay, so the setting is MacArthurs's headquarters, where we hear about the planning for an operation in Korea.
"Despite its name, the 1st Cavalry Division was actually an infantry division, retaining its name for historic purposes.": It's not part of the main storyline, so if I were writing, I probably would have skipped this sentence and put "(actually an infantry division)" immediately after "1st Cavalry Division". And in general, it's bad style to say that there were reasons (purposes) for something but not tell us what the reasons were. Don't hint at things; either say them or don't. But it's not a problem, readers are generally patient and you haven't lost anyone at this point.
"Between July 12 and 14 the division loaded onto ships in the Yokohama area": [Okay, from here on, I'll play the role of a reasonably with-it reader who doesn't know a lot about military history.] Wait, I thought we were in MacArthur's headquarters, is that near Yokohama? Where's Yokohama? (I could click and find out since you've provided a link, but I don't have time to click every link when I'm reading Wikipedia, and it's not that important to me.) Okay, so, somewhere, the division is getting loaded onto ships. Here we go.
"It would land on the east coast of Korea at P'ohang-dong,": Wait, "would"? That can mean several different things, I'll have to read ahead to figure out what. Although some writers use "would" to mean things that were only planned, it probably means here that this landing definitely happened, but in the future relative to the main line of the story. But I haven't figured out what the main narrative is yet, so this is confusing.
"a fishing town 60 miles (97 km) northeast of Pusan in order to immediately reinforce the faltering 24th Infantry Division." Wait, how can a fishing town reinforce something? Oh now I see, he forgot the comma that should have told me where the end of the phrase was, after "Pusan". [Copyeditors, see Chicago 6.17; my very condensed version is at User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas.] Okay, so, at some point in the future relative to the main story, the 1st Cavalry shows up to reinforce the 24th, so that tells me the connection between the 1st Cavalry and the 24th. So far so good.
"From P'ohang-dong the division could move promptly to the Taejon area in support of the 24th Infantry Division." "Could"? I have no idea what that means ... did they or didn't they? Did they show up to reinforce the 24th, then later move to the Taejon area to give them more support? Or is this sentence giving more detail about the reinforcement that you just mentioned?
"The command ship USS Mount McKinley and final elements of the first lift sailed for Korea on July 15 in Task Force 90, commanded by Rear Admiral James H. Doyle.": Okay now we're back out at sea. But is this a "lift" (whatever that is) for the 1st, or an initial "lift"? This subsection is supposed to be about the 1st Cavalry ... what's the connection to Task Force 90?
"Lead elements of the 8th Cavalry Regiment were ashore by 06:10 on July 18, and the first troops of the US 5th Cavalry Regiment came in at 06:30. Typhoon Helene swept over the Korean coast and prevented landing of the 7th Cavalry Regiment and the 82nd Field Artillery Battalion until July 22.": Same here ... what's the connection between the 1st Cavalry and any of these units? I'm beginning to think this subsection isn't about the 1st Cavalry after all.
P.S. My partner John says I'm coming off as "irritated". In two other reviews, you're saying that you can't fix the problems because you don't know what's wrong. Also, per comments at WT:MHC#While I'm in the neighborhood, I need to give enough detail so that everyone can understand why I'm opposing, but if I sounded "irritated" then I went too far. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tended to this this is an exception to national linking rules; the battle involved the country directly, with troops ordered by its leaders to fight on its behalf. Do you disagree? —Ed!(talk)21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does "other Eighth Army supporting units" include the 7th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 1st Cavalry Division? - Dank (push to talk) 05:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I understand that we're out of time on this one; there's more I would do if I had the time, so I wouldn't recommend taking this one to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disambigs, alt text and external links all look good, well done.
I would suggest making clear in the lead that the Union Army is from the United States (I've seen complaints that using just "American" to refer to US topics is ethnocentrism.)
Lead, 2nd sentence: do you mean the regimental command wasn't organized until 1861? as currently worded it looks like a contradiction (the regiment's components were organized, they just weren't yet unified.)
Link to the CSA or the Confederate army somewhere in the lead for context about who the regiment fought. I think it's mentioned somewhere near the end of the third graph.
Massachusetts Battalion section: "The battalion served fairly light duty for the remainder of 1861." - what does light duty consist of? Clarify a little.
Same section, per our MOS, second references to names (Col. Ebenezer Peirce, Capt. Barnes) need to be shortened to just last names on second reference.
Same section, "incompetency" isn't right in this context, I think. Should it be "incompetence?" it could be "an incompetency" if the only thing he was being charged for was the failure at the battle, though.
Peninsular campaign section: "...and was amazed by the new type of naval warfare brought about by the innovation of ironclad vessels." - it sounds awkward to say a military unit "felt" something. Maybe the men in the unit were amazed, or the commander was amazed. Whichever context your sources clarify.
Battle of Fort Stedman section: you say the regiment played a minor role in several actions. Was it placed in reserve for this time? Was it in fortifications? What did it do between the few actions?
Mustering out section: It would be nice to have a summary of the details listed above on casualties and medals. Something like "The regiment suffered an estimated X killed, X wounded during its existence, and X troops won the medal of honor" though this is only a suggestion.
Response. Thanks for your input on the article. I believe I've addressed all of the above. Some comments on a few specific matters:
I reworded the first paragraph in the lead a bit and I hope the contradiction you refer to has been rectified. The formation of this particular regiment was quite unusual and it is difficult to capture in a nutshell. I hope it is clear.
I did some re-arranging in the Fort Stedman section and I hope it is more clear now what they were up to in the fall and winter of 1864-1865.
I would very much like to add the data you mention, but the regimental history only provides statistics on the number of dead (which I have added). Number of wounded, etc. is not compiled.
In the first paragraph, it might be worth explaining in a sentence or two how the militia system worked at the time. At the moment it assumes the reader understands this.
"However, these new..." I'd avoid starting a sentence with "however"
"The failed expedition ..." The "failed" is the first mention of failure and distracts attention from the second, main part of the sentence. You could move it earlier in the paragraph, e.g. "In an unsuccessful effort to strengthen their hold..." perhaps?
"The battalion served fairly light duty..." This phrase felt odd to me, but I can't quite work out why. Might be the "fairly" bit.
Last paragraph. Several "however"s - you could probably lose one of them safely.
Peninsular campaign:
" various expeditions of minor importance" - read oddly to me. "various minor expeditions"?
"regiment witnessed" - I'm not sure they just witnessed it, as they also manned a battery of guns.
"However, as the campaign..." - I'd avoid starting with a "however"
"This Confederate counterattack..." First time I read this I linked the counterattack to the unit, as opposed to the Seven Days Battle - the "this" could be ambiguous. Would suggest clarifying.
"...a second assault on Richmond from the north, but in this effort..." "in this effort" feels redundant.
"...chose to invade..." could this be shortened to "invaded", making it punchier?
"Despite his hardships..." hardships felt like an understatement for the poor man! :)
"The Battle of Antietam had been a tactical stalemate, however, as Lee's army retreated back into Virginia, McClellan claimed it as a strategic victory." I think this needs an additional break/full stop somewhere in it, or perhaps a colon after "stalemate".
Fredericksburg campaign:
"Here they labored in digging entrenchments." "Here they labored..." felt slightly odd to me as a phrase.
"In January 1864, although their three-year term of service had not yet ended, the men of the 29th were given the option to re-enlist for another three-year term." Would this mean that they served three years from the moment of reenlistment, or would it be added to the original term?
Response. Thank you very much for these suggestions. The copy edits greatly improve some weak areas. I have revised all of the above. A few specific comments regarding the revisions:
As to the militia system and enlistments, I do address that in the beginning of the "Massachusetts Battalion" section and I worry that the lead is already getting too dense, so I am hesitant to pack more in there. I did change some wording in the lead to try to clarify the difference between 90 day units and 3-year units. I hope this suffices.
All your copy edits have been made. Thank you. I do tend to use "however" too much, it would appear.
Regarding the timing of the re-enlistment, it would be added to their original term. But their original term was almost up. I think I have clarified this by specifying that there were only four months left in their term.
No prob's. You should have seen how many "however"s Fifelfoo had to help me remove from the medieval economics article I did earlier in the year! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I made all the following changes; feel free to revert. I'm aiming my comments at budding copyeditors, but anyone is welcome to ask questions or disagree. I'm generally following Chicago and WNW. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the last section: "On August 11, 1865 the ...": On August 11, 1865, the. See Chicago 6.17, "Commas in pairs", and User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas.
Lead section: "the 3rd Massachusetts and 4th Massachusetts": the 3rd Massachusetts and 4th Massachusetts regiments (probably, although this isn't precise). See WP:MHCL#Clarity.
"designated as": designated (transitive verb per WNW)
Some won't like "29 battles and four sieges" per WP:ORDINAL (which might prefer 29 ... 4), and a similar statement in Chicago, but I've never seen a precise articulation of this rule. Also, later on: "nine killed, 31 wounded and four missing".
"the unusual distinction": the distinction. It wouldn't do any harm to make the sentence even shorter. See WP:MHCL#Repetition.
"the IX Corps (including the 29th Massachusetts),": I booted the comma, again per "Paired commas" and Chicago; this comma would have to be part of a pair to justify itself. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"outside of the Confederate capital": outside the Confederate capital, per Chicago 5.220. ("Outside of" is accepted in the sense of "except for" and as a noun: "The outside of the box.") - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per AP Stylebook and WP:ELLIPSES, put a space between a word and ellipses: "Massachusetts ... thrown" (even if no space was present in quoted material).
"Digging trenches, the 29th was exposed": While digging trenches, the 29th was exposed. Please edit this if I misunderstood you.
"However": but. Per Chicago 5.206 and 5.207.
"the siege was ended. ¶ Shortly after the end of siege": the siege was ended. ¶ Shortly afterward.
"Marching back to Vicksburg, the 29th was assigned the role of provost guard and marched at the rear of the IX Corps to gather stragglers.": On the way back to Vicksburg, the 29th acted as provost guard, marching at the rear of the IX Corps to gather stragglers. It wasn't clear to me whether the assignment happened during or at the beginning of the march; please fix it if I guessed wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Barnes who was forced": Barnes, who was forced. Comma before a non-restrictive clause. Chicago 6.22.
"who was forced to take an extended leave": who took an extended leave. The modern style is not to say that something caused or forced something else if the reader can be expected to make the connection on their own, unless you're trying to emphasize or draw special attention to the connection.
"September 26, 1863. ¶ In October 1863": September 26, 1863. ¶ In October. There are a few who disagree, but most prefer that you not repeat the year quite so often as you do.
"ravelin": ravelin (detached fortification). From the checklist: "if many readers won't even be able to guess the right meaning, give at least a clue to the meaning." "Ravelin" is a word that Gilbert and Sullivan's "model of a modern major general" didn't know, so neither will many of our readers. In a judgment call, I didn't add a short description for sally port ... from context, most readers will know it's some kind of portal in the rear of the fort, and that's good enough so that they don't have to click if they don't want to, or can't. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs fixing.All done.
Follow the examples above and User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas throughout the article to add or remove commas as needed.
Try to find a way to consolidate "... Colonel Ebenezer W. Peirce who would later command the 29th Massachusetts." and (four sentences later) "Peirce was appointed the first commander of the 29th."
