Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/2008

Heinrich Bär

I would like to bring this article forward on the quality scale and seek feedback on its content, style and language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few things that stick out:

• An endash (–) is required between the dates in the article and page ranges used in citations.
• Citations should be placed after puncuation.done
• "However, Hermann Göring personal ..." --> "However, Hermann Göring's personal ..."done
• Commas should go after dates. For example: "In 1941 JG 51 was transferred ..." --> "In 1941, JG 51 was transferred ..." and "In early 1944 Bär, now a Major..." --> "In early 1944, Bär, now a Major..."done
• Linking dates is no longer required and is informally discouraged, so consider delinking them.done
• Consider seperating the "References" section into defined sections. For example, rename the "Bibliography" section to "References" and make it a single section; make "External links" into a single section; and have a single "Notes" section that contains the "Footnotes" and "Citations" subsections.done
• Although well presented, the prose could probably benefit from a copyedit.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the feedbackMisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nudve

Looks good overall. A couple of things:

1. In the lead: "He is noted for his 220 aerial victories..." should be rephrased. Notability is to be shown, not stated.done
2. In "World War II: "Even at this early stage of his combat career Bär showed an often blatant disregard for higher authority, a trait that would land the young ace in trouble numerous times" sounds like storytelling. Should be reworded or dropped. done
3. In Mediterranean theatre: "which Göring hated to so much" should probably be changed to something like "which Göring was known to hate". done

Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Well done - some suggestions...

1. Intro:
   • "through the whole of World War II" could be compressed to "throughout World War II". done
   • "He emerged from the Battle of Britain with an accumulated 17 aerial victories" might be better worded as "By the end of the Battle of Britain his tally of victories had increased to 17". This incidentally helps cut down on the number times you say "accumulated" and "aerial victories"... done
2. Early life: "The financial difficulties of Great Depression era made his dreams for receiving a civil pilot license impossible" is a bit dramatic. How about "The financial difficulties of Great Depression era prevented him from fulfilling his ambition to gain a civil pilot license", or some such? done
3. World War II: Tend to agree with Nudve re. "Even at this early stage of his combat career Bär showed an often blatant disregard for higher authority, a trait that would land the young ace in trouble numerous times" but would prefer to see it toned down a little rather than eliminated; however you really should add an example of this rather than just have the bare assertion. done
4. After the war:
   • "Bär did various work as an aviation consultant, and was killed while performing aerobatics in a light plane LF-1 Zaunkönig over Braunschweig on 28 April 1957" could be reworded as "Following World War II, Bär worked as an aviation consultant. He was killed while performing aerobatics in a light plane LF-1 Zaunkönig over Braunschweig on 28 April 1957." The bit about his death is too quick as it stands, deserves its own sentence. done extended a bit
   • Is there no more detail on his 12 years post-war? Bios are normally expected to include a bit of personal life like marriage/children - who survived him? partially done
5. Summary of career:
   • "His claim of 124 aerial victories over Western-flown aircraft is second only to Hans-Joachim Marseille's 158 aerial victories, whereas almost all of Marseille's victories were scored in Africa" might be better worded as "His claim of 124 aerial victories over Western-flown aircraft is second only to Hans-Joachim Marseille's total of 158, almost all of the latter's victories being scored in Africa". done
   • We should minimise lists outside the infobox; recommend that Dates of rank data/citations simply be integrated into the main body and this list removed.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all on giving feedback. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)

This article has been annoyingly close to FA status all year, without being promoted. Much has changed since its First Peer Review and its Second FA Failure. I'm working on finding more book sources but I want to know anything that will make this A-class Article move up. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• "A decorated unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team has received 20 campaign streamers" Er, are you aware that you list 21? (And what is a "decorated" unit?)

 Fixed

• "The unit's two paratrooper infantry battalions are the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 503rd Infantry Regiment, an association that can be traced back to the unit's World War II service." But according to the text, the 173rd was not associated with the 503rd during WWII.

 Fixed

• "making the 173rd Airborne Brigade one of the largest airborne formations in the United States Army, behind the 82nd Airborne Division" Isn't this true of every airborne formation in the United States Army?

 Fixed

• "The brigade deployed to France along with the rest of the division in September of 1918, but it did not participate in any named campaigns" Did it participate in any unnamed campaigns?

 Fixed

• "It entered combat in 1944 and fought in three European campaigns in central Europe, the Rhineland and Ardennes-Alsace" Actually, these are the three campaigns...

 Fixed

• "The brigade was also the only separate brigade to receive its own tank company." What was this unit?

As far as I understand, it was just a generic tank company without a designation. No designation has been provided for it in any of the sources. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The SSI would be given to them in May of 1963." Er Shoulder Sleeve Insignia? Are you aware that other variants were worn?

I don't fully understand what you mean. If you're referring to the subdued versions, they were distributed at the same time as the full color version. I don't know of any other patch that was designed for the 173rd. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and the 161st Field Battery of the Royal New Zealand Artillery were later attached to the brigade in 1965." 1 RAR was withdrawn from the 173rd in April 1966.

 Fixed

• "Recreation as an Airborne Brigade" You mean Re-Creation. Recreation is leisure time.

 Fixed

• "The 173rd was also assigned Company N, 75th Ranger Regiment." When it was formed from the 74th Infantry LRRP in 1969 (reference required here.)

• "During more than six years of continuous combat, the brigade earned 14 campaign streamers and four unit citations." You mention the PUC for Dak To. What were the other three?

 Fixed

• "The drawdown on the US military following the Cold War had resulted in all non-divisional separate brigades to be deactivated." Something askew with the grammar here.

 Fixed

• "Headquarter" should be "Headquarters"

 Fixed

• The brigade was dispersed throughout the east of the country, yadda yadda. Reference required here.

 Fixed

• "Fifteen soldiers have been awarded the Medal of Honor for service with the 173rd Airborne Brigade". Ray E. Eubanks and Lloyd G. McCarter were awarded theirs for service with the 503rd in WWII, so they were not with the 173rd. But since 14 were won by the brigade in Vietnam, somebody is missing...

The Brigade's website claims that only those fifteen soldiers have ever been awarded the medal serving with the unit. Is there another source that conflicts with this? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Misread 13 as 14. It's okay :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some more for you:

• "As the Pacific quick-reaction force, they were the first to be sent to Vietnam two years later when hostilities escalated there." The first what? Brigade - troops - paratroops?

 Fixed

• "As larger US Army commands were established in Vietnam, the brigade was assigned to III Corps, which they would serve in for the next six years." No, this is not correct. It was assigned to the III Corps Tactical Zone. The ARVN III Corps should not be confused with the US III Corps (which you have linked), which did not serve in Vietnam.

 Fixed

• "III Corps was in turn under the command of II Field Force, Vietnam." No, this is not correct. II Field Force, Vietnam was the senior US formation in the III Corps Tactical Zone.

 Fixed

• "The brigade also took part in humanitarian missions where possible in the operations." This doesn't make sense.

 Fixed

• "From April until August of 1971, the unit underwent the process of redeployment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky in the United States, its first time in the country since 1942." BUT "After the war, the troop reverted back to reserve status and was posted at Birmingham, Alabama from 1947 until 1951."

The 87th Reconnaissance Troop spent some time in America, but the 173rd Airborne Brigade did not. They may share the same lineage but they are not, in my opinion, the same unit. I have ammended the article to clarify this, though. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 17:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The unit then took part in Operation Peninsula Strike, quelling Ba'ath party members" In this context, "quell" means "to take the life of; to kill". I think you mean that they quelled the insurgency?

 Fixed

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I have copyedited this article and did some info additions a while ago. The main thing that concerns me is the relative weight given to the 21st century stuff compared to what happened in the Vietnam War particularly the very famous Battle of Dak To. I think this is indicated in the fact that a lot of the modern stuff is sourced to Army Press Releases and such (nobody else thinks that the duties performed were very influential etc). Most of the engagements there seem to be pretty low key, just a round up on patrols and day-to-day control, whereas at Dak To, there was a fierce and large scale attack in which heaps of soldiers were killed. I think the Dak To part needs to be beefed up a lot. Luckily, the Battle of Dak To is a current A-class article and can you can cut and paste the details from there. :) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been cautious about adding too much info from individual battles because most of them have their own articles, but since Dak To was the one fight this unit was best known for, I would agree.

Still, the Battle of Dak To page is only a B-class article, problematic because it was lacking in sources for a lot of the text. Siege of Dak To was even worse off. I tried to filter in only the more relavent stuff from the Battle page to the 173rd, but it's still a substantial chunk of info that is easily as big as the entire Vietnam War section, and it seems like it's way too much information about one event in the Brigade's 90+ year history. Let me know if anything needs to be added/taken away from it, the entire "Dak To" section in the History is cut from the Battle of Dak To page. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would recommend forking most of the post-1990s into 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team after 1990 because there is still a very large undue problem. Just with comparing book/scholar hits on Dak To with the post-1990 stuff. I don't like to lose information, so that's why I recommend doing that. There's nothing wrong with having the new topic. Look at all the stuff I did in Category:Keith Miller. Also you can get lots more GAs out of it... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very solid article, but it does need some more work to reach FA standard. Some comments are:

• The article lacks any analysis of the value of the brigade, the tactics it used in operations, etc. For instance, some of the Australian officers who served with the brigade in 1965 believed that it was much too aggressive, and often sustained excessive casualties (though the Americans believed that the Australian battalion was inefficient as it was too cautious, and the experiment of attaching an Australian battalion group to a US brigade was deemed a qualified failure by both armies). At present, the article is a very dry summary of the brigade's structure and history and doesn't really capture the highs and lows of its history.

I was trying to just stick to the historical facts because I was afraid opinion and analysis would be disruptive to the neutral, historical narrative. But are there any references I should look for that would cover this kind of thing? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is the 'Legacy' section necessary? The fictional references to the brigade's service in Vietnam are basically trivia given that the brigade itself isn't an important plot device in any of the examples, and the listing of notable former members of the brigade doesn't add much value given that most of these men attained notability for reasons other than their military service.

I think so. The movie references may not be prominent plot devices, but the movies themselves are well known popular culture and their mention of the 173rd by itself is notable in my mind. And the notable persons part shows a list of people who have served in the brigade just names important people who were in the brigade at one time or another. Lists like this are all over Wikipedia and I've never seen them be a problem. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with YellowMonkey's comment about the balance between material on Iraq and Afghanistan and the brigade's service in Vietnam

See above, I've added a substantial amount about Dak To. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• "It is the United States European Command's conventional airborne strategic response force for Europe." - what happens during its regular deployments to the Middle East?

As far as I understand, when it's deployed, that just means that the strategic response force is being used. There really isn't any kind of backup force avaliable when it's in use. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the 4th Infantry Division only had 3 combat brigades at the time of the invasion of Iraq, not four as stated in this article

No, it definitely had four. See Frontenot, On Point, pp. 458-464 Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur. There were definately four brigades. If you want verification, the entire book in question is avaliable here -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dragoneye shouldn't be in italics Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed

• By the way, according to some research I did years ago for an article on orbat.com, the 173rd's armoured company was Company D, 16th Armor and it was equipped with M-113s and the M-56 self-propelled gun. I'm pretty sure that my source for this was Richard A. Rinaldi's order of battle at the sadly defunct website: www.gruntonline.com/Order%20of%20Battle/US%20Army/us_army_oob15.htm If you send me an email via my user page I'd be happy to email you the document I prepared on the structure of the 173rd Brigade and attached Australian and NZ units in 1965-66 (not that I'm a reliable source!). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good printed source: Stanton, Vietnam Order of Battle, pp. 88, 93. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stanton was one of my sources as well, and may have been where I got this from. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll source it to Stanton then. Thanks! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Reason for recommendation:

Article is a real mess as it tends to attract attention from a variety of POV pushers, fringe/conspiracy theories etc. I'd like to fix the article but would like some guidance as to where to start. Justin talk 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson

• I am involved with the article (indeed, I am accused of having a 'Personal stake' in it for some reason), but one thing that strikes me about the article is that it has developed into two seperate articles within the same one. Rather than present a point and rebuttle, we seperate out the two versions. I know this was done for NPOV reasons but the result is clunky and simply allows the stories to stand alone (Making selectic reading and thus undue weight very easy) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Narson. Also, the article has lots of unsourced material. I would consider demoting it to Start-class. -- Nudve (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• The lead seems filled with peacock words - 'neutral' vessel, for example
• The caption on the first article is similarly POV
• 'The attack on the Liberty' - This is a huge section. Might I suggest dividing it into 'Background' and 'Attack on the Liberty'?
• Lots of areas need citations - take this random example: 'Unfortunately, due to inadequate message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack.'

That's about it - it's a huge article and obviously has POV issues, but good luck sorting it out! Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• The USS Liberty cannot be both a "neutral" ship and a victim of "friendly fire" (ie an ally) in the same context. Either unlink "attack on the armed forces of a friendly nation" - the text is correct but not the link to "friendly fire" - or remove "neutral". (Recommend the former.)
• The link to "Israeli" in the first sentence links to "Israeli Air Force" but the motor torpedo boats belonged to the navy. Suggest "Israeli Defence Force (IDF)" instead.
• "The IDF air and naval forces, respectively, misidentified ". Delete "respectively".
• Link "CIA Director" and "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff"
• Is "technical research ship" weasel words for "spy ship"? Suggest spy ship in the intro.
• "Unfortunately, due to inadequate message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack." Reference required here.
• "ibid" Change to a named reference, or move the previous reference.
• "As war broke out Captain William L. McGonagle of the Liberty immediately asked Vice Admiral William I. Martin at the U.S. 6th Fleet headquarters to send a destroyer to accompany the Liberty and serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center." Reference required.
• "United States Ambassador Goldberg" Link to Arthur Goldberg. I would insert "UN" before ambassador.
• There's a pile of "citations required" to be filled in.
• Can you move the page numbers into the footnotes? Gee, they're annoying.
• Change "Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd" to "Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr" (My first thought was "couldn't be.")
• The whole of the "American Government Investigations" and "NSA tapes and recent developments" sections need citations.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

This is a terrible article that fails to deal with the Reliable Sources available properly. While RSs are edit-warred out, sources of profoundly dubious character are used extensively. The latest abuse going on right now is the re-inclusion of a statement that is clearly a lie, over a consensus of a five six to two at the TalkPage a month ago. (This discussion has been pointlessly if not disruptively archived by a partisan). In addition to numerous such RS faults, the article is rife with unsupported statements sufficiently "surprising" to need citations. I counted 60 of these and tagged them (as others have done). Most of these tags were summararily removed (sometimes with threats, calling them disruptive), while no attempt has ever been made to fix the faults. (I've checked the entire TalkPage archives for any discussion of these statements or any suggestion that some could be allowed stand on their own, there seems to have been no such AGF interplay ever). Similar edit-warring conduct has been applied to the overall "This article has uncited statements" tag. I would be keen to expand on or correct any statement I've made here, but I'm pretty sure I've already added all the details of these incidents (and much more) to the TalkPage. PR^talk 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus Navy and Marine Police

Reason for recommendation:

I have done extensive research in making this article and would like to request that it be assigned to an appropriate task force, and also request comments on improving it. many thanks for any help you can provide.

Copperhead331 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• It needs a lead, per the tag
• The Overview section could do with an expansion
• When stating the sizes of various weapons, templates should be used - Template:Convert, I think
• 'Combat History 1974' - I would suggest changing this to a general 'Combat History' or even just 'Operational History section'
• Cyprus Navy vessels in 1964-1974 - any particular reason some of the boats listed here have Nazi Germany flags next to them?
• Image:Cyboat3.jpg - I know next to nothing about images, but what is this based off of, exactly? A photo? Do we not have an image of a real boat, not a drawing?
• Developments from 1975 to 2008 - these should be merged into a couple of paragraphs and expanded upon if posasible, they're almost list-like at the moment
• Developments Since 1974 - The same for this section

Good article so far, though! Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Landing at Saidor

New article, currently start-class. Please let me know what improvements are needed. All comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

Just looking over the article now briefly, a few things stick out:

• The lead needs to be expanded, but that's not a huge thing

 Done Let me know if you think it needs more.

• The background is a bit skimpy and could do with some expansion, particularly at the very start to give some wider background to the operation.

 Done Let me know if you think it needs more.

• The Landing subsection shouldn't have two pictures either side, I think - it looks squashed anyway.

 Done

• I got told that blockquotes no longer need the quotations around them when using them

This is true. Reason is that it comes from Doug's communiqué. It establishes his thinking, but the communiqués were notorious for being out of step with reality — and this one is no exception. So I added the quotes to emphasise this. But will remove if anyone else thinks they should be.

I'll add some more when I have some time. Skinny87 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The section 'Conclusion' would seem better as 'Aftermath'.
• 'In the Australian 5th Division's advance from Sio to Saidor between 20 January and the end of February, 734 Japanese were killed, 1,793 found dead, and 48 Japanese prisoners were taken.' - could do with a citation'

Redmarkviolinist

• Make sure all your references are after punctuation marks.

 Done Re-checked them all.

• English and American spellings should be consistent.

As far as I know they are.

Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few things that stick out:

• References are required in the infobox, particularly in the area of strength and casualties.

 Done

• The casualty figures in the infobox do not match those in the "Casualties" section. The correct figures are required, with references, to be in both sections.

 Done

• Image:Principal operations 1943.jpg seriously needs to be moved, as the massive white space is very distracting and not good for presentation.

Um, I'd fix this but I'm flying blind here. There's no massive white space on my screen, no matter how wide or narrow I size the window. I'm running at 1920 x 1200. What resolution are you using?

Buggered if I know, lol (1024 x 768 perhaps?). The white space on my screen spans from the "Background" section heading to where the text and image sit just below the infobox. Perhaps re-alligning the image to the left and down a paragraph might work?

• The following sentence requires a citation/reference: "The capture of Saidor officially brought Operation DEXTERITY to a close. All that remained now was the final act of the Huon Peninsula campaign: the capture of Madang."

 Done

• Page ranges used in citations require an endash (–).

 Done

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is another great article. Here are my comments:

• We don't normally italicise operation titles like Operation Michaelmas.

 Done

• The article needs a bit of a copy-edit as some of the wording is a little bit awkward and there are typos

Let me know what they are and I'll fix them.

• It's a bit misleading to say that Operation Cartwheel and related operations was "MacArthur's advance on Rabaul" given that the goal of the operation was to isolate Rabaul so that it didn't have to be directly attacked

 Done I'd forgotten when the objective changed.

• The article talks about Allied estimates of Japanese strength in the Saidor area, but doesn't say whether these were right or wrong. If references are available, it would be good if the article also covered how the Japanese used and garrisoned the area prior to the landing

GHQ relied on ULTRA and radio traffic analysis for its estimates. At Saidor, they turned out to be quite accurate. I can't be certain, but it appears that after Finschhafen, nobody completely trusted Willoughby's estimates any more. Krueger trusted native rumours instead. The value and limitations of ULTRA would be a key issue in the Hollandia-Aitape campaign.

• Given that the US goals for the operation were limited to establishing a defensive perimeter, it seems a bit unfair to just repeat criticisms such as "the average American infantryman's idea of a fighting patrol was to lean forward aggressively in his foxhole". Did the Americans try to get their orders amended to allow them to push inland to cut off the Japanese? - it appears that they did, but the article doesn't explicitly state it. Given that a) the force at Saidor was only a reinforced regiment and b) the Japanese 20th Division had taken the Australian 9th Division by surprise when it was conducting a similar operation around Finschhafen, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the American troops to dig in.

 Done I can expand on this. MacArthur's communiqué makes it clear that he expected the Japanese force to be destroyed. Although the 20th Division had taken the Australians by surprise, MacArthur knew that it had taken heavy losses at Finschhafen. (How heavy was not yet apparent.) Krueger was far more cautious. He's got two other battles on the go, and his ability to respond to a changing situation was limited. (Again, Finschhafen may have been in his mind.) He also may not have had a great deal of faith in the 32nd Infantry Division. (A close look at the casualty figures bears him out.)

• The para on the 10 man Engineer Section seems a bit out of place given that it's first stated that the US force had lots of engineers - was this section the headquarters of the engineer parts of the American force?

 Done Yes, this was the headquarters.

• Again, if references are available, it would be good if the coverage of the Japanese reaction to the landing could be expanded. I imagine that it's not easy to come by material on this topic though! Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese World War II destroyers

I authored this article as one of a series to outline the development of these ships and to draw together the various class articles; it's not intended to include detailed info better sited elsewhere. Initial ratings varied between "start", "C" and "B" and, in an attempt to meet the comments, the article has expanded. There are disagreements on ratings and presentation. The peer review would involve a wider audience and, hopefully, lead to a consensus on expectations. Also, new sources and advice would be welcomed. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LordAmeth

Going through the article, I notice a lot of small mistakes in capitalization, spelling, and translation. I've tried to catch and fix as many as I could, but I would suggest keeping an eye out for these kinds of mistakes.

• "Allies" or "Allied" should always be capitalized when referring to "the Allies", i.e. US, UK, USSR.
• IJN should always have "the" before it when it is used as a noun. For example "The IJN suffered one problem..."; when used as a descriptor, as in "IJN destroyers" or "IJN officers", the "the" is not necessary, of course, based on context.
• Macrons. Destroyers Yūgumo and Ōshio should never be written as "Yugumo" and "Oshio". I'm not sure how many others I missed.
• Translation. I fixed a number of these; for example, Matsu is written as 松 and means "pine tree", not "bamboo", which is written 竹 and pronounced take. Shiratsuyu, meaning "White Dew", is written as 白露。 It might be a good idea to take the time to doublecheck the kanji and translation for all of these.

Also, I feel that the opening paragraph is a little too "military history", that is, a bit too technical. It should introduce the topic in simple, layman's terms, and move on to details (such as talk about the Type 93 torpedo, which might mean something to military history buffs, but is a bit too technical to me) in the following paragraph, or later. If possible, it might also be good to somehow phrase the opening sentence such that the topic of the article can be put in bold, as it is in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.

All of that said, this is a fantastic article, and reflects tons of hard work. It's well on its way, I think, to being a Good or even Featured Article. Good work! LordAmeth (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the above points have been resolved by me or others. The first three bullet points are done, the opening para has been tweaked and filled out (although style is always subjective). A few points arise, however. I'm always uncertain about the use of letter variations (such as macrons) that aren't "native" to English and I'd understood that these were to be avoided - as in major reference works such as "Whitley". I'm completely ignorant about Japanese characters, the ones in the article were copied from other wiki articles or elsewhere - I must rely on the educated. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With the macrons and such, it's really just a matter of your approach, or your POV, I suppose. From the point of view of English-language American/Western history, general (world) WWII history, military history or whathaveyou, yeah, I'm sure that a book like Whitley's, a military history book rather than being a Japanese history book, would ignore the subtleties of correctly representing Japanese words in English. And that's fine for where he's coming from. But check out any book on the subject written by a historian of Japan, rather than a (US/Global/non-Japan-specialty) military historian, and you'll find that they'll put more effort into representing the words accurately. Just like how "pinata" is not a word (rather than piñata), so too is Oshio rather than Ōshio an incorrect reflection of the spelling of the word in the original language. In any case, I'd be happy to look over the macrons, the kanji, and translations for you. No need to worry about it. LordAmeth (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I'm still uncertain about use of macrons as I think that it's "alien" to English language presentation and distances the text from its audience; which is odd as I don't feel the same about the use French or German special characters. It's not a cause for difference, however. Pleaase have a look at my comments, below, on name translations. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cla68

• Great start on the article, but shouldn't it be titled, "Imperial Japanese Navy World War II destroyers"? I'll try to provide more comments soon Cla68 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article needs more references. Some books that should be available at the local library or used online for cheap are:

• D'Albas, Andrieu (1965). Death of a Navy: Japanese Naval Action in World War II. Devin-Adair Pub. ISBN 0-8159-5302-X.
• Dull, Paul S. (1978) A Battle History of The Imperial Japanese Navy ISBN 0-85059-295-X
• Evans, David C & Peattie, Mark R. (1997) Kaigun: strategy, tactics, and technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland ISBN 0-87021-192-7
• Hara, Tameichi (1961). Japanese Destroyer Captain. New York & Toronto: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-27894-1.
• Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Dieter Jung; Peter Mickel (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-893-X.

• An "operational history" section or something like that should list the contributions by the destroyers throughout Japan's Pacific War campaigns, such as acting as plane guard destroyers for the kido butai (aircraft carrier task forces), making up the Tokyo Express, failing to adequately guard Japan's strategic sealanes for various reasons, torpedo tactics in various surface battles with Allied ships, etc. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name is correct: it is about destroyers of a particular period and all Japanese warships of that time would've been of the IJN. The name also conforms to previous usage and standards. I've "cherry-picked" the mentioned actions - perhaps that needs to be stated - as this sort of article can't be comprehensive. I selected purely destroyer actions, particularly where they demonstrate the tactical strengths and weaknesses of Japanese usage. I've added a mention of the convoy escort issue, but it could be emphasised more. I'll keep a lookout for the books you mention, but my family already mutters at the width and weight of bookshelves! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand running out of space for more books, I have the same problem. It's just that each book gives a different perspective on the subject. Hara's book, for example, tells about how he wrote and proposed a new doctrine for torpedo attacks by destroyers, and about how it was accepted and had a significant impact on Japanese destroyer torpedo tactics during WWII. He also explains how IJN officers who specialized in destroyer operations were generally shut-out of top leadership positions in favor of "battleship" officers. Cla68 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

djwilms

I wonder whether you could consider providing an English translation in brackets after the names of the Japanese destroyers you mention in the table towards the end of the article. You include a tantalising sentence about how they were named after weather phenomena, and it would be nice if you can follow through on this. It would help to personalize them for readers who don't read Japanese. John Keegan did this very effectively in his book The Price of Admiralty for the Japanese ships engaged at the Battle of Midway.

Djwilms (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thrown in the kanji and translation. LordAmeth (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That was quick work! I have just scrolled through them with great interest. Now I suppose I shall have to return the compliment with the names of all the Chinese ships I mention in my articles on the Sino-French War ...

Djwilms (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The translations are interesting and add colour to the subject, I already attempted to include info on class names. I'm uncertain, however, whether it's just adding "clutter" to add translations to what is just a subset. I would argue that these should be added to comprehensive lists such as List of ships of the Japanese Navy and/or List of Japanese Navy ships and war vessels in World War II. Links would then be added to this article. The point of the table was as a quick list of survivors, rather than scatter the names around the classes. Not a matter to quarrel over, more a matter of opinion. Should we be adding translations every time we use a Japanese (or Chinese, etc) name? There maybe scope for a general article on warship names - now there's a project!!! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Even as I was adding the kanji & translations, I was noticing how many lists of ships are scattered across different articles (not a bad thing, just the way it is), and wondering why I should be adding this information here and not elsewhere (as well/instead). Maybe I'll play around with it a bit more; remove the translations here, as you're right to say it's not the best place for it, just a quick list of survivors, not a comprehensive list of ships by any means, and add the kanji & translations elsewhere... LordAmeth (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cretan War (1645–1669)

Hello! I have just completed a significant expansion of this article, on a topic that is quite unknown today, although at the time the "defence of Candia" sparked a great deal of crusading fervour among Western European nations. The war also featured an intense naval struggle, and one of the longest sieges in history, which in many aspects resembled the trenches of World War I. I'd like to nominate this article for GA and possibly FA eventually, but first I would like to see comments by other users on its content & quality. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

An excellent article, overall; just a few minor points to work on:

• Given the number of commanders listed in the infobox, it may actually be helpful to extend the flag icons into those fields to indicate their individual allegiances.
• I'm not sure it's necessary to place footnotes inside sentences, given that the material is not particularly controversial; I'd suggest pulling them all to the end of each sentence.
• "Morosini, now again Captain General..." - it should be clarified that this is Francesco, not Giorgio.
• The "See also" section should ideally be eliminated; the link there shouldn't be difficult to work into the text.