"forcing Confederate troops out of the region could help bring the state back into the Union": This represents someone's goal or expectation; whose? - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Union forces rapidly gathered in Knoxville, and the siege of that city by the Confederates began in mid November 1863. At the commencement of the campaign, the 29th had been stationed in the vicinity of Loudon, Tennessee, and, with other regiments of the IX Corps, fought a running fight to Knoxville, incurring few casualties." When a sentence has this many commas, ask yourself what's causing all the commas. In this case, per "Chronology" in the checklist, rewrite these two sentences in chronological order; also, it should be clear whether the other regiments were in Loudon, or joined the 29th along the way, or met up in Knoxville. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of these sentences can be replaced by adding a few words to the other: "Those men who chose to accept the offer would receive a 30 day furlough, while those that did not would be consolidated with the 36th Massachusetts to serve out their remaining months." and "From there, the men who had reenlisted were sent back to Boston for the furlough they had been promised and those who had not were sent on to Virginia to join the 36th Massachusetts." - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a ping: I'm told that we need to stick to the 28 day deadlines, more or less, and for this article, that's Wednesday. Let me know if you have questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No edits by the nominator to the article or here other than this one since my review, and my understanding is we're trying to stick to the 28-day deadline. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm a day late and a dollar short, here, but I have fixed the last few suggestions made by Dank. Thanks to AustralianRupert for picking up the slack. Busy time at work + blizzard this week in New England = little time for me to check Wikipedia and I did not see your mention of the 28 day rule until today. I was not aware of this deadline. Hoping it might still be a viable candidate. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All done. Not that I'm assigning blame, but the deadline problem was more my fault than yours for starting my copyediting late. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've never done an article on the logistical aspect of a battle as far as I know, so this article is the first of its kind. I didn't have anything else to go off of, but it's pretty comprehensive as is. Let me know what improvements to make. —Ed!(talk)05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a fascinating article. Though I'm biased as a logistician myself, I'd like to see more articles of this style (Though it seems you might be working for a featured topic on Pusan?). Despite my support, I do have some suggestions: A1 looks good (my local library doesn't have any of the books, but they seem legit); personally, I would like to see more variety (articles, essays, and web sources), but the traditional book-based approach suffices. I was a tad hesitant about A2 in regards to the conclusion section, but the references are varied enough that my POV concerns are allayed. I was suprised to see no mention of the U.S. Marine Corp's supply woes in the battle, though I understand that the referencing for that may be hard to come by (try stealing some sources from the Battle of Inchon or History of the United States Marine Corps#Interim: WWII-Korea articles, they mention Truman's raping of the Corp's readiness assets). A3 is a no-brainer, and while I'm not really qualified to judge A4 (being a self-admitted poor speller and ignorant of proper grammar), nothing jumps out at me as greviously incorrect. A5 is pretty good; my only suggestion might be to ask the guys at the Graphics Lab to gin up a map of the supply routes. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Actually, when I get to Inchon I plan to write a logistics article for that battle too, and I'll cover the Marine Corps situation in much more depth. —Ed!(talk)21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you want to avoid repitition, but it's surely worth noting that the majority of the Corp's contributions to Pusan (logistical and otherwise) were stripped away late in the battle for use at Inchon. bahamut0013wordsdeeds14:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
It is excellent to see such an article on wikipedia (all thinking soldiers know the importance of logistics, but few of military historians write about it);
There are no dab links and all external links work (no action required);
One image is missing alt text (File:Korean War, train attack.jpg);
This sentence seems a little unencylopaedic to me: "The logistical situation tipped further and further into the advantage of the UN..." Maybe attempt to reword?
This sentence is a little repetitive: "During early battles, the M24 Chaffee light tank was the primary American armor because it was most readily available, but it performed poorly in early engagements against heavier North Korean armor." (specifically "During early battles" and "performed poorly in early engagements"). Maybe just delete "in early engagements";
Same issue with names as in some of your other articles. Once the name is introduced in full (i.e. Major General Earle E. Partridge) only the last name should be used (i.e. General Partridge should be changed to just Partridge);
I think the relevant work on UN medical services would be the book The Medics' War by Albert E. Cowdrey and the US Army Center of Military History...too bad most of my resources is on communist logistics. I'll add few lines on North Korean medial services. Jim101 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all my comments now except for this. Jim's additions are a good step forward but I really think there needs to be something about this for the UN as well.Anotherclown (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that seems suitable to me. I accept that you're not trying to write a history of MASH but you might consider adding a sentence on the rationale behind the concept (i.e. providing surgical support as far forward as possible) and the reported success of it (the MASH wiki article itself talks of a 97% survival rate - although this is unfortunately unsourced). Anyway I'm happy to strike the last issue and add my support, contingent of course on Ruperts suggestions below being dealt with. Well done again Ed, this is a very interesting article and nicely done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check "UN nations provided large air forces for transport of material quickly while Pusan port was established for sea resupply.[29]" and the conclusions in general, there are a few gramatically shaky sentences there.
In "(NKPA) launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south" you have not, strictly speaking, mentioned a nation before: you may want to rephrase.
Otherwise excellent content, text style and great images. I didn't detect any POV. I agree with Bahamut regards some svg maps of the supply routes - not critical, but they'd add a lot. Doug (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only thing that i see missing from the article is information on the North Korean situation with seaborne resupply. As you cover Allied seaborne logistics, it would only make sense to cover North Korean naval logistics as well.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the text states, the North Koreans had a very small Navy and Air Force at the outbreak of war. by the time of this battle, not only were both virtually destroyed by the UN, but no port except Pusan was developed enough for any kind of large scale logistics operation. —Ed!(talk)00:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the info ive learned came from here [[120]]. I dont think it would be nessesary to go to in depth, just to mention that that early on they did try to resupply by sea but that allied naval superiority allowed the UN to interdict these attempts and that the North Korean navy stopped trying to escort its supply craft after the Battle of Chumonchin Chan. This source [[121]] goes into detail about the naval operations and mentions various early attempts the north koreans made at resupplying their troops via sea, dozens of north korean supply and ammunition ships were sunk attempting to resupply troops in the south. XavierGreen (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, it seems to me that this is the only thing that might be considered an outstanding comment, otherwise an uninvolved coord (like me, for instance!) could close/promote this -- Xavier/Ed, do you guys have anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks guys, this is now ready to be be closed/promoted (in fact Rupert has just listed it for same at the Coordinators talk page). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: This is a very interesting article, I believe that it is quite good but the prose could be a little tighter. These are my suggestions, although I only looked at the first couple of sections:
in the lead, this might be reworded: "Additionally, massive amounts of materiel from nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies. " Maybe to, "Additionally, the presence of a large stockpile of material in nearby Japan, allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies.";
in the lead, the third paragraph (where the focus shifts to the North Koreans), might need a modifier such as "however", "but" etc. to contrast the North Korean situation with that of the UN (suggestion only);
in the Outbreak of the war section, "The United States' Seventh Fleet dispatched Task Force 77, led by the fleet carrier USS Valley Forge; the British Far East Fleet dispatched several ships, including the HMS Triumph, to provide air and naval support". I think the word "also" should be added after the word "Fleet" and before "dispatched" to improve the flow;
in the Outbreak of the war section, "However, the strength of US forces in the Far East had steadily declined since the end of World War II five years earlier and the closest unit was the 24th Infantry Division of the Eighth United States Army, headquartered in Japan. Cuts in US military spending meant the division was under strength and using outmoded equipment." I think this might sound better and remove the repetition (decline and cuts), if it were reworded: "Although the Eighth United States Army's 24th Infantry Division was in Japan and was available to respond to the situation, cuts in military spending after the end of World War II meant that the overall stength of the US military in the Far East was limited and the division itself was understrength and operating outmoded equipment".
in the Outbreak of the war section, the following paragraph after the one mentioned above, needs a linking clause, e.g. "Nevertheless, the 24th Infantry Division..." to maintain the flow of the prose;
in the Outbreak of the war section, you mention "Task Force Smith" but don't explain what it is. This could be rectified by adding it as a clause to a previous sentence, e.g. "Advance elements of the 24th Infantry Division, grouped together as Task Force Smith, were badly...";
in the Outbreak of the war section, these two sentences should be linked and some of the repetition removed: "The regiments of the 24th Infantry Division were systematically pushed south in battles around Chochiwon, Chonan, and Pyongtaek.[9] The 24th Infantry Division made a final stand in the Battle of Taejon, being almost completely destroyed but delaying North Korean forces from advancing until July 20". For example, you might consider something like this: "The 24th Infantry Division's regiments were systematically pushed south in battles around Chochiwon, Chonan and Pyongtaek before they finally made a stand in the Battle of Taejon. Although they were almost completely destroyed in the subsequent fighting, the 24th Infantry Division was able to delay the North Korean advance until July 20, by which time reinforcements had arrived and the Eighth Army was able to field a force roughly equal to the North Korean forces in the region." AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Ed. I suggest maybe having someone outside the project take a look for jargon, etc. before taking to FAC, but generally this is a very impressive article and I would really like to see more on similar subjects. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great topic for an article, and hopefully starts a trend - there's a vast (and often very interesting) literature on military logistics just waiting to be mined for articles. The article itself is also great and easily meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
I'd suggest reviewing the use of 'UN' - in many instances the forces it refers to could only be United States
Well, at this point in the war, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands were providing naval and air support in addition to the British contingent, so I thought it would be safest to include them all in the discussion of logistics. I tried to make this more clear. —Ed!(talk)03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More material on the South Korean army would be useful, as it seems somewhat under-represented
I've tried to clarify my use of UN to show that it referrs to the entire UN side (ie logistics problems the UN had were shared by the ROKs in addition to their own unique challenges) —Ed!(talk)03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The 24th Infantry Division was the first US unit sent into Korea with the mission to take the initial "shock" of North Korean advances, delaying much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive.[7] The division was consequently alone for several weeks as it attempted to delay the North Koreans" - this is a bit US-centric; the South Koreans took the "initial shock" of the North Korean advance and fought alongside the 24th Division, so it wasn't entirely "alone".
"The massive demand for ships forced the UN to charter private ships" - were these ships really chartered by the UN itself? - it seems more likely that the UN forces did this.
"The distance in nautical miles to the port of Pusan from the principal Japanese ports varied greatly" makes it sound like this differed from day to day!