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Points 1 & 3 dealt with. Point 2 will require some extra attention, so I'll do it tomorrow. On point 4, the links are too general to be really integrated into the article. I had added them as a general reference, but since "See also" sections are frowned upon, I simply removed them. Thanks for the quick response, and the thumbs up, Kirill. Cheers and best regards, Constantine ✍ 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, point 2 done, at least where it would not change the sense of the citation. Constantine ✍ 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Per the MOS, ndashes need to be inserted instead of hyphens when you are dealing with numerical ranges, especially the page ranges in teh footnotes
• The lead is rather short given the length of hte article.

Good work, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, dashes fixed. As for the lead, the MOS gives two to four paragraphs as a guideline. However, the way I understand it, the essential thing is to provide a summary of the article, without going into too much detail. I am aware that the lead is a bit short, but I think it is a good summary. Although I'll try to expand it further, since my view is subjective, it would be a great help if you could tell me whether you, having read the article, think that something is missing, or that some aspect has been neglected in the lead. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead expanded, awaiting feedback. Constantine ✍ 11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

jackyd101

A very nice article. A few small pointers below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Link to related wars mentioned in Persia and the Mediterranean in the early sections. Also try to fill in some of the redlinks to provide a bit more context.
• Don't link dates, the MOS is now against this.
• The section on the siege of Candia should be revised to provide a slightly better summary of the article. The writing there is poorer than most of the rest of the article, (which is, on the whole, very good).
• Your one weblink needs full publisher and access date information. In addition, what is it? Does it comply with WP:RS?

On point 1), I've created the article on the Persian war. There seems to be almost nothing in WP on the Ottoman-Safavid conflicts, but I'll try to add what I can find. As for the conflicts in the Mediterranean, which are you referring to? As for the other redlinks, I'll try to add what little info there is (they are mostly articles on admirals and viziers, and not much is available on them). Point 2) noted & done. On point 4), I added the cite web template. The site is a virtual exhibition of Venice and its role in the Levant in the 16th-17th centuries, with sources from the Marciana Library, the Austrian National Archives and the Venetian National Archive. There's also more info on the publishing VENIVA consortium webpage. On the whole, I think it's pretty reliable, and I intend to include some more details from its pages. On point 3), what exactly are your concerns? Which of the two sections on the siege (early or final stages) do you mean? Constantine ✍ 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the article on DYK, its a good start, well done. The conflict in the Mediterranean I was referring to was the 1638 Veenetian-Barbary Pirates campaign in Valona. I recognise that information on these mat be hard to come by but it would certainly provide better context for the article. I still see a few of point 2 lurking in the article, but good job so far. I wasn't suggesting that the website was definately unreliable, but I was looking for a demonstration of RS, which you provided. I will go through the section on the siege in detail soon. Hope these answers helped. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the appreciative comments, and for your taking time to review the article. The 1638 campaign is comprised of just that, a brief pursuit of the Barbary fleet, which was then followed by its destruction at Valona & the political ramifications. AFAIK there is no accepted name for this episode, like say "Battle of Valona". I'll put in a link to "Action of 7 August 1638" but I can't promise that I can flesh it out soon. As for the other point 2) occurrences, they are not linked dates per se, but links to articles on the naval battles fought on these days (unless of course I have indeed missed some date). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As promised, here are my notes on the Siege of Candia paragraph:

"The siege began in May 1648, and the Turks spent three months investing the city, which included cutting off the water supply. [the "and" doesn't work here, isnce the thoughts being joined don't follow. It should be a full stop after 1648] Eventually, it would last until 1669 [it lasted instead of it would last], the second longest siege in history after the siege of Ceuta by the Moors under Moulay Ismail (1694–1727). The Ottoman besiegers were adversely affected by the bad supply situation which the activity of the Christian fleets in the Aegean had caused (see below) [explain this completely here, not below]. In addition, the overall Ottoman war effort was severely hampered by increased domestic instability caused by Sultan Ibrahim's erratic policies and his summary execution of leading state officials, which ultimately led to his deposition in favor of his son Mehmed IV, ushering in a further period of confusion.[A complicated sentance, better broken into two]

The lack of supplies had forced the Ottoman commander Hüseyin Pasha to lift the siege in early 1949, but it was renewed for a short period of two months after the arrival of the Ottoman fleet in June. The Ottomans assailed the fortifications, exploding over 70 mines, but the defenders held firm. The Turks lost over 1,000 men, and the subsequent withdrawal of 1,500 Janissaries and the lack of any further reinforcements over the course of 1650 left Hüseyin Pasha with little option but to continue maintaining as tight a blockade as possible.[More detail on specific attacks required] The Ottomans strengthened their positions with the construction of three forts in the Canea area, and the arrival of reinforcements in late 1650 allowed them to keep up their tight blockade.[35] Despite the Venetian blockade of the Dardanelles and the political turmoil at the Ottoman court, the Ottoman forces were kept supplied enough to sustain themselves, although too weak to engage in offensive actions against Candia itself. In 1653, the island fortress of Selino in Suda Bay was captured, and San Todero, lost a few years previously, recovered [By whom?]. [The following paragraph is very short and would be better added to the one above it] Following the Venetian naval successes over the next few years, the siege continued, without much prospect on either side [prospect? Try to find a better word], until the arrival of a new Ottoman expeditionary force in 1666.

See suggestions in the text above. Some of these can apply across the whole article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, which have mostly been addressed, except for the detail on the attacks in 1650 (what exactly do you mean? Detail on the attacks of 1650 or of the ensuing blockade?). I have not added too much detail on the individual sallies of the siege, since an article on it already exists and (in theory), that's where these should go. I have not described the actions of the war in the level of detail that Setton does in his book, and I don't think that is necessary. The most significant actions, decisions and other events are included, and their effects. Either way, in the first stage of the siege, the Ottomans were too weak to mount many major attacks.The short-lived summer offensive of 1650 was not repeated until 1666 and after. I'll try to look over the whole article too. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keelung Campaign

This is one of about a dozen articles on campaigns and battles of the Sino-French War that I have created or expanded in the past six months, and is the nearest of my articles to completion (though it probably needs an infobox). I have said in this article just about everything I would like to say about the Keelung campaign, and as the article is representative of my writing style, approach to sourcing and approach to illustration, I would appreciate comments from other users at this point so that I can adjust my approach, if necessary, when I try to complete all the other articles. One issue that I would particularly welcome advice on is whether my S-F War articles assume too much background knowledge of French and Chinese history on the part of readers.

Djwilms (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy

Hi. A few things that jump out at me:

• the lead is a bit short (per WP:LEAD, the intro should be able to stand on its own, like an abstract in a journal), and you've got too many pictures in the same sections.

• Per MOS:IMAGE, text sandwiching should always be avoided; you can always make a gallery of extra images at the bottom.

• Much of the article doesn't have inline citations. In the footnotes, you've got citations at the end of paragraphs/sections with 20 or 30 page ranges; you need to break them up into at most 2 or 3 page ranges, and spread them out, so the reader can tell exactly where you got each piece of information.

• Another thing you might consider is cleaning up the references: you've got the full titles in the References section, so you don't need the book title in the footnotes. Also, you have two footnotes that are just text, you may want to put those in a different section with the <ref group> function (an example can be found here).

• This sentence: "In the wake of the Battle of Fuzhou, which inaugurated the nine-month Sino-French War, the French decided to put pressure on China by landing an expeditionary corps in northern Formosa to seize Keelung, redeeming the failure of 6 August and finally winning the ‘pledge’ they sought", seems overly complex. If you split it in half, it would make the paragraph flow better.

• In the same paragraph as the above, it says that Admiral Courbet and Patenôtre were overruled, but doesn't say by whom. If one were to assume that they were overruled by the inability to support an invasion of mainland China, the sentence stating that they were overruled becomes redundant and unnecessary.

• "The decision to attack Keelung was taken by the French cabinet..." shouldn't that be "made", instead of "taken"?

• "80-millimetre mountain guns" should have a standard conversion.

• French words, such as "La Table", and "Le Cirque" should be italicized.

Most of these are small issues, but the expansion of the lead section and reworking of the references are fairly major. Overall, it's a pretty good article, and with more work, can eventually reach FA status. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Parsecboy,

Thanks very much for such a detailed response. Those were very helpful comments, and I'll start working on them.

Djwilms (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

It appears that you are only wikilinking when the target article exists and will appear blue, because I see in your articles there are a lot of officers and military forts and places etc that are wikilinked and only blue and no redlinks. It's acutally encouraged for people to link to articles that don't exist to remind and encourage people to create the articles. So you should link them. Also I see you said on your page that you bolded articles on Sino-French War that you intend to create earlier, but I changed this to redlinks per the WP:MOS. I see you have done this in Hong Kong Morris also, although I think that if you created articles on the club members they will be deleted per WP:N. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Boston

Another editor moved this article through GA in August. I've been working on it since (mostly adding details and working on citations and prose). I'm looking for feedback on readiness for A-class review and possibly FA.

Some specific questions:

1. The section on Bunker Hill is relatively short, but that action is they key of the affair. Should it be expanded?
2. There is no analysis of the participants' actions -- what strategic and tactical steps were good or bad. Should there be?

Thanks for your feedback. -- Magic♪piano 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the_ed17

• Quick image comments - only two things per WP:MOSIMAGE:
  • No images under third-level headings ("Digging in" section) Y Moved
  • Sandwiching text between images ("Stalemate" section) YMoved (this had been on my list too).

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• References comment - they look perfect. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the third-level sections in "Aftermath" are kinda short. Anyway to lengthen or combine them? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I left those that way in part because I'm wondering (above) if the whole Aftermath/Legacy should include a critical analysis. There was a lot of blame, criticism, and Monday-morning quarterbacking to go around, especially on the British side (surprise). (The colonials were mostly somewhat disorganized, which didn't always help their cause. They probably could have held Bunker Hill if they were better organized.) Some of the histories get into this, which is why I'm considering including some of it.

If I were to do that, I'd probably take the mopping-up and reentering the city into the End of Siege section, and merge much of the "Fate of" bits into the critical discussion. -- Magic♪piano 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would say to add it in, as long as you include a lead-in of "Contemporary historians believe that..." or something of the like. That's just my opinion though - you may want to wait for another MILHIST editor to review this and add his/her opinion to this before starting a large addition like that... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS

Previous review

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

Auntieruth55

wouldn't those pictures be more manageable in gallery format after the charts, or, even better, inserted into the chart, such as is done here? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Auntieruth's comment about a gallery after the appropriate table. That will reduce the amount of empty space. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

looks much better. It's still cumbersome, but at least manageable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you translating schwer verwundet=heavily wounded? If so, you have the proper grammar (heavily is constructed correctly, as is wounded), but the wrong adverb. We would say badly wounded (or seriously wounded), and I think (not certain) this is universal throughout the US/Commonwealth/Britain etc. Other various: tödlich verwundet=fatally wounded, gefährlich verletzt = seriously wounded or badly wounded.

severe is the better choice, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

another question: several of these men show up on more than one chart (i.e., Sepp Dietrich). Is it worth pulling the multiple lists out? Or is it possible to alphabetize the whole sheebang?

I realize it's been a HUGE job, and cudos for doing it. Just pondering manageability. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some men show up in multiple sub-lists because of the nature of the Knight's Cross. The KC had 5 different grades, and recipients could receive a higher grade if they continued to distinguish themselves in combat. I tried explaining this in the lead section. I therefore feel that a list of Waffen-SS KC recipients should point this out. However I do see the point that this article has become somewhat of a monster. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tribal class destroyer (1936)

I'm currently working on this article for a while, trying to improve the article, but I can use some pointers as to how to proceed next. The article in my opinion does not qualify to be a B-class article but it is getting there. ThePointblank (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

the_ed17

This is a quick run-through before I go to bed:

• The lead is too short per WP:LEAD...make it a summary of the entire article.

I've expanded the lead somewhat, but it is a work in progress. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSIMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between two images ("1941" section)
  •  Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Combine some of the 194_ sections, as one sentence sections are too short. (1943, 1944, Post-war)
• "The ships today" section is almost hidden under all of those tables...
  •  Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• If you want it to have a chance at B-class, many more in-line citations are needed everywhere...(including the tables)...if you want, tomorrow I'll take a gander through the article and add {{fact}} tags where cites are needed.
• Is U-boat.net reliable?

I have found it reliable; I have used the source multiple times in university papers, and none of my history professors have made any comments that the source was not reliable. But as a precaution, I have posted a request at WP:RSN to double check, and will have a result. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the source is deemed reliable enough, as the facts are not controversial enough, but it would be nice to gain access to their sources. ThePointblank (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe shoot them an e-mail? I dunno... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I hope that this helped! Drop me a line on my talk page if you want me to add the {{fact}} tags...cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and be as critical as you can be. I can really use the feedback. ThePointblank (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has to have in-line citations to even approach B-class...that's going to be the complaint of every other person who comes here. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to know where so I can add them in, so be as critical as you can. ThePointblank (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you meant now. I have class tomorrow, so I'm going to bed right after this (=]) but I'll run through it at some point tomorrow to add the tags. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, unless you really want me to litter the article with those tags, I'll go off of what Saberwyn said: try to cite everything, as it will help you get through those higher levels if you cite everything you add now.

Try these things that have helped me with my articles:

• • • • • • Google Books, use the "Only limited and full preview" option though. Basically, with that option, you can read books online for free! :D :D :D
          • If you could get your hands on Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell... [(1985), Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-459-4]... (is this on Google Books?)
          • Talk to User:Trekphiler about this book—Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (1978). Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Volume 1. London: Phoebus.
          • Conway's

Anyway, hope that these help. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, as evidenced on the USS Nevada (BB-36)'s FAC, Hazegray (current ref#2) is not reliable... very unfortunately. Nevada got through A-class with it becuase it was borderline, but I had to get rid of it during the FAC. It's your choice to replace it or not, but if you find a different source that says the same thing, you may as well replace it. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, don't do what I did on Nevada! When using {{cite web}}, use the "non-linked retrieval date" i.e.

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessmonthday=October 30 |accessyear=2008 |last= |first= |date= |work= |publisher= }}

Why? Because the people at FAC will make you go through and change every ref so that the dates are not linked... Easier to format them right when you add them in! =/ (I got lucky—Maralia did it for me. =]) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Done ThePointblank (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, try Global Security too. :) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Saberwyn

One drive-by observation: I'm really uncomfortable with the section "The ships today", both as a heading an as a section (as it currently only contains two dot points. One idea might be to expand this out to a "Fates" (or other heading) section, which deals with what happened to the class as a whole (I know its listed in the ship tables above, but having that information in some nice, meaty paragraphs is also good). In this section, you could cover how many were lost to enemy action (and highlight any particularly noteworthy losses), how many were scrapped and any decisions influencing the scrapping (i.e. is there a reason three Canadian ships were scrapped in the same year? Why were Canadian and Australian ships kept in service longer than their Britsh counterparts? etc. - no panic if there isn't actually a reason for these), what classes replaced the Tribals in the various navies, as well as the current information on one museum ship and one dive site.

As for the citation issue raised by the ed_17 above, when I work on articles I attempt to cite everything, in order to head off issues like challenged facts or unverifiability (I personally believe that every fact can be challenged, and this can bog down any future attempts at A-class, Good Article, and/or Featured Article status). I prefer books to websites, and citations should include the specific page number the statement was derived from.

In other news, I'd personally like to see

a little more content in the "Service" section

a reduction in the wikilinks to really common terms (things like dates, countries, and measurements - see WP:MOSDATE and WP:OVERLINK)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Spell out measurements and terms... non-maritime people do not have an idea what an o/a is, and non-Imperial-measurement people will be confused by references to "4.7^{quote mark} guns".

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could use a text copyedit, but then again, what article couldn't benefit from one?

Hit me on my talk page if you need any help or clarification. -- saberwyn 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

A bit of advice re; the lead. Copy this page's lead. Furthering what Saberwyn said; Survivors is another good one. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See earlier comment ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there is only one survivor, which is why I rolled it in with "Fates". An entire section in the class article for one ship seems excessive. -- saberwyn 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you guys whether you deem it necessary or not, I agree that "Survivors" may not be appropriate then. However the word "Fates" sounds very peculiar. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how do you guys think just Fate sounds? The article is about the class after all, and this is "the fate of the class". Ryan4314 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL spent an hour rewriting the "fates" section today, and now it's been completely rewritten. I admit the new version is better, just wish Saberwyn had rewrote the section before I did, could've done something else with that hour :( Ryan4314 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress As of [1]

So how do you guys think of the progress so far? I want to expand the introduction some more (aiming for 2 paragraphs), and I will finish citing and expanding the subsections 1942, 1944, and Post-War sections (I may just dump the Post-War section and merge it with the "Fates" section (I might rename it to Post-War or something else). ThePointblank (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking MUCH better! Your plan is good too, as the lead is still too short. Again, consider merging some of the years (i.e. 1940–1941 etc, making sure to use an endash) and it would be a good idea to merge Post-war and Fates, as they talk about (mostly) the same things. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how about the current page as is? I've done the merge of the two sections, and finished the citations and minor expansions of the service part. ThePointblank (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead still needs expanding, a lot, it would be ideal to make it look similar to the one here. As the author of an FA class warship article, I'd recommend just copying it and changing the relevant information. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, try copying and combining the intros from Iowa class battleship and Alaska class battlecruiser. (These are class articles =]) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An even better idea, although don't forget the Iowa article is FA. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Progressing quite nicely. I've done a bit of a copyedit and thrown some {{fact}} tags down where I think you really need a supporting citation, but overall it is starting to take shape. -- saberwyn 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress As of November 26 2008

I've done some more work citing the article, and making modifications as I felt necessary. One question however; for a article on a class of ships, does the picture in the infobox has to be one of the lead ship, as I have located another picture in a different article that I feel is of better quality. ThePointblank (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the top pic should be one that best illustrates the ship. If this is not the class lead, so be it. -- saberwyn 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

However, use of the museum ship Haida poses a slight problem, as a different photo from almost the same angle is used to illustrate the "Post-war" section. I suggest replacing this second image with something showing a different view of Haida. -- saberwyn 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also done more expansion of the service history of the class; most of the service data for the British and Canadian ships are largely done for the World War II period, while I still need to work on the Australian history as well. I would also need more information on the post war service for both the Australian and Canadian Tribals to continue to flesh out the article. ThePointblank (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Szina

This article is completely incomprehensible! What language it is supposed to be? If anyone is able to understand it, please, translate it to English!Kornjaca (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I think this should be closed now that it has been translated. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Action of 13 January 1797

An article on the infamous action in which Edward Pellew, commanding two frigates, drove a French ship of the line onto the Biscay coast, destroying it and killing 1,000 French sailors and soldiers. The article has passed GA a while back and I am interested in taking it to FA fairly soon. Please let me know what improvements are needed. All comments welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nudve

Looks very good to me. A couple of issues do come to mind:

1. Dates and times: It seems that the battle went on well into January 14. I think that should be mentioned in the infobox, and probably the lead section as well. Also, perhaps "AM" and "PM" should be added to specific times, to avoid confusion.

1. The Aftermath section begins with "French casualties are hard to calculate exactly". This sounds weird. Is it necessary?

Cheers, Nudve (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think I've dealt with the issues above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Ish

Just one thing came to mind on reading the article. In the section on the Battle, it first says "Pellew also knew, however, that the ocean was too disturbed to allow Lacrosse to open his lower gunports without the risk that heavy waves would enter them and cause the Droits de l'Homme to founder" ... but then says "Unknown to Pellew, the French ship was in fact totally unable to open her lower deck gunports during the action". This could probably do with being clarified.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, I think I've dealt with this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blair Anderson Wark

Prior peer review located here.

I am requesting a peer review for this article with the aim of fixing up any problems and possibly improving it further before/if I take it to FAC. The article is rated A-Class with this project, but I have been reluctant to take it through FAC as it is relatively short, although is quite comprehensive. My decision has been swayed somewhat on viewing the article Issy Smith; a Featured Article also on a Victoria Cross recipient which is slightly shorter then Wark's. EyeSerene has also given the article a light copyedit. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• I'd say that the second paragraph of the lead needs to be extended a bit. I'll add some more comments when I can. Skinny87 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure how I can expand the lead, particularly the second paragraph, as it does summarise every major facet of Wark's life. The only thing I thought I could include in the lead that isn't there already is the fact that he established his own business; which I have now done so. Also, for an article of this size I think the two paragraphs there suit well, however I am open to any suggestions. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch (tank)

I intend to take this to A-Class review and then to FAC, so any comments would be welcome! Skinny87 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few minor comments about references/citations:

• In citation 23 ("Fitzsimons, p.1753"), are you sure that it is the correct page number, as it seems rather high?

Another editor added that - apparently it's like the 17th volume in a series

Hmm, unusual. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Citataions 60 and 61 require an endash between the page ranges.

Get that done in a jiffy

Right, thats done

• There seems to be a rather high reliance on Flint. Would it be possible to substitue some of those references for another to allow for a more even spread/diversity?

I hope this won't be a problem, but the basic answer is no; very few historians have focused on the Tetrarch in any detail above that they were used in Normandy. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know that they had been used anywhere but Normandy before I read Flint, and as he says in the book there's little information to go on - he uses a lot of primary references.

Skinny87 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to replace a couple of Flint's with Fletcher's, but I think thats going to be all I can do. Skinny87 (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's not too bad, you've intergrated a number of other sources in there, so it should be all good. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I haven't had much of a look at the prose, but I don't see you having too much trouble with an A-Class review. If I were you, I would archive this peer review some time soon and go for A-Class. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Just a few comments

• Would it be possible to split the one note into a section separate of the citations? There is a method of doing it, although I have never actually figured it out.
• Refs 7, 9 & 66 need combining.

Other than that looks ready to go(I actually happened to see a copy of Flint's book at Pegasus Bridge when I was there two summers ago..it looked good;). All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Refs combined and that ref seperated into a note with a seperate section above the footnotes. And yes, it's a great book Cam, only one I know to give in-depth coverage to the Tetrarch, Locust and 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. Skinny87 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

I recently expanded this article from a stub to cover this crucial ancient battle and campaign in more detail, and have created a couple of maps to illustrate it. It has passed a B-class review. I would be interested to know what other editors think of it, as I would like to have a go at getting it up to A-class in due course. Suggestions for improvements would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Overall, a well developed article. That said, there are several things that you could do to prepare it for an in-project ACR:

• Increase the Citation density. I know all of the MoS stuff says "one per paragraph", but an article that sticks to that bare minimum would, quite frankly, be eaten alive at FAC.
• I would suggest the expansion of "the battle" section. The background and aftermath of the battle are both quite detailed (which is nice, since you don't see those sections these thorough in many articles), but if there aren't enough details about the battle itself, it sort of becomes irrelevant.
• It would be nice to find statistics for the strength and casualties of both forces. I've got a few books on the Ancient World, so I might be able to find a statistic for that myself.
• The refs need reformatting. Generally (per MilHist MoS), the information about the book (author, title, year of publication, publisher, ISBN #) should go in a section titled "References" below a section titled "Footnotes", in which should be the webcites, and then the pg. #s of the book (usually formatted 'last name, p. x')
• Figure out how to get rid of those non-neutrality tags - an unbalanced military history article is not a fun thing to have to deal with down the road.
• "Sources" should be moved down and combined with the "Historical Assessment", which should likely be renamed "Historiography" for MoS purposes.

That's all I can see at the moment. I wish you the best of luck in taking this article forward. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 05:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

• "The battle" section can't really be expanded any further - there is next to no information about what actually happened, other than that the Babylonians were defeated.
• There aren't any statistics for the same reason. No figures are recorded in any of the ancient sources.
• The neutrality tags are a legacy of a dispute with a couple of editors who don't like the sources' mention of Cyrus the Great carrying out a massacre, basically because they subscribe to a nationalist POV that idolises Cyrus. I've removed them for now, since it's merely WP:IDONTLIKEITism.
• I'll take a look at the other points you raise. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Captain class frigate

I think most of the issues raised in the 2008 review have been dealt however two tables do remain in the article as I feel they are the clearest way of presenting the data (but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this).

I am hoping for advice on how to further improve this article in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class.--Thefrood (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Music of the American Civil War

I think this is a topic that could easily become a future FA. I was wondering what else could be done to get it to GA. I plan on a section denoting the differences between northern and southern versions of certain songs. Should Music history of the United States during the Civil War era be merged with this article, or can both remain separate?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Did either governments make any policies to encourage/commission musical works to raise the morale of the people. I see the article talks about some popular people's songs but did the Confeds or Lincoln sponsor composers or bands to play music at rallies to recruits townsfolk and all of that?
• Is there any information on whether people got put in jail or got banned for anti-war music, if there was any?

YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they inspired rallies, so I'll look. Anti-war music was generally the other side's music; remember, Lincoln was someone who removed habeus corpus whenever he felt like it. Thanks for the idea.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Triarii

This article recently passed a GA review, but I am unsure of how to improve it further. My hope is to eventually make this A class, and I know it needs expansion and some copyediting to get it there. I'd like ideas for expansion and to be pointed to places where the prose could be improved. Thanks a lot.--Serviam (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

I think that this article would benefit from an image of the equipment of the Triarii. Can you source some images online that could be used as reference material for original work? If so, post a request on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and I'll try to help out. This will add depth and impact to the article. Dhatfield (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Some things could be improved.

1. The lead could be expanded to two or three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
2. If there was any way of getting those sources, they could probably lead to an expansion of the article and the creation of something that is suitable for FA.
3. Is there any information on how the removal of the Triarii as a class during the Marian Reforms effected the legions? I.e. in flexibility, tactically, et cetera.