The para beginning "The Far East Command's "Operation Rebuild" by August had assumed the proportions of a gigantic production" seems out of place in the 'Sea resupply' section and appears to partially duplicate material at the start of the 'United Nations logistics' section
"The logistics situation at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter": "situation" (as it's used here) is widely considered a word to avoid in formal writing; it's not forbidden, but if it feels like you have to use it, then something may be wrong. If you didn't go with "Logistics at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter" because that sounded wrong to you, then that shouldn't be the page title. Maybe "Logistics for in the Battle of Pusan Perimeter"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The logistics situation at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War is widely recognized to be among the most decisive factors in determining the outcome of the battle. During the fight lasting from August 4 to September 15, 1950, United Nations forces were able to build up their own supply lines and interdict the North Korean forces, whose routes of supply were steadily reduced and cut off.": I like: "Logistics in the Battle of Pusan Perimeter (August 4 – September 15, 1950) during the Korean War played a decisive role in the battle. Efficient logistics, the management of personnel and materiel, supported United Nations (UN) supply lines while the North Koreans' routes of supply were steadily reduced and cut off." You rarely make this mistake, Ed, but that was way too waffly. Also, many readers won't understand "logistics". Per the checklist, "clarity", at least give your readers a clue. I decided on balance it was best to remove the links in the bolded part, per WP:LEAD#Links. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeOn hold for a couple of weeks; see discussion here. I want to be clear that the goal isn't to slow you down or force you to become a different writer than the writer you are, but as a matter of practicality, I'm going to have to oppose until someone fixes the problems mentioned in the checklist. Even the lead section contains most of the problems mentioned there. I'll be happy to help anyone that wants to take a whack at it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ex post facto much? This ACR has been long overdue for closure since a week before that list was written. Regarless, I'm going to need a lot more specific objection that that. Other than one time format I've fixed, I can find nothing on the checklist which this article violates. —Ed!(talk)22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear all of that; I'm not looking to fail the article, I'm trying to implement the discussion here. I have no personal objection if whoever closes this wants to pass it on the grounds that they want to take a while to implement the new rules, but that will mean that A-class doesn't mean what it used to mean, because about four times as many articles are being submitted to A-class review these days as there were two months ago, so I no longer have time to copyedit all of them myself. I'm pedaling as fast as I can, but I'm going to need some help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over it one sentence at a time. Maybe the checklist is too hard and we need to remove some of the items (but if we remove too much of it, it's not going to save me much time). - Dank (push to talk)
Before I added it, "logistics" needed a quick definition per "Clarity" (in the checklist, of course). Some writers rely on links to define things; the problem is that most readers don't click on most links, and if they're lost in the first sentence, they may not keep reading. - Dank (push to talk)
You indicated on the Yongdong ACR that a explanatory interjection on the 1st Cavalry Division was problematic and needed to be moved. I do not understand how this case is different. —Ed!(talk)20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I said was that I would have gone with "(actually an infantry division)". What I'm looking for is enough so that readers aren't stumped, without making digressions that don't move the narrative forward. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"UN troops, consisting primarily of troops from the Republic of Korea (ROK), the United States (US), and United Kingdom (UK) enjoyed overwhelming air and sea superiority during the battle." See "Paired commas". If you substituted a parenthesis for that first comma, where would you put the end parenthesis? That's where you need a comma; people are expecting a comma to tell them where the phrase ends, and when they don't get it, they have to back up. Also see "Acronyms": the most common acronyms (US, UK) don't need defining. Chicago prefers that we use "United States" as the noun and "US" when it's used as an adjective, but our sources regularly use US as a noun and that's fine with me. - Dank (push to talk)
Other reviewers have demanded I include these acronyms on first reference, or else they aren't clear when they are written in subsequent articles. —Ed!(talk)20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, talking with him now. Don't do a lot of research on this, but do you remember offhand which GAN(s) that was in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They used this to their advantage in quickly moving supplies into Korea. Additionally, the presence of a large stockpile of material in nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies.": See "Conciseness". Some of the FAC reviewers are famous for failing articles because of problems like using three words when you could have used two; I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for you (or someone) to recognize when an entire sentence is unnecessary. The only content you really need from that first sentence is "Korea", and that can be integrated into the second sentence, maybe: "They shipped materiel [not material] from stockpiles in Japan [give the approximate number of miles] to Pusan port in Korea." Then you can remove "Pusan" from the next sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
"In contrast, North Korean logistics ...": See "Consistency". Sometimes you write "North Korea", sometimes "NK". Go with one or the other; I'd pick "North Korea". - Dank (push to talk)
Is there an established policy for that? I have never seen abbreviations as a problem anywhere. In fact I've seen them encouraged in FAC since they are often more concise. —Ed!(talk)20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's some disagreement among Wikipedians. AP Stylebook, Chicago, and every other style guide I can think of says that the general principle is to use them only if people generally use them ... not that helpful, I know, but much of the text of AP Stylebook consists of specific advice on which acronyms to use. Actually, I generally like your calls on abbreviations; more often than not, you write out "North Korea" if you're talking about the country, but "NK ..." if you're talking about a military unit. As long as the "NK" bit is spelled out at first occurrence, I don't see anything to complain about. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I only use NK to refer to units. If there are any other uses of it I would take them out. I've found the units need them though to prevent confusion. —Ed!(talk)20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"large UN interdiction campaigns": UN interdiction campaigns. "campaign" implies "large"; "the flow of supplies from North Korea" also implies "large", since you're talking about all the supplies. See "Repetition". Repetition is dismissed by some writers as a minor point; it's really not a minor point. In our law office, we get frequent calls from clients who can't understand letters that they get from court officials, because these officials are under the impression that it's best if they say everything three different ways. Since good writers don't repeat themselves, most readers assume that if you say something three different ways, you're trying to say something different the second and third time, even when you're not, and it's confusing. - Dank (push to talk)
The word campaign is not automatically associated with largeness, its simply a set of linked military actions. Campaigns can be small or large, in many aspects including area of operation and men involved For example the entire Modoc Campaign was small consisting of a total of no more than 800 belligerants confined to a very localized area. On the other side campaigns can be immense as the often were in world war two, for example Operation Barbarossa was fought along the entire verticle width of russia along with over 7 million belligerents. Now i would say that Barbarossa was a large campaign compaired to the Modoc Campaign would you not?XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks. As I've said elsewhere, the three things that slow me down the most are small mistakes repeated many times, ambiguous prose, and my own limitations as a writer and military historian. Still, "large" doesn't add anything here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Though supported logistically by the Soviet Union and China during the battle, North Korean supplies ...": This is probably a case of "Dangling words"; later you write, "The North Koreans were given supplies by both China and the Soviet Union ..." So I think you're saying it wasn't the North Korean supplies that were being supported, it was North Korea. It makes a difference; the first means those countries are transporting North Korean materiel, the second means they're transporting their own. - Dank (push to talk)
"The UN supply lines ... allowed units along the perimeter to enjoy mostly stable supply lines": see "Repetition". - Dank (push to talk)
This is a tough one to avoid duplicating, some terms just do not have commonly used synonyms and i think that fact needs to be taken into account when going over repetion in reviews. Searching various online thesauruses brought up nothing, but maybe somthing like materiel distribution routes can be used to replace one of the duplications in the sentence in question though i would assume in a FAR they would dismiss that term as jargon no?XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So: that's most of the problems listed in the checklist, just in the lead section. (If people want to make the checklist shorter or longer, that's fine with me, I'm making it up as I go.) There were similar amounts of work to do in your other recent A-class articles, and I did that copyediting myself, but I can't keep up that pace with all the new submissions to A-class. If you have trouble spotting these kinds of problems, then please get someone else to look at it for you. Of course, it's not up to me whether this article passes or what standards apply at A-class review, that's for all the people who are involved with A-class to decide. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not opposed to a good copyedit, my main objection here is based on two issues: 1) This ACR has been substantially longer and more drawn out than others, and as I said above, these new standards were penned a week after this ACR should have been closed. I don't mind offering one of my fresher ACRs up to use to test out the new list, such as Hwanggan or Yongdong, but you wrote the list then objected to this ACR based on that list 36 hours later. 2) I would like to see more thorough collaboration among MILHIST as to what the list should contain. I don't find suggestions such as "use a dictionary" to be useful and I don't agree with implementations such as the one listed above where an article has repetition because two words have similar connotations. There should be some more specific ones (ie- "use a word once per sentence." vs "Don't say the same thing twice, using the same or different words." - does that apply to a sentence? a paragraph? the whole article?) Few of them in my mind have the specificity to be easily and uniformly used. I would love to be a part of said conversation, as I agree more concise copyediting skills among more people would help the ACR process, but like other MILHIST users I don't have reliable internet for the rest of the year since I'm on vacation. Anyway, those are just my opinions and my only experience copy editing was with AP Style for a newspaper in college so I've been trying to adjust for that! —Ed!(talk)05:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm asking for patience. Your articles take me a while to work on, there have been a lot of them, and I've got a long list of other articles waiting. Let me work on some of those while we see if we can get some help on this one. I also completely agree that the checklist and the new standards need to be a group project, and we may need to wait for people to get back and digest all this. - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. I'll be out of town for the next week anyway, and I won't be writing many new articles over the next few months so I'll have more time to work through my existing ones in that time. —Ed!(talk)05:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This ACR is due to be closed now as it has been open longer than 28 days. Dank: does your oppose still stand, or are you happy for it to be promoted and work done on it prior to FAC? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a number of specific corrections, none of which have been made (looking quickly), so in my mind this isn't an A-class article. OTOH, my review came 2.5 weeks after the article was submitted, during the holidays, so if it's okay with you, I'd prefer to give Ed! more time on this. Ed!, while I'm here: what I'm looking for from you is some self-appraisal. Some of your articles are quite good (and I've passed most of them), so my guess would be that it's a reasonable request to ask you to improve over successive articles, take in comments I'm making here, make the corrections I pointed out, and generally re-read your work with the checklist in mind so there's not so much for me to catch. OTOH, it's fine with me if you don't understand or don't agree with much of what I'm saying, or you do understand what I'm saying, but it takes a while to spot this stuff yourself. That wouldn't mean you're not a good writer, but it might suggest that it would be a more efficient use of your time to collaborate on some articles rather than trying to do it all yourself. Figure out what works for you, and let me know; I want to help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I've responded to your specific concerns above, and moved the article per your request. I don't know what else to do, I've had a difficult time trying to understand where you're coming from, particularly in regards to the list which I find to vague to be helpful (where does expanding things per "clarity" become a problem with "repetition?" I don't understand, for example where it wouldn't be a problem with repetition to use "North Korean" or "United Nations" practically every sentence) I would like very much to improve my prose to meet your standards but it's not something I can do overnight with a brand new list. —Ed!(talk)20:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, now I'm optimistic. Basically, the way to help me (or any copyeditor) is to focus on two things ... unfortunately, they're both hard: clarity, and silly little rules (such as punctuation) that most writers ignore and get wrong 50 times in the same article. I kept those two things in mind when Baha and I were working on the checklist. It's going to help me the most if you practice by sitting down or chatting with someone; read them the section title and the first sentence of a problematic paragraph (such as the one I didn't like from Battle of Yongdong), and ask them what it means and what they expect the paragraph is about. Do the same with each successive sentence. If they keep getting a different impression of where you're going as you move from sentence to sentence, that's a problem that's hard for a copyeditor to fix. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if there is a possibility for this concern to be addressed in the next three days or so, I think that the ACR can probably stay open (based on the writing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review); however, it has been open beyond the 28 day cut off (which was 7 January), so it does need to be listed for closing on the co-ord page shortly. The closing co-ord will have to make a judgement call one way or another, after which hopefully we can all still be friends. ;-) (Sorry, I'm not trying to be pushy, I'm just concerned that if we go too far beyond the 28 day cut off, that it might be seen as being unfair to other editors at ACR who have had their reviews closed with "no consensus" after 28 days because of outstanding comments, or not enough participation, etc.). I seem to remember that in the past MBK004 has been fairly strict (with some leeway, of course) on the cut off time. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry this took longer than expected; I had to think about a lot of different issues. Bottom line: this article is trying to do something that would be hard for any writer writing about any battle. I can see how a great historian might be able to make the logistics of one of Robert E. Lee's battles come alive, how they might be able to get the reader to see that logistics can be just as fraught with danger and frustration and brilliant successes as the military campaign itself. But imagine trying to write an article on the logistics of any large, successful enterprise that has its own article, such as a Broadway show, and trying to justify to Wikipedians that the behind-the-scenes work deserves its own article ... it's doable if you make the case that the preparations and support were critical for the success of the enterprise and had a dramatic storyline of their own, but it's not an argument Wikipedians are used to, and it's a hard sell. I don't know exactly what it would take, but this article doesn't rise to the challenge. Typical paragraph:
After the first weeks of the war, steps were taken to reduce the necessity for the large number of airlifts to Korea from Japan. By July 15, Eighth Army was provided a daily ferry service from the Hakata-Moji area to Pusan, along with fast express trains from the Tokyo-Yokohama area. Accordingly, a Red Ball Express-type system was organized. It had a capacity of 300 tonnes (300 LT; 330 ST) daily of items and supplies critically needed in Korea. The Red Ball made the run from Yokohama to Sasebo in a little more than 30 hours, and to Pusan in a total of about 53 hours. The first Red Ball Express train with high priority cargo left Yokohama at 1330 on July 23. Regular daily runs became effective two days later. The schedule called for the Red Ball to depart Yokohama at 2330 nightly and arrive at Sasebo at 0542 the next morning, and for the cargo to be transferred directly from train to ship. Ship departure was scheduled for 1330 daily and arrival at Pusan at 0400 the next morning.