Just some comments. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia

I've given this a quick copyedit. Some comments:

1. Make the timeframe more obvious in the lead, please. Currently, it only explicitly says when their use was phased out.
2. Parts of the article are hard to parse—especially where, within a single sentence, commas are used both to set off definitions and to join phrases ("They fought as hoplites, usually carrying clipei, large round Greek shields, and bronze helmets, often with a number of feathers fixed onto the top to increase stature"). Rephrasing, using emdashes, and even using the dreaded parentheses are all options, to wit:
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying large, round Greek shields known as clipei and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying clipei—large, round Greek shields—and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying large, round Greek shields (clipei) and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
3. Are you sure about not italicizing 'hoplite' and 'maniple'?
4. I see some missed wikilinking opportunities: Scipio, war elephants, Sallust.
5. Sallust's Jugurthine War is available at Project Gutenburg in English and in Latin. (Note the quote you used is spelled with Paligna, not Paeligna.)
6. The Mommsen book doesn't have a publisher listed, so I started looking into it. The citation said that it was published in 1903, but also gave an ISBN, which clearly isn't the 1903 version. The citation should describe the exact edition of the book that you used as a source; if that edition does not have an ISBN, then we should not give an ISBN, but instead give an OCLC number (if one exists) for the precise edition used. Further, I noticed that on this particular Googlebook, the 'About' information is wrong: if you look at the cover page of the Googlebook text, you'll see that it was published in 1864, not 1903; the OCLC entry can be viewed here. In summary, please double-check the citations to make sure (1) that you haven't inadvertently repeated any Googlebook errors, and (2) that all the citation information is about the precise edition of the book used to source the article text.

Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

• Hello all!
• Even though this is featured, I would like to ensure that it gets on the Main Page on my target date, December 7th. So I'm listing here to ensure that it is perfect! :)
• While the referencing (should) be picturesque, please make a run-through of the prose, as I'm not sure that it is perfect (maybe FA quality, but not perfect =])......and thank you all for helping me out! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

It's a great idea to ask for a peer review before nominating a FA for the main page - nice work on doing this. I think that the article is generally great, and have only the following minor suggestions.

• "The new battleships of the Nevada class were the first two in the U.S. Navy to have triple gun turrets" - it'd suggest that you tweak the last bit of this sentence to something like "gun turrets with three guns" so it's a bit clearer.\
  •  Fixed
• It's stated that the Nevadas limited deck armour was a "possible design flaw" and then that it was actually a flaw. This is a bit confusing, and may be a bit unfair given that when the ships were designed aircraft posed nothing like the threat they did in 1941 - surely the flaw was a failure to increase the ships' armour as threats evolved?
  •  Doing...
    • Simply removed.—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Did this fix it? Or is it too confusing...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• It seems a bit odd that almost a third of the ship's history is limited to the single sentence "Nevada served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years" - is there nothing at all to say about her activities during the 1930s and the lead up to war in the Pacific?
  • Scarily, that is all I could find. Using OR, I would assume that she participated in the Fleet Problems somewhere, but everyone glosses over all of her inter-war years with the exception of the 1929 refit. Bonner on pg. 104 would be the only one who might explain, but that's one of the the "non-viewable" pages on Google Books... =/ Does anyone have that book...? (*Cross fingers and pray*) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• The 'Attack on Pearl Harbor' section needs an introduction explaining why the ship was at Pearl Harbor, where she was moored, her combat readiness, etc - it's a bit tabloid to start with a quick description of the start of the attack before going into these details.
• Did Spitfires and Seafires really fly from Nevada - I didn't know that there were float plane versions of these aircraft?
  • For what it's worth this website (which may or may not be a reliable source for FA purposes) says that VCS-7 flew from a base in southern Britain, and wasn't embarked on warships. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I simply removed it. :) It was reliable because the Spitfire site simply hosted a convenience copy. :D —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• "After Normandy, the Allies decided to invade Toulon in an operation that was codenamed Operation Dragoon" isn't correct as this operation was approved and planned well before the landing at Normandy, and was actually pushed back from the original plan for a simultaneous landing with the one at Normandy
• Operation Dragoon is linked a couple of times
  •  Fixed
• Which parts of Japan did Nevada bombard, and when did these bombardments occur? The current wording is a bit vauge.
  • Again, nothing was stated in any of the sources...=/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Nevada doesn't appear in the listing of battleships which bombarded targets in the Japanese home islands in both Samuel Eliot Morison's Victory and the Pacific or Richard B. Frank's Downfall. USS Alabama seems to have been the only non-fast battleship to have been used in these bombardments. All the battleships used in these bombardments were recently completed fast battleships. DANFS only says that Nevada came within gun range of the home islands, so she may not have conducted any bombardments. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Would you be able to add cites and page numbers for those books to the end of that sentence? I'll add a note explaining it, but that would be awesome. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately Nevada isn't mentioned by Morison after the chapters on Okinawa, so all I could provide is the pages where he lists the BBs which bombarded Japan - would this be helpful? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's what I wanted. :) I'll shove them in a note that explains that she did not hit Japan. ...like <ref group=A>"''Nevada'' did not hit..blah blah... . See: ________"</ref> —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, I'll post the refs in a new section below. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• The description of the ship's armament in the infobox seems to be missing the various post-refit changes. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bombardment of Japan references

Samuel Elliot Morrison's Victory in the Pacific describes the three following BB bombardments of Japan. The edition is: Morison, Samuel Eliot (2002). Victory in the Pacific. reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. pp. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. ISBN 0252070658.. USS South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, two CAs and nine DDs bombarded Kamaishi on 15 July 1945 (pp. 312-313). USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, two CLs and eight DDs bombarded Muroran on 16 July (pgs 313-314). On the night of 18 July USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Alabama and HMS King George V bombarded Hitachi (pgs 315-316). Richard B. Frank lists all these bombardments on pg 157 of Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall. The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 01410-01461. and adds a bombardment of Hamamatsu on the night of 29-30 July by USS South Dakota, Indiana and Massachusetts. Neither book mentions Nevada as operating with the 3rd Fleet, though neither provides a task list/order of battle so its quite possible that she was operating with the 3rd Fleet but was kept in reserve. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add this in sometime today. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I promise that I will get to this! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done a few days ago. Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dziban303

Minor nitpicks

• In the article is states "In particular, using oil gave the new class an engineering advantage over the earlier coal-fired plants," but it doesn't state why this is an advantage over coal-fired powerplants. I think some explanation of why oil is superior should be included.
  • Is this satisfactory?
• In "Attack on Pearl Harbor," it states "...but the other exploded within the ship near the gasoline tank." Perhaps adding something in about why the ship carried gasoline (for the scout aircraft and motor launches, I'm sure).
  • ...except that I don't know why—I don't have that book! I'm not the one that added that info...
• Speaking of scout aircraft, there's no mention of them in the article other than in the infobox. What kind did she carry? Considering the difference in the "as built" and "1942" references in the infobox, was this done after she was refit after the Pearl Harbor attack, or some time prior?
  • My bet is prior...either as built, or at the latest in the '29 refit...I'll look into it.
• The Bikini atomic experiments are linked twice in the article--once in the introduction and once in "Post War." I'm not totally opposed to linking twice if the links are that far apart, but I confess that I don't know if the policy allows it.
  • Yes it does. :) As long as they aren't overlinked!
• All around, an excellent article. Dziban303 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Looks like I've got some work to do. :D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

National War Memorial (South Australia)

I'd like any and all advice on how to further improve this article on the memorial, in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class or featured status. (I've enjoyed working on it, and would like to try and finish it off properly). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Woody

• A nice article. There are some small stylistic issues with it:
• First World War, make sure is consistent: use First World War or use World War I, just make it consistent. (I suggest First World War as it is the Commonwealth English way) Don't use the abbreviation, it is too colloquial.
• Dates, you use both international and US date format. Pick one and again, be consistent.
• Per the MOS, images should alternate from left to right in the text.
• Other than those, the image licences all check out, it is well referenced with an acceptable style and it covers the topic well. There might be a need for a copyedit in there, but the prose read well to me. Well done. Sorry about the wait, and keep up the good work. Woody (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! That was of great help - in particular, I didn't realise that I'd stuffed up the date formats, but I should have known better on that one. I agree with the need for a copyedit - I find that I'm not a great copyeditor, and I certainly can't copyedit my own work properly, yet a good copyeditor can virtually always improve an article. I guess I'll need to start begging people and see if I can find one. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Try asking someone listed at WP:MHL#COPYEDIT. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again - I keep being impressed by how well organised this project is. - Bilby (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell

Hello, I present for your enjoyment an article about one of those doers of derring with which the British Empire seems to have been so crammed full (what we wouldn't give for one now). In his eventful life, Maxwell was a career naval officer who fought in two wars, commanded a sucessful frigate action, was shipwrecked three times, captured by the French twice and once marooned on a desert island. He even conducted his own private war with the Chinese Empire. He eventually died after being made governor of a Canadian island that he never visited from the effects of wounds recieved twelve years earlier when he was beaten up by political opponents in Convent Garden. To find out more please read on and then come back and tell me what needs improving in order to take a shot at FA. All comments welcome and many thanks in advance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The article looks very good, overall. A few points that could use some work:

• There is a lack of commas in some sentences (e.g. "being sent to sea at 14 in 1790 on board HMS Juno commanded by Samuel Hood", "Maxwell, the last to leave Alceste arrived at the island on the morning of 19 February", etc.); some thorough copy-editing would probably be helpful, as that sort of thing will certainly be spotted at FAC.

Will give this a good look soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first time that Amherst is mentioned, you might want to indicate his position at the time.

At the time, Amherst was "unemployed". He had been ambassador to Sicily between 1809-1811 and of course was a member of the House of Lords, but he had no official position at the time he is first mentioned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The caption on the Gilbert painting should really be in italics, with the ship names in normal type, as it's the formal title of the work.

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• A translation of Napoleon's comment (probably in the accompanying footnote) would be helpful for non-French-speaking readers.

I can't work out what is meant exactly, it translates as "You are very malicious. Eh well", but unless Maxwell had pulled Napoleon's chair out from behind him I don't think this is an adequate translation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• As more people would be aware of the Black Watch then the 42nd Regiment of Foot I would have included it in the text

along the lines of: A British Army office in the 42nd Regiment of Foot the Black Watch or which became better known as the Black Watch.

Will do.

• There is a link to Frigate in the text so I would also have provided one for Sloop-of-war HMS Cyane.

Will do.

• Is Martello Tower the correct term as the article states they are small defensive forts built in several countries of the British Empire and Italy is absent on the lits of locations.

In the origins section of that article, it says: "Martello towers were inspired by a round fortress, part of a larger Genovese defense system, at Mortella Point in Corsica" - Genoa is in Italy and the British towers were based on the original Italian defence system (known in English as Martello Towers). It is unlikely that the Italians knew them by that name, but English naval officers of the period would definately have used the term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Voyage to China section link the East Indiaman General Hewitt.

Will do.

• Provide a link for rajah.Fourteen proas appeared later in the day, led by a large vessel which carried a rajah.

Will do.

A good article and character who could have come out of any number of books about the navy of the period. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

At the Last B Class Review, this article failed for lack of referenced information. It also failed for lack of suitable referances. I have added at least 2 clear references. As well as followed the Military History Project's Style Guide. I have made sure all the information required by the template is present and properly cited. I think this article deserves a B now. But before submitting it, I'd like to have a Peer Review so if its not suitable for B, at least I'll know what to work on. So Can I please know what it lacks to get a B ?

Yes I am aware that this article has 7 Bibliographical references of which only 3 are being used. I don't have access to the rest.. :(

Thanks. perseus71 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

Too many "citations needed" tags for B class. Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Expand the introduction, a one liner intro is not really acceptable for any article above Stub-class.
• Is there really a need for Disambiguation here? Could the names of the different units be used instead of the WWI/WWII designation?
• A lot more references and external links are needed for this to be a good B-class candidate. Have asked the aviation people for help? I'm sure they could suggest places to find info on the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (1)

• Consider changing the article name. The 1939-45 war is usually referred to hereabouts as either "World War II" or the "Second World War". "World War 2" fits into neither camp.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• You only need to use the "authorlink" section in {{:tl:cite book}} if the author has a Wikipedia article. It's often neater to dispense with the template altogether, but format and list the same info yourself.

..More later ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes")
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Expand the lead (per the other reviewers)
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.

Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the scope of my comments goes further than the simple question about B-Class you asked (it now easily meets B-Class). Perhaps you should try to work this up to A-Class? If you need a hand, just ask, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

jackyd101

I agree with all of the above, especially regarding the article's title. However my biggest problem was the standard of prose. Firstly, the prose is very broken up into short sentances and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text. This is worsened by the very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did, partly the result of a very poor lead. I recommend that the lead be expanded to explain clearly what the article covers and the article written in a coherent paragraph structure with limited jargon and that which is used explained clearly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (2)

Outstanding from earlier

In specific response to your requests about A-Class, the following (raised above) seem to be outstanding and need fixing:

• Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea. I see you have added titles but not citing much to them.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes"). A few remain left to do. I've fixed these.
• Citations can just have the author's surname, year of publication and page number.
• Page numbers are needed for most of the books cited.
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.
• Prose: Very broken up into short sentences and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text.
• Prose: Very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did,
• Poor lead: needs to explain clearly what the article covers.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs and sources

• 5. ^ a b Weal (1996)

• Page number?

• 6. ^ Weal & Laurier, 2001.

• Missing from book list. Page number?

• 7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Schuelke (1995).

• Page number? Chapter? Date of publication? See {{Cite journal}}

• 8. ^ a b Reimer, 2007/08

• Page number?

Reimer is actually a hobby website in the detailed refs section. I question its validity. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• 10. ^ a b c d e f Goebel (2001).

• Page number?

• 11. ^ Weal (2003).

• Which book (two for 2003: 2003a or 2003b). Page number?

• 12. ^ a b c d e Mombeek (2003).

• Page number?

• 13. ^ Mombeek, in Defenders of the Reich (Vol. II) describes the emblem as a red circle but photographs depict it as a black circle.

• Page number?

• 15. ^ Williamson & Bujeiro (2004).

• Page number?

• 16. ^ a b c Weal (1999).

• Page number?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Brought here by Roger.