Comment for Coordinators I hope the bulk of this review shows I have gone to great extents to collaborate with every concern a reviewer has listed for me. However, this rationale is simply not something with which I can work or correct. It is an oppose based on...what? That the article is inhernently not notable and needs to be deleted or merged? That the subject matter is not interesting? That it needs to be worded more excitingly? I can't find extensive policy on ACR support and oppose rationale, but Reviewing good articles advises, in part:
Avoid commenting on the perceived "merit" of the subject of the article. If an article on a porn star is well-written, well-organized, well-referenced, and follows the relevant Notability, Manual of Style and biography guidelines, then you should not fail it because you think Wikipedia has too many articles on porn stars.
In this case, the fact that there are no other specific logistics articles does not mean this one should not exist. It also does not establish a precedent for the creation of 50,000 more logistics articles. Pusan Perimeter's logistics situation was an exceptional case thoroughly covered by every source I have on the battle, and known to be the single biggest deciding factor in the battle. Discussion on how interesting Wikipedians will find military logistics is completely subjective, and I've found the majority I've talked with hope more logistics articles come from this one. Also, WP:FAC states, in part:
Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it.
The only two apparent suggestions I can gleam from this are 1) delete the article or 2) completely rewrite the entire thing with a new or more exciting tone. Again, I hope I have made it clear I'm ready and willing to address any concerns that I can act on, and I'm also not trying to discredit Dank, whose review has been otherwise very helpful, but I do not see this oppose as anything I can actually fix. —Ed!(talk)19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that, since this is a novel kind of A-class article, I'd rather we get some feedback on my objection from others before this is closed, even though this is past deadline ... that's not Ed!'s fault. I don't think my oppose is novel; I'm saying that IMO Ed! doesn't make the point quickly enough or persuasively enough that, as he says, the logistics here were exceptional. But I think this would be a hard article to succeed with, for anyone. And I want to repeat that I don't think it's up to me to set the A-class criteria, it's only up to me to (try to) give a copyeditor's viewpoint; what constitutes an A-class article is a question for MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my own copy edit on the article this morning. I don't know if this goes any way to alleviating your concerns or not, but I suppose the answer to this question comes down to our interpretation of the A4 criterion (given that citations (A1), content (A2), structure (A3) and supporting visiual materials (A5) don't appear to be issues here - please correct me if I'm wrong), which states: "The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant." While I can see what you are saying, Dank, about making the topic come alive, I don't believe that this is part of the A4 criterion, although of course if the article could achieve that, it would be great. Ultimately, for me A4 is really about spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, narrative flow. I believe that these are of a decent standard (although not perfect yet), thus I think that the article does meet A4. Having said this, I probably wouldn't suggest that it be taken to FAC without further work. That's just my opinion, and of course, anyone is welcome to disagree (including a closing co-ord). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. AR is doing so much work on this that he's going to shame me into putting more work into it myself :) Maybe my point will be clearer if we can fix the problems, and you guys can compare the old version to the new version. I'll see what I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The presence of a large stockpile of materiel in nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies to Pusan. UN logisticians worked extensively with the resources within the perimeter to create an efficient means of transporting supplies from Pusan port to units on the front lines.": The UN efficiently procured and transported supplies from a large stockpile of materiel in nearby Japan. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the UN supply lines to the perimeter were eventually stable, while the North Korean lack of supplies meant troop effectiveness was severely reduced during offensives.": Removed.
"The UN improved its logistical situation during the battle, allowing its troops to hold out until the Battle of Inchon, and the defeat of the North Korean army at Pusan.": Usually, avoid the word "situation". I moved this to the first paragraph and shortened it: "UN logistics improved throughout the Battle of Inchon and the defeat of the North Korean army at Pusan."
"Additionally, North Korean forces were forced to rely on less efficient means of travel to get supplies to the front lines." Removed; more or less redundant to the following sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this ACR really should be closed as soon as possible due to the the fact that it has gone past the 28-day period. While I fully support and appreciate Dank's sterling efforts to improve and copy-edit our ACRs (including some of my own) and many other articles I think that given that this article has six supports (including mine) and one oppose we really need to be consistent and close this one now (seems to have consensus IMO). There is nothing stopping us from continuing to improve the article once this has occurred. Of course it is most likely the lack of uninvolved co-ords around at the moment that is keeping this one open, however the longer this goes on the more it seems like its something else (which I'm sure its not). I'm also sure this is starting to get a bit frustrating for all involved so a resolution is probably best for us all. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing coord comment -- As one of the few uninvolved coordinators left by the look of it (!) I tend to agree it's time to put this one to bed. I don't doubt that since I last suggested this (before Christmas) the prose has been improved, but I don't think the relative merits of the subject should prevent its promotion now. I respect Dank's take on it, but this view seems to be in the minority with comments like "excellent" and "fascinating" up above, so unless there are any other violent objections I plan to close/promote later this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I understand that we're out of time. My objection isn't "the subject isn't interesting". Please compare the "before" version of the lead with the current version; the whole article might benefit from more of the same. I don't recommend taking this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Fuso battleships were the first super-dreadnoughts of the Japanese Navy, and were considered the most advanced battleships of their time when launched. By the time the Second World War rolled around, they were seriously obsolete, and their only major contribution was getting sunk during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. This article passed GA in November. Respectfully submit for A-Class. Cam(Chat)(Prof)04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually a previous one off Fuso class of battleship, an ironclad named Fuso around the time of the Russo-Japanese War was classified by the Japanese Imperial Navy as a battleship. A hatnote might be a good idea to prevent confusion.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Citations section, you have "Evans and Peattie" and "Evans & Peattie" - this is presented slightly differently, but should be made consistent;
in the References section, endashes should be added for the year ranges in the titles for Breyer and Stille;
in the References, per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, the capitalisation of the Skulski work title should be The Battleship Fusō: Anatomy of a Ship (add caps for "Ship");
in the References, most of the ISBNs have hyphens but those for Breyer and Gardiner & Gray don't. These should be consistent (either all with, or all without);
Is it possible to clarify that horizontal armour = armoured deck at some point in the article. "Armoured deck" is a rather clearer term to the lay reader IMV.
The first two sentences of the "Armor" section appear contradictory; either she was more lightly armoured or she wasn't. Also appears to contradict the section of "Design" where it says the Fuso design outmatched its US equivalent in all areas.
Is it worth having the configuration immediately post the 1930s refit in the infobox? As noted in the text it changed dramatically.
You're right that the big changes all occurred in the 1930s, but I wanted to give a sense of the configuration of the class as they sailed to battle when they were lost. Plus a lot of the 1930s changes are tricky to cover in numbers alone; it's much more qualitative and descriptive than quantitative (the number of big guns didn't change, just their firing mechanism and elevation). For now I've left it as 1944. Cam(Chat)(Prof)22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"George Thurston's design of the Kongō's" - is the apostrophe in "Kongo's" right? (I don't think it should be there, but I'm often wrong)
"Vickers files" - in this case, I think there should be an apostrophe after Vickers (but ditto!)
Picture: "Yamashiro, Fusō and the fast-battleship Haruna in the late 1930's." - Could the caption give an indication of which one is which? e.g. "front to rear..." or "foreground..."
"by the commencement World War II" - missing "of", i.e. "commencement of World War..."
"torpedo bulges" - might be worth explaining or linking what a torpedo bulge is (e.g. a means of firing a torpedo? Protection against being hit by a torpedo?)
"This reconstruction fitted antiaircraft guns, lengthened her stern, fitted emergency damage-control systems, added rangefinders and reconfigured her secondary armament" - were there emergency damage-control and rangefinders before? (i.e. are these "new" systems, etc.)
"On 24 October, Fusō was attacked by American carrier aircraft in the Sulu Sea, with her aircraft catapult destroyed by a bomb hit to her stern." It would be potentially clearer to say that "...and her aircraft catapult was destroyed..." (else you could be saying that, when she was attacked, her aircraft catapult was unavailable because it had been destroyed).
"a pagoda-mast that extended further aft and was of a heavier appearance" - does this mean that it wasn't in fact heavier? (e.g. could you simply say "a heavier pagoda-mast..."?)
Picture: "a twin-127mm gun mount on board the Japanese battleship Nagato. The mounts used on board the Fusō were the same model." Capitalisation of "a" at the beginning.
"casemate" - worth explaining or linking.
Footnote 2. "The #3 turret on Fuso pointed forward when stowed, while Yamashiro's pointed after." Should that be "aft", as opposed to "after"?
Comments This article is in good shape, but I have a few comments
The first paragraph of the lead seems a bit repetitive (probably due to 'class' appearing in all of the first three sentences) and could probably be improved so that it better grabs readers' attention
"Both served minor patrolling duty" - is poor grammar
"She operated off Biak Island in May 1944" - the Biak reinforcement force Fusō was part of never made it to Biak so this isn't accurate. I'd suggest something like 'she took part in an unsuccessful attempt to reinforce Biak' with a link to the Battle of Biak article (which reminds me, I really should start the article on Operation Kon I was planning a while ago).
The statement that the ships' armour was "typical for a pre-Jutland battleship" is both unclear (I think I know what this means, but readers less familiar with the topic won't) and contradicted by the statements later in the para that the armour was unusually light for a battleship of the period.
Can anything at all be said about the human side of these ships? - for instance, how did their crew numbers change over time, where they comfortable, how were they crewed in 1944 after being in reserve for so long?, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dank's copyedit managed to get most of this stuff. As for the crew composition, none of the sources I managed to find (and I found pretty much everything that's published without getting into OR) mentions the composition of the crew. Cam(Chat)(Prof)22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that she operated off Biak is still in the article. Lots of sources are available for this by Google searching 'Operation Kon' Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I made all the following edits; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
"The Fusō classbattleships (Japanese: 扶桑) were a class of warships": Noting the missing hyphen, the objection above about repetition of the word "class", and the recommendation at WP:LEAD to get the whole page title in bold without links if possible, I tried this: "The Fusō-class battleships (Japanese: 扶桑) were two battleships ..." - Dank (push to talk)
Does anyone know why {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fusō''-class battleship}} doesn't work? It works fine without the hyphen, but we use the hyphen in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, it worked fine after I moved the page to include the hyphen in the title. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So ... does anyone know, are we formatting the titles to match the formatting in the first line of the article or not? I reformatted the title. - Dank (push to talk)
"were considered the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN": were the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN. Judgment call; it's complicated. There were no other ships that could have been considered the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN, right? - Dank (push to talk)
"Both served minor patrolling duty": judgment call, feel free to revert, I went with: Both patrolled briefly off the coast of China ... - Dank (push to talk)
"contemporary": although historians use the word a lot, it's usually best to avoid it outside academia, since it has two contradictory, widely used meanings: of that time, and of this time, i.e. modern. - Dank (push to talk)
"reconstructed from 1930–35": reconstructed from 1930 to 1935, per Chicago 6.78 and discussions at WT:MOS. "From" requires "to" and "between" requires "and" instead of a dash. - Dank (push to talk)
"Battle of Surigao Strait": I added a link, although it's only a link to a section of Battle of Leyte Gulf, which you had just linked. I've seen the argument go both ways. My thinking is that the reader doesn't know that they can find it in Battle of Leyte Gulf without a link, and the poor copyeditor also doesn't know that the term can remain unlinked without some digging, so it saves everyone some trouble to link it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Satō Tetsutarō—a Japanese Navy admiral and military theorist—speculated that conflict would inevitably arise between Japan and at least one of their two main rivals": per WP:EMDASH and Chicago, I changed these dashes to commas.
"Eight-eight fleet": Caps are a judgment call. I went with caps, since caps are used at Eight-Eight Fleet Program. OTOH, whenever you have something that looks a little odd and involves a judgment call, don't go out of your way to repeat the odd-looking phrase; this one was repeated a lot in one section. I replaced it in most cases with "the program".
"set back": setback
"USN": US Navy (It's very short and predominates in most sources over the acronym. Another consideration: you only use the acronym in one section.)
"Two vessels of the Fusō class": The two vessels of the Fusō class - Dank (push to talk)
"and commissioned 8 November 1915 and attached to the 1st Battleship Division": deleted the first "and"
"... throughout her career; the first beginning on 12 April 1930.": comma, not semi-colon; the second part isn't a complete sentence.
"In the second phase, started at Kure in September 1932, fitted 127 mm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns and additional shell-rooms.": not a sentence; I reworded.
"Laid down 20 November 1913, launched 3 November 1915, and commissioned 31 March 1917.": not a sentence; fixed.
"#3": No. 3
"the reverse of on her sister.": the reverse of her sister's
"afterwards" afterward in AmEng per Chicago 5.220, at "toward"
"the final result": the result (judgment call)
"armour": armor
"support-force", "task-force": no hyphens
"designated as": designated
"between 03:23–03:53": between requires "and" per Chicago 6.78
"All but ten of her crew—including Admiral Nishimura—were lost.": dangling participle: all including, or ten of her crew including? I made a guess. - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"14-inch (360 mm)/45 calibre naval guns": probably 14-inch/45-caliber naval guns, but see WT:MHC#Hyphen_question. I only object to Canadian English in articles about the War in the Pacific (WWII), since the US was so dominant there; if you want to go with Canadian English, that works for me, but we'll have some converting to do. Per WP:MOSNUM (unless someone has changed it), don't include conversions inside links; readers can find the converted figures at the link if they care. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"-5": −5, which can be written −5. See MOSNUM. This is more important in mathematical contexts than here, since the hyphen won't read correctly as a minus sign in some formulas. But if you're headed to FAC, it's best to follow MOSNUM.
"centreline": centerline
Some are okay with "metre" in an article largely in AmEng, some aren't.
"upper-deck": upper deck
"High-Explosive": high-explosive
"aboard the Fusō battleships": aboard Fusō and Yamashiro
"... their firing arcs and training speed were too heavily restricted to be wielded as antiaircraft weapons.": I went with "their restricted firing arcs and training speed in casemates aboard Fusō and Yamashiro made them unsuitable as antiaircraft weapons." "Wielded" was a dangling participle here; firing arcs aren't wielded. There's a good argument that some readers will misunderstand "training speed".
Consistency is needed on "twin mounts" vs. "twin-mounts". If you go with the latter, then "six twin and eight triple-mounts" should be "six twin- and eight triple-mounts", with a hanging hyphen. I'm usually seeing "twin mount" used as a noun and "twin-mount" as an adjective, but "twin-mount" as a noun might be fine, I'm not sure.
Some Wikipedians don't like blank sections and subsections; you have ==Specifications== followed by ===Armament=== followed by ====Main Battery==== with no text in between. I don't have a position on what's right; I would have omitted the "Armament" header and gone with ===Main Battery=== and ===Secondary Armament===; it's clear enough that you're talking about armament. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to preserve the buoyancy -> to preserve buoyancy
"Nevertheless, in exchange for higher speeds the Fusō class sacrificed ...": comma after "speeds". Please read User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas, because this mistake accounts for a lot of my copyediting edits. This is actually one of those cases where the comma isn't strictly necessary, but it's better with it, and if you're having trouble with A-Class Reviews, it may be better to stick with a rule that's easy to learn and apply rather than experiment.
"Even after these improvements, the armor still suffered from a fatal shortcoming, in that it was not capable of withstanding 14 inch shells.": Both ships made it through most of WWII before succumbing, one was sunk entirely by torpedoes, and the other was hit first by torpedoes, so "fatal" isn't the word I'd use to describe the vulnerability to 14-inch shells. Reworded.
"produced a higher power": produced more power.
"powerplants": power plants
"four Kampon Turbines, which had an increased output": four Kampon Turbines with an increased output ... See WP:MHCL#Conciseness.
"25 kn": I prefer 25 knots, at least in the text; it's generally fine to abbreviate in tables. There's some disagreement over "kn" vs. "kt", and "knots" is only 5 letters.
You bet. Fair warning: with my current workload, I've now started opposing some instead of doing all the work myself ... I'm not looking for perfection, but I'm looking for improvement over time, for sharing some of the workload, from all the writers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I would have done a lot of copyediting myself had it been any other period except the Christmas break. My apologies for not picking up more of that slack myself. Cam(Chat)(Prof)16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given in References, but not used, "Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1985). Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN0-87021-101-3."
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921. is an edited collection. Were articles individually authored? If so, individual articles used need to be cited with their article title, article authors, etc.
If they were individually authored, none of the editions actually specify that. To the best of my knowledge Gardiner and Gray are as specific as we can get in terms of the authors. Cam(Chat)(Prof)19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: ""Combined Fleet - tabular history of Yamashiro". Parshall, Jon; Bob Hackett, Sander Kingsepp, & Allyn Nevitt. 2010. http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yamashiro.htm. Retrieved 9 November 2010." Authors come before titles. Source actually appears to be: "Bob Hackett (2010). "IJN Yamashiro: Tabular Record of Movement," Revision 10. Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Ahlberg, Lars (eds.) Senkan! Stories and Battle Histories of the IJN's Battleships Online: Imperial Japanese Navy Page [www.combinedfleet.com]. Last Revised 9 November 2010. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
Yes I am very displeased with Hackett et al.'s choice to rename every section differently depending on if it is a link or a page title, grumble grumble. This is why I stick around wikipedia to resolve horrible citation issues like this one.
I've fixed all the issues and taken a crack at the last one, though I'm not entirely sure whether I've fixed it. I'm a bit confused in terms of what needs fixing. Cam(Chat)(Prof)19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this ACR is due to be closed in the next 24 hours. If Fifelfoo's concerns can be addressed, it can be listed for closing by an uninvolved co-ord. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This phrase in the lead seems a little unencyclopaedic to me: "inflicting huge numbers of casualties on it" maybe just tweak it to something like "inflicting heavy casualties on it";
I'm not quite sure what you mean here: "where they attacked visible advancing North Korean troops approaching on the road" (specifically 'visible advancing');
I think these sentences need to be reworded to clarify the relationship between them: "The battle set the standard for the 27th Infantry, which performed unusually well in the fight. Units of both the 25th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions in their first engagements at Yongdong and Sangju performed very poorly, prompting Walker to order the US forces to stop retreating, and "stand or die."" I assume by the proximity of the two that what you mean is that the 27th Infantry had performed well in its first engagement in contrast to units of 25th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions in their first engagements. Its not entirely clear though however. Anotherclown (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I made all the following edits (if any needed to be made); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
Dashes are not a big deal, of course, but it will save me some trouble if you'll use them in "Poun–Hwanggan road" (or just say "the road between Poun and Hwanggan" if you like). Chicago 6.78 and WP:DASH are agreed that a dash goes here. In the edit screen, it's the first symbol after "insert", just below the "save page" button. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As other North Korean forces closed on Yongdong, the NK 2nd Division had arrived in Taejon too late for the fight there, and continued its advance down the Poun–Hwanggan road. The division turned toward Poun. Unless checked, it would pass through that town and come out on the main Seoul–Pusan highway at Hwanggan, about 10 miles (16 km) east of Yongdong. This would place it in the rear of the 1st Cavalry Division and on its main supply road.": As other North Korean forces were closing on Yongdong, the NK 2nd Division continued its advance down the road from Hwanggan to Poun, having arrived in Taejon too late for the fight there. Its orders were to pass through that town and come out on the main Seoul–Pusan highway at Hwanggan, about 10 miles (16 km) east of Yongdong, placing it in the rear of the 1st Cavalry Division and on its main supply road. [I made an assumption here that they were actually going to do what you were describing. If this wasn't a real goal but only a feared goal, then change the language accordingly.] - Dank (push to talk)
"a West Point graduate and known as an effective commander": a West Point graduate known as an effective commander.
"at 04:00, July 24.": at 04:00 on July 24.
"for the next morning" because the next morning. "for" in this sense is uncommon these days, except in certain stock phrases.
"western-most": westernmost
"placing its loss above 3,000 men": placing its losses above 3,000 men
A few misspellings fixed.
Support. Greatly improved work, and I really appreciate it. Just two more things for me, in addition to AC's comments above: I don't know what "it closed there in an assembly area" or "they attacked visible advancing North Korean troops" mean. (Did they not attack other troops that they couldn't see?)