• I do not see how Reimer's website is a RS. is he a certified pundit?
• "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 1" appears to be a website about a computer game and not a military website at all. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• The lack of references in some places and the somewhat informal prose is a worry. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• The short paragraphs need dto be better integrated. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Frederick III, German Emperor

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like this article to be improved overall as much as possible with the eventual aim of FA in mind. It has already been through a GA Review and A Class review and I want to give it a thorough review from some fresh eyes before submitting it to FAC.

Thanks, Banime (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Frederick III, German Emperor/archive1.

Aleksei Brusilov

I undertook a major rewrite utilising Russian sources, in particular detailing his early career. I was not able to exactly source the quotations used (they each come from one of several sources added to the References), and recognise that, as such, they are probably not appropriate. I've left them in for colour, but they can be deleted if they fall outside WikiStandards. Most of the quotes can be sourced to a Russian online resource, but I'm reluctant to because, along with masses of great info, that site also gave me a nasty virus. Can these be referenced in some other way?

It seems to me that the overall quality of the article is a B-Class now (with the above riders on quotations), and would appreciate comment/assistance on dealing with the aspects that are holding it back.FrankDynan (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

The major issue which will hold the article back from B-class is the lack of inline citations, which means the article doesn't fulfill requirement B1. The article requires that someone with those sources use them to reference the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

This article has recently passed an A class review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

Fantastic lead image - I believe the minimum lead image size is 350px. The coverage of cavalry tactics is a bit thin, perhaps a bit more coverage of this topic and a link to that article would help to give horses in warfare a bit of context. Dhatfield (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead image a bit, but 350 px is huge, so I haven't expanded it that much! There is already a templated link to cavalry at the beginning of the cavalry section, as well as several other wikilinks to cavalry (as well as variations, including heavy cavalry and light cavalry) throughout the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Nepal's King's Household Cavalry is a ceremonial unit - as Nepal is now a republic is this still the correct name for the unit?
  • As of June 2008, this is still the correct name. The source we use actually mentions this and says that although Nepal is now a republic, the Cavalry has not had to change it's name yet. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have a problem with the related modern uses section - I can not see where Law enforcement and public safety fits into an article on Horses in Warfare , mounted police and mounted s&r could be articles in their own right.
  • Actually, they do already have their own articles, at Mounted police and Mounted search and rescue. The brief section on Law enforcement and public safety fits into the article because it is a "related modern use" as the main heading states. Mounted police and s&r riders, with many of their tactics and training, have evolved from mounted warfare. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any infomation on Mounted Infantry that could be included alongside the Cavalry and Horse Artillery
  • We will look into our article's cross-linking with Dragoon. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• What makes this web site reliable ? http://www.medieval-castle-siege-weapons.com/history-of-medieval-armor.html
  • Replaced. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

North Yemen Civil War

I have expanded this article, including references and pictures. Since this is my first serious article, I would like some feedback on how I can improve it. Please keep in mind that this conflict is not exactly World War II - sources are relatively rare and hard to come by. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Excellent and well-covered article. Just a few suggestions.

• In the infobox, the casualties for the royalists side are listed as "100,000 dead". For the republicans, it's listed as "26,000 killed". I'd stick to one or the other.

• Good point. The 26,000 figure refers only to the Egyptian army. I'll clarify that.

• There's a lot of jargon and weasel-words throughout the article. I'd recommend a good prose copyedit. If you wish, you could put in a request at the logistics department.

• Sure, why not.

• It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick checkover of the footnotes & refs. As an example, refs 7 & 12 should be combined, the Schmidt book (which sounds like a good read, I'll try to get my hands on that one) needs an ISBN #, Time Magazine's publisher needs to be listed in the footnotes as well, etc.

• Schmidt's book does not have an ISBN#, probably because it's old. It does have an ASIN#, but I'm not sure what that is.[2] What do you mean by "Time Magazine's publisher?

• Would it be possible to expand upon the long-term political ramifications of the conflict (did it affect Arab League dealings in the future? did it affect the policies of the world superpowers towards those states? what was the response of the western world? How did the rest of the world respond (condemnation/support)?)

• That would be nice, but I don't know if and where I can get sources for that.

Excellent work developing a well-covered article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

An extraordinarily good and comprehensive read, for which kudos! A few general things:

• Section headings do not usually take an article (ie The royalist offensive > Royalist offensive)
  •  Done
• The citations have linked dates, these should be de-linked for consistency.
  •  Question: How do I do that? Consistency with what? Also, the citations were auto-generated using Zotero.

Consistency with the rest of the article which uses US format dates, unlinked.

To de-link citation dates, you replace the parameter |accessdate = 2008-08-28 with:

• either | accessmonthday = August 28 | accessyear = 2008 for month/day/year
• or | accessdaymonth = 28 August | accessyear = 2008 for day/month/year. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Consider capitalizing "ulema"
  • I did, but most textbooks don't.

Again it's for consistency within the article. The President, the Colonel, the Ulema etc.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Bulleted list: start all entries with a capital letter?
  •  Done
• All quotes need a source immediately following them.
  •  Done
• I too think a copy-edit would be a good idea.
  • I agree. Since English is not my native language, I could use some help with that. Following Climie's advice, I've listed it in the logistics department. No results so far.

Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Next stop, A-Class? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible for an article to be nominated for A-Class without passing GA first?

Anyway, thanks again for the positive review. Cheers -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure though many editors go to GA because it gives them another layer of review and counts towards a Triple Crown barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll nominate it for GA. If that goes well, I'll move this peer review to A-Class review. -- Nudve (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Basil W. Duke

I am thinking of nominating this for GA, but I thought I'd give MILHIST an opportunity to look thru it for any problems.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kresock

Clean up

Did some work to the page, mostly trimming the intro, section naming to be more consisent with other ACW pages, and other format changes. I removed the redundant parts and put some of the details lower. Here are the things I noticed:

Early life

• "Both of his parents died in an early age." What age? Died at the same time or separately?

 Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Attended the colleges in what years?

 Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and there were already a multitude of lawyers in Lexington." doesn't sound right to me. Maybe something like "In 1858 he left for St. Louis, Missouri, to practice law with his older cousin (also named Basil Duke) due to an over-abundance of lawyers in Lexington." or such. But I do like the word multitude for some reason.

CW service

• "...after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization, with Duke quickly becoming the leader, despite being only 23 years old." entire sentence seems jumbled. What significance was his age? To whom?

• "...indicted for arson and treason." By Whom? Trial?

• "Duke would return to Missouri to help Confederate forces in Missouri, but would eventually return to Kentucky..." too many returns close to each other.

• "By October 1861, he would enlist in his brother-in-law's (Morgan's) command as a private, but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." I know electing their officers was common in those days, but dates for both ranks would be nice, and "By" should be "In" or "On" if dated.

• "He was twice wounded." I would word this like " During bla bla battle he was wounded in the bla bla on such & such date." for each occurrence and lose that short sentence.

• "Duke was the principal trainer for mounted combat for Morgan's Raiders." Where did they train? Why was Duke chosen to train them?

• "He participated in Morgan's Raid. During this raid his troops would dub him "The Little Whalebone"." Too short, and what inspired the nick? Maybe "On such date Duke participated in Morgan's Raid into bla bla locations" or the like.

• "He was captured at..." Captured alone?

• "..leading troops which gave a chance for others to escape across the Ohio River with Adam "Stovepipe" Johnson, or further into the state of Ohio with Morgan." Should be broken into two sentences, with the second describing how his actions/capture led to the two possibilities.

• "Duke would remain in captivity until August 3, 1864, where he was exchanged." Should be "When he was exchanged" and dated. And this should come after the bit describing the Penitentiary senario.

• "...could have escaped from the Ohio State Penitentiary with Morgan and Thomas Hines, but felt that to do so would hurt the chances of the escapees, as Morgan was easily replaced in his cell by his brother, but no similar replacement was there for Duke." I don't understand this at all. Chances hurt how?

• "...assumed command of Morgan's forces on September 15, 1864, being promoted to brigadier general." Made a BG the same date? I would word it "assumed command of Morgan's forces on date and was promoted to BG on date if they are not the same.

• What was Duke's fate after parting with Davis? Captured elsewhere (and date)? Surrendered and/or paroled (and date)? Fate of his command?

Postbellum

• "Duke would move to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and would return to practicing law in 1868..." Should be "After the war Duke moved to Louisville, Kentucky, and in 1868 he would return to practicing law."

• What did he do from 1870 to 1875?

• "Duke died after having surgery in New York City." Died from what? What type of surgery?

Overall

• The citing. I was gonna start combining the cites from the same page(s) of the same source, but then noticed they all are placed together at the end of a paragraph. I'm familiar with in-line citing, but not with in-para citing. Shouldn't they follow the punctuation mark after the words they cite?

I dealt with much that was bothering me before doing this breakdown, and put the rest here. I have a source for most of the relevant ACW dates/assignments and can add them if you wish, after the cites are cleaned up a bit. Just let me know. Kresock (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can add anything, feel free.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some facts and dates that could be included

• Duke was related to future Confederate general A. P. Hill (brother-in-law) and to future Union general John Buford (cousin-in-law).

• Ranks: First Lieutenant (CSA) Nov. 1861; Lt. Col. (CSA) Aug. 1862; Col. (CSA) 7 Dec. 1862; Brig. Gen. (CSA) 15 Sept. 1864.

• all of his commands during the ACW, including dates

• exact dates of woundings, exchange date, and parole date & location. (parole wasn't from a prison, but from the U.S. government at the end of the war)

• My source wasn't sure of his birth year, and lists both 1837 and 1837 as possibilities. Anyone come across this before?

• Four of his post-war writings and dates.

After any rewriting/adjusting I would be happy to add all of this where appropriate and cite it (using whatever ref system) and link the relevant military ranks to the American use of them at the time. Kresock (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

I hope you don't mind an outside review by a video game enthusiast. It looks like Kresock had a lot of good suggestions, I'll try not to repeat the same comments. Here's what stood out to me.

The lead

• This seem awfully short. I would try to expand it to at least two paragraphs. The lead should summarize the whole article, but right now it mainly focuses on his Civil War service. I would add in some content from his early life and postbellum.
• Incorrect verb tense:
  "...Duke would later wroIte a popular account..."

Early life and career

• Trimming redundancy:
  "Both of hHis parents died..."
• Same thing. Also did he attend them concurrently?
  "He attended both Georgetown College and Centre College..."
• I agree with Kresock, the sentence about his move to practice law is too long to decipher.

Civil War service

• MOS:IMAGES suggests that images be staggered. I would do that here by aligning the marker image to the left and moving it down from the top to above the third paragraph in this section.
• I noticed several instances of citations with some spaces between them; for example, "[5] [6] [7]". They should flush against each other; like "[5][6][7]".
• Agree with Kresock again on the "pro-Northern politicians" sentence. It's hard to interpret.
• I would wikilink "companies" to Company (military unit) for the militarily ignorant. "He formed five companies..."
• "Acquire arsenal" and "secure artillery" seem redundant to me, but the difference may not be clear to me or the layman. I would either trim or clarify.
  "He formed five companies, and sought to acquire the federal arsenal in St. Louis for the secessionist movement, securing artillery for secessionist forces."
• I assume "Brig. Gen. William J. Hardee" is "Brigadier General William J. Hardee". I would write this out for the layman.

• • Most editors for the ACW pages use User:Hlj/CWediting standards (also recommended & linked on the MILHIST project page), and here the abbreviation use is correct; but we don't wanna confuse so change it if you think it's best. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would use emdashes here instead of commas. The extra information breaks the flow in such a way the reader should know.
  "At Elizabethtown, Kentucky during Morgan's Christmas Raid of 1862,—by this time a full colonel,—he was..."
• I would trim the word "surely", unless it's directly taken from the sources. Even then it doesn't really add much:
  "...his men thought he was surely dead."
• These two sentence could be combined:
  "He participated in Morgan's Raid. D, during whichthis raid his troops would dub..."
• It seems like something is missing from this sentence as the meaning of him leading troops isn't apparent to me. Was he captured leading troops? "...on July 19, 1863, leading troops which gave a chance..."

Postbellum

• There were several sentences in this section that used "would". I would put these sentences in a simple past tense to simplify and trim them. See some examples:
  • "After the war, Duke would moved to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and in 1868 would returned to practicing law in 1868..."
  • "He would briefly served in the Kentucky General Assembly from 1869 to 1870, and then he resigned"
  • "Duke would also beserved as the Fifth Judicial District's commonwealth attorney from 1875 to 1880."
• The last paragraph is only two sentences long. I would expand it to balance it out with the others.

Personal

• This section seems too small to stand on its own. I would remove the heading and move the content to the lead.

• • I added this section when I went through the page initially, before writing my summary here. It was in an even worse location then, but didn't want to gas it completely as it was the only part describing the man directly. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps some. It was a good read and looks close to GA quality. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

David Fuchs

It looks like most of my comments were taken by Guy and Kresock, but I'll give it a good review tomorrow (this is so I don't forget.) One point is that usually the notes are put before references when done in a split format (see Chicxulub Crater, for instance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Due to changes is WP:MOSNUM which befuddle even me, complete dates are generally not to be wikilinked unless of some importance- I'll leave you to figure out what that means, but just make sure date linking is consistent throughout (you have one full date wikilinked and a few paragraphs later have it plain.)
• Generally, you want to leave out precise sizes (300px, et al) for images so that the thumb parameter changes based on local user settings.
• In case it hasn't been stated above, the lead should be expanded to two paragraphs and detail more of his post-Civil war career. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division (United States)

I'm putting 11th Airborne Division (United States) up for another peer review for before I attempt to go for FAC once again. Prose problems was the primary issue highlighted in the previous FAC, so I was hoping that any reviewers could concentrate on that more than anything else in particular. However, comments on other areas are welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Here are some suggestions. I wouldn't accept then wanton, since I may be wrong; but suggestions nonetheless. :P

• The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne division in the United States Army which was first activated during World War II. <- It seems that you are defining a word with the word. I think that "The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne force..." would sound better (even if not perfect); maybe you can think of a better way of defining it, but the way it is currently just doesn't roll off the tongue well.