Location required: Varhola, Michael J. (2000) ; Millett, Allan R. (2000), ; Fehrenbach, T.R. (2001) [1994] ; Ecker, Richard E. (2004), ; Catchpole, Brian (2001) ; Bowers, William T.; Hammong, William M.; MacGarrigle, George L. (2005), ; Alexander, Bevin (2003)
Fixed, I think. I don't know what's wrong with it, it's identical to the other refs and I can't find any errors in the coding. —Ed!(talk)06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Millett 2010 was cite book; the autolinky thing was only working with the citation template citations. Changed Millett 2010 to citation. I noticed because of the difference between " , " and " . " separators.Fifelfoo (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New York, New York: either states for all locations or none :)
the caption of the image in the Outbreak of the war section, "US Forces retreat during the Battle of Taejon": I think this should be "US forces retreat..." as US Forces isn't a proper noun (or is it?). I'm not sure, to be honest.AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has passed a Good Article review, and I believe it has the potential to ultimately progress to FA status in due course. Additional "eyes-on" and quality assurance from the mil-hist specialists would assist in this process! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments: looks quite impressive. I've not read through the whole article, though, so my comments are mainly focused on presentation:
according to the Featured article tools, there are two disambig links that should be located and rectified: [124];
no issues with external links (no action required);
in the lead, the first two sentences both start with the same words ("Kenilworth Castle"), you might consider starting the second sentence differently for variation;
there is some inconsistency in the presentation of values of distance, for instance "5 metres (17ft)", and then "nineteen metres (66ft)". These should probably be consistent and I'd suggest simply just using the {{convert}} as it will make the presentation consistent every time;
in the 16th century section, this clause probably needs a citation as it appears to be uncited: "...but Leicester's power and wealth, including monopolies and grants of new lands, depended ultimately on his remaining a favourite of the queen";
in the References section ther is a slight inconsistency in the presentation style, for instance Citation # 44 "Morris 2010, pp.32–3" as opposed to Citation #100 "Haynes, pp. 119–120" (32–3 compared to 119–120). These should be consistent;
All my concerns have been addressed, so I am supporting this article. As it is quite long, I might have missed something so I will continue to read over the article over the next couple of days to see if anything else comes up. If it does, I will let you know. Good work, BTW. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - I'm no expert on castles so just a few comments from me:
Use of terms like 'notable' (in the lead) should be avoided per WP:PEACOCK (maybe slight reword required);
The citation error checking tool reveals a couple of minor issues (Hull 2009, p.102. and HullWhitehorneMorrisP32, both reported as "Multiple references contain the same content")
Irregular caps here: "The outer bailey of Kenilworth castle", should this by Kenilworth Castle?;
although its not incorrect per se, AFAIK 'whilst' is considered archaic and are generally to be avoided (maybe use while instead); (see 4th para of Inner Court section);
Irregular caps again here I think: "Much of the right-hand court of Kenilworth castle is occupied"; and
This sentence appears to have a typo: "Elizabeth brought an entourage with of thirty-one barons..." particularly 'with of', I assume 'with her of thirty-one barons'.Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made, with the exception of the outer bailey: I think that as it the bailey is an integral part of the castle, the "of" is correct - but happy to be convinced otherwise! :)
Support This is a very detailed and nicely written article and I think that it meets the A class criteria. My only comment is that the sentence which begins with "Kenilworth has also played an important historical role" is rather long and should be split. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence broken up as proposed - see what you think of the altered lead.
Comments. I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
"Kenilworth Castle is a castle located in Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England.": I have no problem with this sentence, given the preference of WP:LEAD to use the bolded, unlinked title of the page as the subject of the first sentence. I'm not sure how else you could put it. But it's worth mentioning that "X castle is a castle located in X" is repetitive, and we should keep an eye on the possibility of either challenging the suggestions of WP:LEAD or figuring out more creative ways to comply. - Dank (push to talk)
"It has outstanding architecture, including buildings from Norman through to Tudor times, and has been described by architectural historian Anthony Emery as "the finest surviving example of a semi-royal palace of the later middle ages, significant for its scale, form and quality of workmanship".": WP:PEACOCK is mentioned above, which I take to mean "show, don't tell". I think the rest of the sentence says clearly enough that it has outstanding architecture, so I removed the first bit. But opinions go both ways on this; topic sentences are important. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the early 13th century Lunn's Tower, and the 14th century": I changed the comma to a semicolon. You have a long list here of items separated by semicolons; is it okay in BritEng to separate just one of the items by a comma? It's possible, but I'd be surprised. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with "believed to be the longest siege" in the lead, but "believed to be probably the longest siege" later on is waffly enough that it really needs a quick in-text explanation or footnote telling us what the other viewpoints are. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"New Red Sandstone": in AmEng, it wouldn't be capitalized. I don't read BritEng articles as closely or make as many corrections because I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe someone will grab a style guide and check this. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked back on this; my immediate thought was that I'd got this wrong, but it seems that the capitalisation for New Red Sandstone is correct: because it is a particular regional variety of sandstone (as opposed to just being new, red sandstone I guess), it seems to get its own capitalisation in the geological literature (e.g. here, here or here.) Odd, I must admit, and I'd be interested if anyone out there knows more... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is actually support for not capitalizing it, because they're only capitalizing it when they're referring to a particular formation (and they use a slightly different phrase, also capitalized, when they refer to a formation in for instance Connecticut), not the stone that comes from the formation. [Rule of thumb in AmEng: collective, mass and plural nouns are never proper nouns.] Also, it's impossible to even guess what the capitalization rules will be in style guides by surveying specialist literature. But it doesn't hurt readability here either way, and I'm out of my depth in BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nev. See "Series" at the checklist, and in part it's also "Consistency", since I changed the one semicolon to a comma. This is a trick, if you want to call it that, that's been around a long time: you can make a complicated series less complicated if you put the longer or more complex element last. That sentence is now easily understood with just commas. The cost here is that it's no longer chronological, and lack of chronology is sometimes a problem I harp on, but it's not a problem here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chronology was the issue I was thinking of. I can see the most complicated element has been shifted to the end of the sentence but think it was easily understood before. Now the thing that leaps out, to me at least, is the bouncing around in time. I think this should be left to Hchc's discretion. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Style Manual might be one that could be used here. It might be available through a library somewhere. I'll have a look, but the online price is too steep for me, though, on my Army pension so I won't be able to purchase it unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The building was intended to juxtapose with the ancient great tower": "juxtapose" is transitive in AmEng; also, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
"Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester", "his brother, Edmund Crouchback", "Thomas, Earl of Lancaster", "his wife, Isabella of France", "Henry of Grosmont, the Duke of Lancaster", "Many castles, especially royal castles", "Robert, Earl of Leicester": all of these would require a comma after per Chicago 6.17, "Commas in pairs".
I went through several pages of a Google search on "athlant, mythology" and can't find any reference to a mythological "athlant", other than pages that refer to the statues at Kenilworth. If I were writing, I'd dig in and see if I could come up with some classical reference, and if not, I probably wouldn't mention it.
"On his death Blanche of Lancaster inherited the castle; Blanche married John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III, their union and combined resources made John the second richest man in England to the king himself.": I think I see a comma splice just before "their union". Also, AmEng would need a "next" before "to the king himself".
"(approximately £1.25m–£1.7m in today's terms)": "in today's terms" is a phrase to avoid per WP:DATED (and the same language is in WP:MOS). "in 2010 pounds" or "figured in 2010 pounds" would work for me. Btw, the inflation template is giving me a very different number: £500 in 1563 is: £{{formatprice|{{inflation|UK|500|1563|2010|r=-4}}}} or £130,000. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"When Charles became king, he gave the castle to his wife, Henrietta Maria, bestowed the stewardship on Robert Carey, earl of Monmouth, and after his death, Carey's sons, Henry and Thomas.": See how the series is nonparallel?
P.S. I'm going to add the "between X–Y" stuff to the todo list ("and" instead of dash), per conversations at WT:MOS a couple of years ago (I don't have a cite but I can find it if I dig), and per Chicago 6.78, in the absence of guidance from a British style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Will run through these in a bit. In the meantime, the different inflation figure is because the inflation template uses the Retail Price Index (e.g. how much has bundle of household goods like a loaf of bread changed in price between the 1560's and 2009). For wages and incomes, or larger projects like castles, and across longer periods of time, the RPI is usually a bad comparison, and you'd be recommended to use something like an Average Earnings figure (e.g. how much does has a typical wage changed between the 1560's and 2009); this gives you the higher figure. Go back much beyond the 16th century, and the comparison falls to bits entirely because of the different role of money in the economy. I'll add a footnote explaining it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to comment here by Dank. I think there are two issues at stake. The first is that RPI (CPI in the US) is a bad proxy for large scale purchases like castles (or, following MILHIST, ships, armies and so forth). The second is that certain measures of inflation fall apart along a long time scale. I'm almost completely convinced of the latter proposition. Partially because the purpose of inflating figures generally and the inflation template specifically is to provide a sensible number for readers to anchor expectations on. Using nominal prices where real prices should be given (e.g. the sale price of a car in the UK or the US in 1955) leads the reader astray in a very subtle fashion. But the further back we go, the larger the potential for errors becomes and the larger the tradeoff between informing the reader and potentially misleading the reader becomes. As Hchc says, if we use the RPI/CPI and go backwards too far the calculation becomes nonsensical because the basket of goods changes so radically. Additionally, the issue of sampling error becomes important the further back we go from 1900 (sampling error which may bias our displayed real price one way or the other, there is no guarantee that sampling error nets out at the end (See DeLong's comment on GDP growth measurement error for a similar example). So for long time scales we should be wary of auto-generated real prices. But I'm less convinced of the argument that retail pricing should generally not be used to deflate large sale prices. For state projects like Kenilworth Castle, this may make a great deal of sense. We have a recorded outlay for the castle itself, but no amount of treasure would have pried it from its owners at the time of purchase. It wasn't exactly like a bag of dog food or an automobile which could be traded in a relatively liquid fashion. But for more recent large projects, the worry is overstated. There are some differences in what is measured by the CPI and a broader measure of inflation, but the basic intuition we want to provide the reader is served by using the CPI--we want to show the reader what the rough equivalent in value the money spent on a particular project would be today. Not the value of a particular project itself. The two are not the same! Where we have a consistent series with which the price can be adjusted we can do that using almost any reasonably accepted measure.
So what's the takeaway? Long time periods and radically changing use of money/markets and spells of poor record keeping present problems for using simple conversions to real dollars or pounds. The type or purchase in itself doesn't necessitate the exclusion of a particular measure of inflation (particularly when that exclusion results in just reporting nominal prices). I know this comment is more general than it needs to be, but I keep seeing this crop up in MILHIST discussions and FACs. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue certainly deserves decent discussion, and as you say goes beyond just this article. The source I'm citing for the conversion specifically argues in favour of the nominal for this purpose, incidentally.
My personal view is that I'd prefer for Wikipedia not to use modern, inflation-based equivalent figures at all before a certain point (18-19th century, for preference), and instead give a suitable equivalent from the period being discussed (e.g. compare one castle's value with another castle's, or the fee paid by a lord of the period, or a purchase price of an equivalent estate at the time). Taking two examples from this article, the £500 being worth £1.2m today feels a little high to me (but £100,000 at RPI feels somewhat too low), but the assessment value of £10,000 for the castle in 1588 being worth the equivalent of £23m feels sort of right.
I'm torn, because on the one hand I can see why a casual reader would want an indicator of some sort, on the other hand few of the academic texts I tend to use would give a modern equivalent price of any sort, RPI or nominal, for example, for exactly the reasons we're discussing here. Without wanting to lose a sense of perspective (!), it feels almost as though we're straying into original research by trying to produce a figure that the academics themselves often refused (for good reasons) to generate.
I agree wholeheartedly that figures for prices past a date where measures of inflation are untrustworthy (for any of the reasons given above) are best offered with a comparison to a contemporary purchase. The great thing about that presentation is that we often won't have to worry about OR--a lot of the great history books on subjects like this will offer such a comparison themselves to give the reader a sense of scale. Once we start picking among indicators of basically equal quality for a price which sounds right we are running into two problems. First, that's probably OR. Second, we run into the issue I discussed on my talk page; we don't actually have a consistent idea of how the different series are cointegrated and so we can't generate a reasonable test statistic and therefore probably shouldn't offer a range or an interpolation. Lastly, the growth of prices and values over time is very complex. That castle may have been worth the equivalent of 23m or it may have been worth much less as building the same building today might only cost 500 thousand pounds--converting nominal to real prices over long periods of profound growth invariably forces us to mix price and value and the result is messy. So yeah, you're generally correct with regard to older subjects and unique situations. We ought to avoid converting to real prices without some serious thought. But for many cases in the anglosphere post 1800, conversion is (probably) ok and will likely avoid leading the reader astray (especially when the conversion is made explicit by noting the nominal price as well). Protonk (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this effects the type of article I sometimes work on I thought I'd chip in. It's nice to have a modern equivalent for the reader to give them a sense of how much a hundred or a thousand pounds was, the problem is finding those figures. As Hchc says, very few works on the subject of castles use conversions to modern equivalents. I vaguely remember coming across one instance, which surprised me (I can't remember where), but then I realised the book itself was a good 30 or 40 years old in any case and the sum no longer relevant to the present. Then there's the problem of which index to use; money was spent on wages as well as procuring materials. Finally, it is only really royal castles for which records of work and expenditure survive (and are not always complete), and others rely on best guesses. Often (not always as some older articles I've worked on include conversions) I just don't include modern equivalents because of the problem of choosing which figures. The ideal way round this would be to put it in relative terms, as Hchc suggests. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are on to something with your suggestions of relative terms. Do we have a list of fortifications that includes their costs? Then instead of using our OR, the reader could gauge the prices and values of the castles by doing their own comparisons. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Drifting steadily off the topic of Kenilworth Castle, but this is an interesting suggestion so...) I don't know of any such list on Wikipedia, and compiling one might be tricky. Records aren't always complete, any such list would pretty much have to be about royal castles but if it could be done it would provide a useful yardstick for readers to refer to. Something like this would be quite an undertaking and might make for an interesting dissertation, but it's conceivable something could be done for Wikipedia. The rolls don't always record what money was spent on, and in some cases may have constituted maintenance and running costs. Whereas a dissertation would obvious have to refer directly to the Pipe Rolls, I suppose we could use the secondary sources which state things such as between "13xx and 13xx £xyz was spent on building the castle". Castles often underwent several important phases of construction, so a castle could crop up several times on this theoretical list. It would also have to be arranged chronologically. I might try to rig something up in a sandbox with a couple of examples to see how it could work.
Even without such a list some general comparative notes can be included, for example the article on the Tower of London (no inflation conversions in the article) says "From 1216 to 1227 nearly £10,000 was spent on the Tower of London; in this period, only the work at Windsor Castle cost more (£15,000)." Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finished up. By my count, we've got everything now except Nev's comments below, "between 1314 and constructed", "believed to be probably the longest", and "today's terms" (and the conversion). - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting there! :)
"probably the longest" - have gone for a direct quote in the end.
You're probably working on this already, but any significant quote is going to need attribution in the text, such as "According to Oxford historian blah-blah" - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"main approach" (from Nev1's comments) is in.
I still can't find my copy of Morris, which is somewhere in the house, so am still looking for that second date on the hall building. Grrr.
I still can't find Morris in my house, but I'm pretty sure he gives the second date as 1317, so I have added that in and will double check when I find it!
Price comparison has been clarified in three footnotes, giving it by RPI, income and by comparison with other Elizabeth figures. See what you think!
"main entrance route to the castle" would "main approach to the castle" be simpler and still carry the same meaning?
As far as visitor numbers are concerned, they're not necessary for the article to be comprehensive – it already goes into details about modern use and tourists etc – but if you're interested figures for 2009 are here.
Maybe link to Caerphilly and/or Bodiam in the see also section? As they're well known partly because of their water defences I thought they may be worth including, but where do you draw the line? Anyway, whether you link them or not is completely up to you.
I like the current opening sentence. Sometimes I find myself writing something like "Caernarfon Castle is a castle in Caernarfon" which, as Dank says, just seems so obvious and repetitive. Sometimes that formula works, eg: Littledean Camp. It's tricky, but an approach I take is to avoid repeating "castle", calling it a "medieval building" or something similar (eg: Brougham Castle). This makes it implicit that it's a castle; this may become problematic when you're dealing with structures that have castle in the name but are something else, but in those cases I clarify that despite being called a castle it's something else (eg: Maiden Castle, Dorset starts with "Maiden Castle is an Iron Age hill fort"). Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yet another German battleship, Bayern's career was rather short and uneventful (being in commission for little more than a year and a half), though she was mined during Operation Albion in late 1917. I feel the article is as complete as possible, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article meets our A-class standards. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to examine this article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tech review:
no dabs;
no issues with ext links;
images lack alt text, but it is not currently a requirement;
Comment Check link to SMS Großer Kurfürst and by token of the last review, shouldn't it be SMS Grosser Kurfürst? But my preference is clearly SMS Großer Kurfürst. But this is your call. Note: I am working on the article of Ernst Lindemann at the moment. Lindemann was II. and later I. F.T. Offizier (F.T.—Funktelegrafie; 2nd and 1st wireless telemetry officer) on board of Bayern. Lindemann went on to command Bismarck in WW II. Maybe this is worth mentioning? Who was the commanding officer of Bayern? I found a reference to a Kapitän zur See Max Hahn. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the lack of acceptance of the wonderful Eszett ß in the German language make the Großadmiral into a Grossadmiral? Or at least "Grand Admiral" :-) Otherwise I can't follow the reasoning why the orthographically correct ß in Großer Kurfürst is wrong but right in Großadmiral. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we don't use the eszett for the ship's name is due to the naming conventions (specifically WP:UE), which is policy) - the vast majority of English-language sources do not use an eszett for ship names. Hence, we don't use the eszett throughout the articles, such that the links match the article title. There is, however, no prohibition against using special characters for other things in the article, such as Großadmiral.
As for the ship's CO, I haven't seen anything about him. Where did you find Max Hahn's name? It would be good to add Lindemann to the article, though I'm not sure where to put him. Any ideas? Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, nice article by the way. I am not a naval expert so my comment may be totally irrelevant. The book about Lindemann goes in quite a bit of detail on how the crew aboard Bismarck was organized, how many divisions, officers, who was responsible for what, etc. Shouldn't an A-class article about SMS Bayern touch on these points as well? I found only one sentence in the article "Upon commissioning, she carried a crew of 42 officers and 1,129 enlisted men." This is more a question than a criticism. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you've done some nice work with Lindemann as well. As for crew specifics, I have never seen information to that level of detail on any ship in any book I've read - including Richard Stumpf's diary. It would be interesting to know, however, but I doubt much of that information has survived. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I understand your problem about finding information fully. I once submitted the article Joachim Helbig for A-class review. An A-class rating was denied on the grounds that too much of his personal life remained undocumented. I tried as hard as I could to close the gap but failed. So the article remained at GA-class. This to me established some level of expectation, when it comes to A-class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak support -- I feel that information about the crew is very sparse. With only a three year service history it should at least be possible to add a section about the most senior commanding officers of Bayern. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tweaked a couple of things for prose but generally I can't fault this. One other point:
Construction began at the Howaldtswerke Dockyard in Kiel under construction number 590 -- To avoid repeating "construction" could the latter occurrence become "order number 590" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. "The first of what were eventually two ships in her class, Bayern would later be joined in service by Baden." Maybe: "Bayern would later be joined in service by one sister ship, Baden." I guess it's time to start working on our A-class checklist, and I'd like to put in a vote for: if there's a way to replace any whole sentence or long phrase with a couple of words without losing any information, do it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"three Parsons steam turbines, which was rated at 35,000 shaft horsepower": three Parsons steam turbines rated at 35,000 shaft horsepower ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The ship was armed with eight 38 cm (15 in) guns ... Bayern was the first German warship to feature guns of this caliber.": The ship was the first German warship armed with eight 38 cm (15 in) guns ... - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Kapitän zur See": Kapitän zur See (captain). Another one for the checklist: explain or rephrase any terms whose approximate meaning couldn't be guessed by most of our readers. You'd have an argument that the approximate meaning of "Kapitän" could be guessed, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the only two remaining German battlecruisers still in fighting condition": "remaining" is redundant. Another one for the checklist: don't say the same thing twice, using the same or different words. Readers may think you're trying to say two subtly different things, when you're not. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"dreadnoughts, would trail behind": dreadnoughts, were to trail behind (I made the edit). - Dank (push to talk)
There are several more instances of "König class" and "Kaiser class" that need hyphens because they appear directly in front of nouns. - Dank (push to talk)
For the checklist: items in a list separated by commas should be parallel. (I made the edit.) - Dank (push to talk)
"Bayern, along with Moltke and the four Königs": for the checklist: parenthetical phrases (meaning here any phrases that would make at least some sense if you enclosed them in parentheses) take either a comma on both ends or no commas, never one comma. (Understood that copyeditor-types are more likely to care about commas than some, but it looks so wrong without the second comma and it's so easy to spot and fix ... this is just the kind of mechanical thing that folks from WP:GOCE would be able to help with. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, no disrespect to GOCE was intended, I just meant that it's generally easier to find people to help if you can carefully define the job. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had to stop in the middle, I've got a bit more to do. You've gotten some resistance in the past when you didn't mention whether the article was reporting German (CET) or British times, but it seems to me that it's reasonable for a reader to assume that an article that's clearly focused on a German ship would give German times. The objection makes more sense to me if the article focuses on an engagement between British and German forces. - Dank (push to talk)
I got a note on my talk page about the "note" in the first sentence (concerning a different article). The German Wikipedia sometimes handles the definition of SMS with a link (see for instance SMS Goeben). Until we get some actual data, it's going to be a judgment call who our readers are; if you think a large majority of the readers who are interested in an article about "SMS Bayern" already know that the German SMS and British HMS are equivalent, then just a link would be fine with me. My sense from all the FACs on these ships was that the only thing we could get universal acceptance of was a construction like SMS Bayern ("His Majesty's Ship Bavaria"); that saved you the trouble of having to explain what both the prefix and the named meant in separate sentences, so it passed the "tightness" test. Also, most readers don't click on most links, even when they don't understand what the sentence means if they don't click. That's my .02 cents, but I'll go along with whatever the wikiproject wants ... but I doubt the wikiproject wants to handle this different ways in different Imperial Germany Navy articles. - Dank (push to talk)
I was wrong on this above: the current text is "... Bayern was captained by Kapitän zur See Max Hahn." Whether a phrase is in a foreign language or not, if most readers won't know it, then it should be reworded or explained in the text. But "... Bayern was captained by Max Hahn." doesn't sound right to me either, since we usually mention ranks. "... Bayern was captained by captain Max Hahn." would just be silly. Ideas? - Dank (push to talk)
Some of the writing, such as the description of the sinking at Scapa Flow, seems livelier to me than the previous versions ... good job. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, things always find a way of coming up in the middle of a project. I added the note on CET time and fixed the SMS explanation (I wrote this article before we came to that solution and forgot to fix it afterward). As for Max Hahn, could we just insert a ("Captain at Sea") after giving his rank in German? I was hoping the MOS would be more helpful, but it doesn't have much to say on this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the text to support her quoted endurance; I'd suggest adding a sentence covering coal or oil storage capacity, which would also answer my constant question of oil or coal fired? Otherwise looks good, although I still dislike fleet advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made a few minor edits to add a few links, otherwise it looks good to me. One question though, in the Operation Abion section, when the ship struck the mine, were there any injuries or casualties among crew? This should be clarified, even if it says no one was injured. —Ed!(talk)21:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. That should be added to the article so it's clearer to the reader. Once that's done the article has my full support. Thanks! —Ed!(talk)01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Please have a look my English is too awkward. The wording that the mine explosion ended her involvement is incorrect. According to Grützner she briefly engaged the landing beaches, shelling them from a distance of 9000 to 10000m. You may want to tweak the section a bit more. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SupportComments: Just a quick review for me at the moment (it is midnight here). I've made a few tweaks to the article also, which you may wish to check to see if you agree with:
no dabs, no issues with ext links, alt text is present (no action required);
I'm not an image expert, but you mind need to check the licencing of File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg (and a couple of the others) based on the comments in the Battle of Sangu ACR;
in the Infiltration section, this sentence needs reworking, I believe: "Following the repelling of North Korean infiltration on September 7, the North Korean attack on Haman ground to a halt." Perhaps "After the North Korean infiltration on September 7 was repelled, the attack on Haman ground to a halt"?