I can see what you mean, though at the moment I'm at a loss as to what to replace it with. Force doesn't quite seem right. I'll keep thinking. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to 'formation' Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division was officially activated on 25 February 1943 and took part in several training exercises throughout the rest of the year, including the Knollwood Maneuver; the division played a vital part in this exercise, helping to ensure that the airborne division remained as a military formation in the United States Army after the poor performance of American airborne forces during Operation Husky. <- Very long and clunky, I think. I think dividing it into at least two sentences, and re-writing the second part, would make it sound much better. Also, it's not very clear how partaking in maneuvers helped the division survive deactivation. It's just sort of confusing.

Completely rewritten it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division remained in the United States as a reserve formation and did not take part in the early airborne operations conducted by the Allies, such as Operation Husky and Operation Neptune, only transferring to the Pacific Theater in June 1944. <- "Remaining in the United States as a reserve formation, the division did not take part in early airborne operations conducted by the Allies..." I think this sounds better and is simpler, and you should probably watch out for redundant words like "the" (in this sentences).

Same as above, rewritten. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some of these sentences are very long; it might be good to split some of them off.

Done! Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the rest of it later (only got the intro). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I copyedit the article, slightly? You can revert anything you want, if you feel it wasn't an improvement. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, fell free! I'll get to these suggestions when I can. Skinny87 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a massive rewrite of the Knollwood Maneuver section, which is a particularly bad piece of writing in the article. I would appreciate it if the article were to remain un-edited by anyone until I finish, hopefully by tonight. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I managed to finish the rewrite early, so any copy-editing is now more than welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments

• Despite being activated in 1943, the division was not immediately shipped out to Europe to participate in the first large-scale Allied airborne operation, the Allied invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) – unlike the 82nd Airborne Division, which had been activated a year prior to the 11th Airborne. <- Was it normal for a division to be shipped out immediately? The sentence gives that connotation, although it then says that the 82nd was activated a year earlier. If this isn't the case, I would suggest something like, Activated in 1943, the division was not shipped out to Europe in time to participate ..."

Done!

• Another general officer took command of the division until Swing returned. <- Would it be possible to include who this was?

This came up last time and I couldn't find their name, but I'll look again.

Devlin doesn't say. I have a suspicion it may have been Brig. Gen. Albert E. Pierson who headed a smaller version of the Swing Board, but there's no actual evidence saying that. So it's just an un-named officer at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits to part of the article, most of them minor. In one case I split a paragraph up, because I got confused half way through it, and finally realized that it was talking about something else. I hope this is OK.

Hey, that's fine, thanks.

• I made some edits that I thought made the text clearer. If you don't agree, then you're probably right, and just undo them. :P
• The ridge itself was an open space some two thousand yards (1,829 m) wide and four thousand yards (3,657 m) wide <- Should one of those be "long"?

Done!

• (sentence slightly different due to minor ce) The division was ordered to breach the Genko Line and drive into Manila, linking up with other American forces attacking the city from the north. All three of the divisions regiments were committed, and they began their advance on 5 February, managing to break through the defensive line despite fierce resistance by Japanese units manning the section of the line the division attacked. <- Is that last part necessary? I didn't want to outright remove it, because it's a large change you might not agree with, but it seems intuitive that the resistance would be coming from Japanese units those divisions were engaging... so to me, it seems sort of redundant.

Redundancy made redundant! Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over everything after Luzon in about ten minutes, after I eat. I hope this is OK, insofar. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the article is ready for FAC. In my opinion, any changes that have to be made are minor, and will be made over the next few days. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flanagan wrote a book on the division, called The Angels: A History of the 11th Airborne Division. Unfortunately, the cheapest price they have it for on Amazon.com is $26, and I couldn't find it on ABE books. Amazon.ca has it for $30 canadian collars, while Amazon.uk doesn't have it available. The cheapest alibris has it for is $26 (there are some copies that are over $100), and ebay has it for $26. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't have the option to look inside it (probably because all copies are being sold by third parties), and it's not on Google books. I thought it would help decipher who took command while Swing was in Sicily. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I've been trying to get a copy of that for less than $Texas, but in the UK it's insanely expensive. The snippets in Google Books are useless as well, and no library in my area has a copy. Gah! Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Flanagan's book. Would be happy to search for specific information for you. My Dad was in the 11th AB 472nd. He was a paratrooper and radioman. user deeaugust

Found a few thesis' online referring to the Board, but none actually stating who replaced Swing whilst he was on detachment to the Board. This is so frustrating, but at least this'll be good evidence for FAC if someone brings it up like they did last time. Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• The first paragraph is better than it used to be. Of the 17 divisions formed in 1943, only the 2nd Cavalry Division preceded the 11th Airborne Division overseas, and nine divisions did not depart until 1945. Officially, the 11th Airborne Division departed San Francisco POE for the South West Pacific Area on 8 May 1944. It arrived in Papua between 25 May and 11 June 1944 (not "sailed").

I'll adjust the writing for that, but have you got a source to cite for those divisions not departing until 1945?

Stanton is a good source. Also Palmer, Wiley, Bell and Keast, The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 488-493. Of the divisions formed in 1943, only five departed in 1944: 2nd Cavalry (March), 11th Airborne (May), 17th Airborne (August), 106th Infantry (November) and 66th Infantry (December). The Battle of the Bulge caused a panic in which all remaining ZI divisions were shipped to ETO in January-February 1945: 13th Airborne, 42nd, 63rd, 65th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 97th, and 16th, and 20th Armored Divisions (plus the 13th Armored Division, formed in 1942). The 10th Mountain Division was shipped to MTO in January 1945 as originally scheduled. These divisions included three already preparing to move to the Philippines: the 13th and 20th Armored, and 71st Infantry Division - a division specially trained in jungle warfare. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I don't think I'll add that in - instead I deleted the bit about the 82nd going first, as your info rightly points out it wasn't a big deal that it didn't go to Sicily for Husky. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sailed' adjusted to 'arrived'

• How about adding an Order of battle?

Order of Battle - 11th Airborne Division Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 11th Airborne Division 187th Glider Infantry Regiment 188th Glider Infantry Regiment (Parachute Infantry from 20 July 1945) 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment Military Police Platoon, 11th Airborne Division 11th Parachute Maintenance Company 152d Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 11th Airborne Division Artillery 457th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion 472nd Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (from 20 July 1945) 674th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 675th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 408th Airborne Quartermaster Company 511th Airborne Signal Company 711th Airborne Ordnance Maintenance Company 221st Airborne Medical Company 127th Airborne Engineer Battalion

Source: Stanton, Order of Battle, U. S. Army World War II, p. 94

• Why does the 11th Airborne have a separate linage to the WWI 11th Division? This is not the case with other airborne divisions.

Honestly, I have no idea and I'm not even sure where to find out about that.

It might be because the 11th was demobbed in 1919 and presuambly never reactivated - that's according to its wiki article. That sentence is a relic from when this article was a start-class one months ago. Perhaps I should just get rid of it all together?

I removed that sentence - it can always be added on if any evidence linking the two comes up. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You note that the strength of the division was around 8,500 when first formed, but it remained this way for much of its existence. Whereas divisions in Europe adopted a larger establishment. The 11th moved to the 1944 War Department tables in June 1945, increasing its size to 13,000.

I'll add that in if you could cite a source for it. I'm coming to find Flanagan more and more wanting as a historian of the 11th.

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 349. Also Stanton, p. 11 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to think that the Knollwood piece is very interesting, but may overstate the case. McNair wanted small, light divisions, and had proposed converting four airborne divisions - all but the 82nd - to light divisions in May 1943 ie before the invasion of Sicily. The light division concept failed, and McNair retained the four airborne divisions. There wasn't enough troop carrier capacity in SWPA to lift the whole of the 11th at once, so it was accepted that it would act as a light division. Eisenhower eventually adopted Ridgway's plan for a larger airborne division.

I'm getting kinda nervous now - I didn't know any of that and my sources didn't say that either. Could you tell me where this is coming from - maybe I can buy it if it's a book?

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 344, 349.

I think there's enough detail in this article about Knollwood, but I'll use that source and expand on the exercise when I write the Knollwood article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leyte: "It was ordered to relieve the 7th Infantry Division, engage and destroy all Japanese forces in its operational area," What was its operational area?

Good old Flanagan fails to state this - I'll try and find it out.

Devlin to the rescue! Specified.

See Cannon, Leyte: The Return to the Philippines, p. 296 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment was ordered to conduct the attack against the Japanese," What attack? Where?

I'll get on to rewording that.

Reworded via Devlin!

• "when conventional transport, such as mule-trains," Actually, mule-trains weren't all that conventional either.

Thank god, something easy! Re-worded

• Why hyphenate Major General? To me, that it a British-ism. But the rest of the article is in American. Maj.Gen. is okay (the wartime abbreviation - MG is used today) but my personal preference is to spell it out in full.

Part of that is that an anon. I.P kept changing things in the article, including that rank. I'll try and change them all to Maj. Gen.

Right, all changed to 'Maj. Gen'

• Luzon: You place all the blame for the inaccurate drop on the 317th TCG, but lack of jump discipline on the part of the 511th also contributed.

Only because that's what my sources stated - I'll look again, but some help would be appreciated if you have another source on the matter!

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 228. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's been seen to, added the online source Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing a description of operations in the Lipa corridor after Los Banos in March and April.

My sources have failed me completely - I didn't know there were any operations. I apologize, but I'm not sure what to do. Could you suggest a source?

Holy Moly! I found those operations - they were under 'Occupation of Japan' in Devlin. I'll add it as soon as I can.

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, pp. 425-435. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the section ysing Devlin, but I don't want to add in any more detail as this article is big enough as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, I would put the order of battle in its own article and link to it. This article is already very large. It's a good idea (and a potential featured list). JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that's a lot of comments :) Thanks Hawkeye, but just to let you know some of these might take me a few days to get back to you with. Skinny87 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye - I started a conversation over on MILHIST about web references like Hyperwar, and to be honest I'm not comfortable using them in an article I want to get to FA-Class. Like SandyGeorgia said in the FAC for the Nevada, Hyperwar isn't exactly very reliable for several reasons. Hence, I'll add what I can from my text sources, but I'm afraid I don't want to use Hyperwar or any other web resource I'm not completely sure about. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't use web sources either - I use the books. These are the Green books, and they trump any other secondary sources, such as Flanagan or Devlin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinions on official accounts aside, I guess they're good enough for wikipedia; but are those links reliable in terms of transcription - are they RS? Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And per your comment on the MILHIST talkpage, I don't have access to the Green books - Warwick University only has the British Official Histories, not the US ones. But if Hyperwar is reliable, I'll use them. Skinny87 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If those books use the official histories as sources, then the official histories are theoretically superfluous. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In practice, since we can't use the primary sources, the official histories become the final arbiters of any conflicts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true. For example, the official Soviet histories on the performance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front are horribly unreliable. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa

This article passed a GA review but I'm not sure how in-depth it's review was. I'd like to get a more formal review before pursuing any further more-formal reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the strange GAR I think this article could be put up for A-class. I didn't find anything that needed correction. --Brad (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through it thoroughly but couldn't find anything wrong with it. Even though it was a thoroughly bizarre GAN which didn't use the instructions, you seem to have covered all the bases. Go to A-Class. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BTR-90

I recently got this article to B-class, and I'm thinking of improving it further if possible. I haven't done anything higher than B before, so I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions and advice on this. Chamal ^Talk ± 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Woody

• Some comments, it needs quite a bit of work to reach above B.

MOS stuff

• WP:LEAD: The lead needs expanding so that it complies with LEAD. It needs to completely summarise the article and not contain any text that is not within the body of the article.
• Image:BTR-90.jpg I don't think this qualifies as Fair-use. Free images are available and we have one lower down in the article.
• WP:MOSNUM: In the infobox and throughout, you should convert forms of measurement, {{convert}} is useful for that. It also puts in non-breaking spaces which are needed (30 mm)

Content stuff

• The prose needs a lot of work: Development was commenced in the early 90s... should be Development commenced in the early 90s...
• There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs. These should be merged so that the text flows better.
• What does 8X8 wheeled mean? It looks like it has 4 wheels on each side to the layman. Can you explain what this means in the text?
• The "Variants" section seems to be very small. Can it be expanded?
• Some sources also call it the Rostok APS. This isn't discussed in the text.

This is not a complete list, but it should provide you with a start. The article is a very good start, it just needs finishing and expansion in places. If you have any questions, leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maestrale class frigate

i cleaned up this article and feel that it is pretty good hornplayer2 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Were you interested in expanding the article and taking it higher in class? Right now I would rate it a C-class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i was just trying to clean it up. im not really sure how much i can expand it, based on my knowledge (zero) on this subject. hornplayer2 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should have put in an Assessment Request where a Peer review is more tuned towards editors seeking comments on how to improve the article to make A or FA class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This article is off to a good start, but at present it wouldn't quality for B-class. My suggestions for how you could further improve it are:

• The article is short and doesn't fully cover the topic. Iowa class battleship is a good example for the kinds of topics which could be covered.
• The article presently doesn't have any inline citations - lots of these are added so that all of its text is supported by a citation
• Some of the prose is a bit awkward, and the article would benefit from a copy-edit
• 'ONU' needs to be spelled out
• The 'Lupo vs Maestrale' section needs a new, more formal, title (eg, something like 'comparison with Lupo class'). The fact that the Maestrales are upgraded Lupos should be in one of the first paragraphs of the article rather than this section. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere

This article seems to be OK, but needs quite a bit of work before it can make B or GA class.