in the Aftermath, "It is nearly impossible, however, to calculate how many were lost in each individual engagement". Why is this? Is it because of the lack of records, or some other reason. Do the sources say? If they do, it might be good to explain this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say it's impossible to determine how many were conscripted into the NK army during the battle, how many deserted, etc. No North Korean records are available on the matter (and they probably don't have reliable ones, anyway) so all we have to go on is the numbers of NK troops that returned to North Korea and the number captured. All others can't be accounted for. —Ed!(talk)18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These few sentences are a little repetitive: "Approximately 2,000 unarmed South Koreans conscripted in the Seoul area joined the division by August 15. At Chinju, the 6th Division issued them grenades and told the recruits they would have to pick up weapons from killed and wounded on the battlefield. Another group of 2,500 replacements conscripted in the Seoul area joined the 6th Division on August 21, bringing the division strength to approximately 8,500 men." (Specifically "conscripted in the Seoul area" is used twice);
The lead doesn't tell us what the second paragraph (Masan) has to do with the first (Haman). Also, it's not clear what the second paragraph means by "US units performed poorly", and whether they were replaced by the reinforcements. - Dank (push to talk)
"The battle remained a bitter stalemate for the majority of its duration. However, the UN troops, in delaying the North Koreans and preventing them from making gains, were able to hold the line long enough for another UN force to counterattack at Inchon ...": "Stalemate" is a chess term that means neither side can win no matter what, and it can be used metaphorically, but what you're describing is the opposite of a stalemate; by stopping the advance, the 24th Infantry helped secure a win. How about this? "The battle remained deadlocked until another UN force counterattacked at Inchon ..." - Dank (push to talk)
"The battle was another example of the poor performance of the US 24th Infantry": Is this a second poor performance in addition to the one mentioned in the second paragraph? It's not clear. - Dank (push to talk)
"(South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)": (South Korea) by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). People are likely to know, or guess, that North Korea is north of South Korea. - Dank (push to talk)
Yes, but people have previously complained the denotation of the official vs common names of the countries aren't clear enough without referring to them this directly. —Ed!(talk)18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea. The United States, a member of the UN, subsequently committed ground forces ...": probably redundant. Also, "in support of" instead of "on behalf of". - Dank (push to talk)
"However, US forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing": "However" is not recommended per Chicago 5.207, since there's no contradiction between not having fewer forces in the region when they're not urgently needed and bringing them in when they are needed. - Dank (push to talk)
"The 24th Infantry Division was the first US unit sent into Korea with the mission to take the initial "shock" of North Korean advances": you need a comma after "Korea", otherwise you're saying that there was more than one unit sent in to take the initial shock, and the 24th Infantry was the first of these (which I don't think is the case, but I could be wrong). But just a comma may not make it clear enough. - Dank (push to talk)
"delaying much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive. The division was consequently alone for several weeks as it attempted to delay the North Koreans": delaying much larger North Korean units for several weeks before reinforcements arrived - Dank (push to talk)
I was referring to "24th Infantry was repeatedly defeated". You use a "the" in every other instance, which is my preference too. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it was almost completely destroyed but delaying North Korean forces until July 20": nonparallel verb tenses - Dank (push to talk)
"the Eighth Army's force of combat troops was roughly equal to North Korean forces attacking the region": If the two sides were of roughly equal strength, all things considered, why not say that? Or are you saying that by this time, both sides had roughly the same number of troops in the region? I can't tell. - Dank (push to talk)
"extremely spread out": it's a good idea to go back through after you're finished writing and check the adjectives and adverbs to make sure they add something essential. I'm not sure if "extremely" does add something here. - Dank (push to talk)
"U.S.": Chicago 16th now favors "US", and "US" has generally been favored over "U.S." outside the US. In any event, be consistent. - Dank (push to talk)
I'd rather not be judge, jury and executioner here ... I'll just say that this was a hard slog, and I could only get through the first two subsections before the end of my self-allotted hour of copyediting. If you can fix the stuff I mentioned, then I'll support just that bit. I'm guessing there's more work to be done here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've been a little fatigued from writing up so many battles lately. I switched and started writing about something else for a few days to come back with a fresher mind before finishing the last six pages in the Pusan Perimeter series. —Ed!(talk)18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I'm a bit fatigued myself. I've made a post at WT:MILHIST asking for help. Your work in the lead is good, but I'm still confused about whether this refers to something that comes after or before the sentence that follows it: "Eventually the North Koreans were repelled, and focused their attention elsewhere along the front." - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until someone checks the rest of the article (starting where I left off, at Battle_of_Haman#Battle) against the checklist, per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MIL#A-class review. I'll be happy to help anyone who wants to tackle this. I finished up the section I started and made all the following edits:
"The 2,000 feet (610 m) mountain ridges": I added "adj=on" to the convert template.
"Komam-ni-Haman-Chindong-ni": "the road from Koman-ni to Haman to Chindong-ni", per checklist, "clarity"
"north-south communication", "Masan-Chinju highway", etc.: need a dash per WP:DASH (and some support at Chicago 6.78)
"The division had its ... regiments" is informal; reworded.
"13th, 15th and 14th Regiments": 13th, 15th and 14th regiments (lowercase) per Chicago 8.111 (search for "plural")
"from killed and wounded": from killed and wounded soldiers, or (second choice) from the killed and wounded
"body of recruits": recruits
"As a part": As part
"extending west on": extending west along
"3 miles (4.8 km) gap": added "adj=on" to the template
"KATUSAs": KATUSAs (English-speaking Korean troops), per checklist, "clarity"
I've responded to everything you've put on this review. If you have further concerns I'm going to need to know where you still aren't satisfied. —Ed!(talk)02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask the closers to give this some time, maybe a couple of weeks, and if anyone can find someone who can do some basic copyediting along the lines of the checklist, that would be fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd see about expanding a little on the reason for the military being in such a bad shape; while I realize that the article is devoted to a battle and not to a domestic US military issue it would IMO help readers gain a better sense of how poorly the military was prepared, equipped, and trained to deal with the invasion.
The UN Counterattack section mentions a massive airstrike to help repeal an invasion, do we know what kind of aircraft we used? I suspect that the planes were probably either fighter or fighter/bomber types, but under the circumstances I would not be surprised to learn that heavy bombers were employed as well.
Added the two aircraft I can confirm and added "among others" to make it clear there were probably other types. At this point I believe the UN thought the larger bomber types like the B-29's were too unwieldy for tactical bombing and held them for strategic targets. —Ed!(talk)04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath section notes that "...Walker declined, feeling he could not afford to lose a regiment." Why did he feel that he could not lose a regiment? To my way of thinking, disbanding the unit would have allowed Walker to replenish lost personnel in other units and could have improved moral. I will not hold this against you, but if you could find more information on this I would like to hear about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it means he didn't want to lose the formation, as he didn't feel other units could cover the ground of an entire regiment, even if they were reinforced. He wanted as many regiments as possible intact since it was easy to bring in replacement troops in small numbers, anyway. I've tried to clarify this in the article. —Ed!(talk)04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, my first ACR for over six months due to travel commitments -- hope I still have the knack! Anyway, as far as building an article goes, this falls into the same category as John Lloyd Waddy and Brian Eaton for me, namely seeing how well I could do on someone who was clearly notable but had practically nothing in terms of dedicated biographical sources. I think there's enough detail for A-Class so we'll see how we go with this chap, who seems to have had a penchant for foreseeing unpalatable events -- at least on two occasions, which I'll let you discover for yourselves... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I didn't have any special plans for taking this to FAC if it makes A-Class, however I think it's about as complete as can be so welcome any thoughts on that either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: not much for me to say about this. Looks very good to me, I found one typo but have already fixed it. For the purposes of the review, I have the following tech comments:
no dabs, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
Support The article is very tight, I did a minor edit or two but it seems thorough enough already, well done. Two suggestions for improvement:
This might be a nitpick, but I was under the impression that we only put a person's rank before their bolded name in a military bio if they died at that rank. Since he retired before his death, shouldn't the lead say "Ian Dougald McLachlan was an Air Vice Marshal...?" Not sure on this one, just asking.
You seem to have a few of his awards listed in various sections, maybe an "awards" section with his ribbon bar is in order. At the same time most of the FA military bios don't seem to have one so I suppose it isn't generally required. —Ed!(talk)22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ed. My understanding has been that for 2-stars and above you always use the rank regardless of whether they retired or not -- it seems to stay with them, for instance he was listed as AVM McLachlan in Who's Who the year before he died, though he'd left the RAAF over 20 years before. Re. the honours, they are listed in the infobox; I'm one of a few editors who've had heated discussions in the past on the subject of award sections with ribbon images and have opposed them on the grounds of duplication and image-/list-cruft and, as you say, they've never been considered a requirement at A/FA-level... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This article is in very good shape and mets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
I'm not sure if you'll have an answer to this question, but was it the case that McLachlan was at Duntroon 'sponsored' by the RAAF but not actually a member of it given that the article states that he enlisted in the RAAF afterwards?
Thanks Nick. Yep, that's why I used "sponsored" as the RAAF arranged for him to enter Duntroon (in the absence at that time of its own academy) but he obviously wasn't considered a member of the RAAF until graduation (or early transfer in this case) -- if you think there's a better way to word it, I'm happy to try it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK if the source is a bit vague. I think that I've read about similar arrangements applying to other personnel of this era, and it makes sense that the military wouldn't have enlisted someone who may have done badly in their officer training.
It's a bit unclear whether McLachlan or No. 3 Squadron was "acerbic but capable" from the way its worded (McLachlan I assume)
Is it? I thought putting "he led" immediately after the quote made it pretty clear it referred to him -- again happy to take suggestions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was reading too quickly (or swapping between the article and the cricket too much); you're right.
Stephens says he discussed it with a colleague in Washington. If you think "questioned" sounds like "publicly questioned" (doesn't look like that was in any way the case) then I could reword a bit; I did it this way because it was difficult to paraphrase the source otherwise, but I could always have another go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 'questioned' implies that it was a stance he took in communications with the RAAF and/or Australian government. Would something like "McLachlan personally doubted when the RAAF would actually receive its F-111s and their final cost" be in line with the source's wording? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done added a bit Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Thanks Malleus. I've sorted all those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Coordinator note: with a reference and two prose reviews in, I'd be comfortable promoting this, but would you like the opportunity to find another reviewer or two first (so you get more reviews now rather than at FAC?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure
Not done by any means. Just scanning the article I've seen The Pentagon and Pershing linked at least twice in the body of the article. The references are still a mess. ancestry.com and United States Census are linked multiple times. Wikilinks are supposed to help a reader learn more about a subject related to the article. Therefore linking to things like Speaker of the House and The White House is not helpful. The main subject of this article is about World War I events and persons related to it. Brad (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMS_Arminius.jpg){kind=link}
_(5).jpg?uselang=de){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
) that this article meets the citeria. Please be especially thorough in looking through this article, I plan to take it to FAC directly after promotion. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
ditorial judgement. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