• I've copy-edited it for you, it has lots of serious trouble with grammatical errors and formatting.
• The other main issue is that it is full of jargon, which I have not removed as I am not familiar enough with the modern naval weaponry. Abbreviations throughout need to be explained in detail and linked.
• The article still has a very informal tone, which I have not fixed due to time constraints.
• It needs many more citations. It has only two references, and no inlines anywhere. I've added some citation needed tags, but there are many more places which need to be fixed.
• Also, the article should talk briefly about the service history of each ship, see Nimitz class aircraft carrier for an example.

Overall it is a good start, but C-class at best, if that, and needs to have some serious time and effort put into it to have it become B/GA. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Zanzibar War

I have (with the kind help of other contributors) recently expanded this article and had it featured on WP:DYK. Ideally I would like to eventually nominate it as a GA but am aware that it will probably require some improvement before then and welcome any suggestions. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should just mention the other main contributer is User:Nishkid64 - Dumelow (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Nonyameko 41.116.8.185 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Woody

• Overall, I have to say it is looking good. All the information is there, a good set of images, well referenced. There are problems with prose though, it needs a very thorough copyedit. I rearranged the section headers at the bottom, in line with WP:LAYOUT.
• Some comments:
• The title should be at Anglo–Zanzibar War (note the endash).

Thanks, I'm always getting caught out by WP:Dash, I'll move it there. Fixed

• Image:Zanzibar palace guard low.JPG What makes this fair-use? I am not seeing the Guard discussed at detail in the prose which is neccessary for it to comply with the Fair-use policy. It is being used for decorative, rather then informative purposes.

That sounds fair enough, I'll delete that. Fixed

• You might consider un-linking the dates per the constantly evolving style guidelines. There are so few links, especially full links, that I don't think there is any benefit here from having them linked.

Yeah the recent change in policy has caught me out there. I'll sort them. Fixed

• A lot of the "HMS ..." links are to dab pages, make sure you link to the correct article.

Good point, I'll take a look. Fixed

• I think the paragraph that starts with "Sultan Hamud was loyal to the British..." is very choppy. It looks like bullet points put straight into a paragraph; particularly: "The wreck of the Glasgow sank in such a way that her masts remained out of the water and she could be seen in the harbour for several years after the war."

Sorry about that, I am not a good prose writer (an engineering student, in fact!) and it can just end up as a jumble of facts. I'll take a look over the whole article and try to get it to "flow" better.

• Other than that, I can't find any glaring MOS errors, it is a good length, so I would go for GA. Woody (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it and for your helpful comments. I have just got back from an eight day holiday so I'll get onto the problems you've highlighted as soon as possible. In addition I hope to get access to another good source which will add useful info within a week or so. After that, and a good copyedit, I'll take it over to GA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

poster Angelina Nonyameko Zinti 41.116.8.185 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

TAM (tank)

This article passed an A-class review last month, but I don't want to put it up for FAC because during the review some people said that it's reliance on a single major source would handicap its progress. Unfortunately, there are no other major sources which can be used for the article. Therefore, I bring it to a peer review to see if I can get it prepared (in some way) for FAC. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Shimgray

It seems somewhat unclear what the main armament is. The infobox says "FM K.4 Modelo 1L", and links this to Royal Ordnance L7, which page also claims the L7 was used on the TAM. However, the main text says "Ultimately, this gun was substituted with the modified L7A2 and finally with Rheinmetall's Rh-105-30 105mm gun. This gun is manufactured in Argentina as the FM K.4 Modelo 1L". To further complicate things, the Rheinmetall LTA2 is listed on the Rheinmetall page as having been the gun used for the TAM.

So... which is it? We have a number of options, some being the same as others but with different names. Were there two production batches with different guns? Shimgray | talk | 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rheinmetall's Rh-105-30 is the same thing as the L7A3, which is why it all links back to Royal Ordnance's L7A3; it's just manufactured in Germany. The FM K.4 Modelo 1L is the same gun, manufactured in Argentina. I'm not sure what the LTA2 is, and that's not even covered in Rheinmetall's website - that article is wrong, and that article should probably be renamed something like Rheinmetall 105mm tank-gun (which I have suggested before). Then again, it might be better just to merge LTA2 with Royal Ordnance L7, since neither article is long enough to justify having the Rheinmetall 105mm gun as its own article (there is no separate article for the M256, there's just Rheinmetall 120mm gun). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That all makes sense - all these local licenses and so on confused me! Perhaps omitting the intermediate L7A2 and explicitly mentioning that the Rh-105-30 is a modified L7 would clarify matters? Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "old" version of the article (before Jon's comprehensive and documented re-creation) it was mentioned that three different main guns were used, roughly according to "production batches":

• Licence-built British Royal Ordnance L7A1 105 mm tank gun (first vehicles)
• Rheinmetall LTA2 105 mm tank gun (most vehicles)
• Licence-built French CN-105-57 105 mm tank gun (final vehicles)

Unfortunately, this information is unsupported by any bibliography and I guess this is why Jon left it out the current incarnation. Which is Ok, after all, as info should be verifiable (this info is still in the article's current version in the Spanish Wikipedia).
Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis Hassett

I created this article some time ago, and have recently re-built it adding additional information and references. I would like to seek any ideas for improvement. Any and all ideas and comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Overall a high-quality article. Just a few comments based on my read-through:

• There's a heavy reliance on government or Australian Army sources. For a guy this high up, there's gotta be an external book or print source on him. I'll snoop around a bit to see if I can find anything (although you likely have better access to that stuff than I do;)

• Strangely enough, for a man this distinguished there is very little information available on him, and the majority of what there is available only came out after his death. There was a biography published on Hassett only a few years ago, but it was only small circulation and I think it is now out of print; so I have so far been unable to obtain a copy. I'd really appreciate it if you were to find any further information. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "retirement" section is quite skimpy. Would it be possible to expand this at all? (i.e. did he receive any honorary awards after his retirement? Did he teach at a military college in Australia? All that standard "retired-general-stuff"). Given that he retired 30 years before he died, he likely didn't just sit around the entire time (granted, the ill health might have led to some unpleasant medical work, if that's the case that could go in here).

• There is very little I can find on his retirement; I don't even know what he was sick with before he died! But I'll have a look around and see if I can find anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's several footnotes lacking retrieval dates

• Yes, another editor doubled up on the references I had already provided on his honours and placed ones from the "It's an Honour" website into the article. I'll convert them into the reference template I used for the other references. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All the best with taking the article forward. Good work! Cam (Chat) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appriciate you having a look, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. My only comments are:

• If more material is available on Hassett's performance in World War II it would be valuable - do we know why he was appointed a Lt Col at 23 (presumably his staff work impressed his superiors to a great degree) and there's not much on what staff roles he filled between 1942 and 1945.

• There isn't really much information available on this area, although I think I may have found a source where I can purchase a copy of his biography from. If I am able to obtain a copy sometime soon then hopefully I can fill in the extra gaps in the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• As the Australian Defence Force was established in February 1976 Hassett wasn't the "professional head of the Australian Defence Force" on his appointment in 1975, but rather the chairman of the relatively weak Chiefs of Staff Committee. When the ADF was established he became its first commander (a distinction which should be mentioned in the article) and enjoyed somewhat expanded powers. I can provide references from David Horner's excellent book Making the Australian Defence Force if that would be of assistance. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would be great if you would be able to do that. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Thanks for having a look, Nick. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've just added that in - I hope that it's clear - let me know if it isn't. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect! Thank you very much! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

No comments of my own, just comments on comments.

• A biography of was published in 2005.
  • Essex-Clark, John (2005). Hassett: Australian Leader. Australian Military History Publications. ISBN 1 876439 65 3.

I have a copy. If you want to spring for one too, you can still get it from Australian Military History Publications

• I came across that the other day, and fully intend to purchase a copy when I am able. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hassett didn't do much in retirement. He wrote some articles on military subjects. His only honour received in retirement was Colonel Commandant of the Royal Australian Regiment, which he relinquished some years ago. He was also Life Governor of the Royal Australian Regiment Foundation, a charitable body associated with the regiment. He used to be a regular attendee at Maryang San Day at Holsworthy and he unveiled the battle honour "Maryang San" on the 3RAR colour at a parade at the Australian War Memorial in 1995. His portrait is in the Australian War Memorial and actually on display.
• Hassett was hospitalised for stomach ulcers in 1942 and again in 1946. In 1952 a serious bleed led to a gastrectomy operation. He suffered another bleed in 1967. An undetected blocked bile duct led to pain and bouts of nausea for several years. He also had cardiovascular problems. (Essex, p. 247) What he died from I don't know either.
• Hassett became GSO2 (Ops) at II Corps on 6 June 1942, when he was also promoted to lieutenant colonel. In October he was posted to the LHQ Staff School at Duntroon. In 1943 he became GSO1 (Ops) at LHQ in Melbourne. He was posted as GSO1 (Liaison) at II Corps in December 1943 and as such served in New Guinea in the Huon Peninsula campaign, where he contracted dysentery and dengue fever. II Corps became I Corps in April 1944. He was posted to 3rd Division as GSO1 in February 1945. (Essex, pp. 143-151) I can get you the exact dates if you want.

• Thank you for all the information! I'll see if I can work it into the article. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Very good piece, Bryce. However, it doesn't really answer the question – which I suppose is implicit in all biographical articles – "What was he like?" Some background on his interests would be good. You mention sport earlier on but that's about it. Did he ever take on an honorary sports roles in retirement? Any good anecdotes? Was he funny, dry? What did his men think of him? What was he like as a commander? What characterises his command style (boldness, reticence)? If you can bring this man to life in this article, you'll turn it from a very good article into an outstanding one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the very annoying and irritating factor with Hassett - there is very little information out there to find on him, and even less on his personal life. It was a struggle to find out that he had four children with his wife! I am very grateful to Hawkeye7 for supplying some very good information above, but the reason I have not yet included it in the article is because I fully intend to purchase a copy of Hassett's biography myself, and hopefully it will prove me with some very valuable information to include in the article. The only question that you have asked that I can really answer is that his men adored him, and considered him to be an inspirational leader. Thanks for having a look, Roger; I'll get onto purchasing a copy of the biography soon so I can expand and improve this article further and hopefully address the issues you have raised. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries can often yield some background stuff:

• The Times (London)
• Daily Telegraph (London)
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Anecdotal stuff from his funeral

Hope this helps. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Roger! Two of the items I have already used as sources in the article, but I have had a quick look at the other two and there seems to be some good additional sections of interest included in these. I will add the additional information to the article over the comming days. Thanks again, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I should have looked more closely first [blush]. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, don't be sorry; it shows that you actually took the time to search for additional information to help me, and I really appreciate that. Thanks Roger, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

References [finally] used, and additional facts and information added. Thanks again, Roger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Percy Herbert Cherry

I have significantly edited and improved this article recently, and was seeking any ideas and suggestions for improvement. I have nominated it for GA, and am currently waiting for a willing editor to review it and asertain whether it meets the GA criteria. In the mean time, I have decided to conduct a peer review. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks in advance, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Looking very good. A few comments:

• ...became a complete all-rounder; all-rounder at what exactly?

Basicly, he was involved in several activities/groups and excelled at most, if not all, of them. However, as others have been confused over this confusion, I have removed it from the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• 03:00 on the 2 March, don't need "the"

Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the notes, ammended should be amended.

Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, struggling to find issues; it is looking very good indeed, reads well to me, images are all properly licensed, all topics well-cited: well done. Woody (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

Greetings, I worked on this article via the SPOT and we decided to go for GA. Now that is passed, the aim is A Class and eventually FA. I feel that currently the article is in good shape, however I am sure it needs outside input. I am curious about areas the article can be expanded, issues of undue weight, and NPOV. Further, any suggestions regarding prose would be appreciate. As always, much thanks for taking the time to review. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Prose

• French National Guarde > "National Guard"
• In the lead, mention why was he imprisoned by the Austrians?
• Leaving the marquis title > "the marquessate"
• Lafayette was raised by his paternal grandmother, Madame de Chavaniac, Madeleine de Motier and Charlotte Guérin. Who are de Motier and Guérin? They probably need introducing, this will help the flow of the sentence too.
• In 1768, Lafayette's grandfather wanted the young man to travel to the Palais du Luxembourg Did he go? Was he introduced?
• 1 million livres > "one million livres"?
• bought the cargo to avoid the islands > "bought the cargo to avoid docking"?
• Upon arrival > "On arrival" (less literary?)
• in the "Conflict and imprisonment" section, Georges appears to go to the U.S. twice. (He's also referred to as "George" in the "Death" paragraph.)

References

• Consider truncating the citations (ie "Holbrook, Lafayette, Man in the Middle, pages 67–68" to "Holbrook, pp 67–68"). The full titles are given below anyway.
• Consider using refname function so that multiple references can be made to the same page. These appear thus: "^{^ a b c} Holbrook, p. 13."

Overall

• Excellent work. Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you much for your suggestions, all of which (with the exception of one) have been incorporated into the article. I have a question about the 3rd. What do you mean by the marquis portion? Should marquis be styled marquessate? Again, thanks for the review! Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was the family title could be referred to as the "marquessate" (in the same way as a king's fief is called a kingdom}. It also has the advantage of a better supporting article explaining what it is. Only a suggestion though :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It is a better article. I've linked to the marquessate article. Also, on another note, what do you think of the references now? I truncated them as much as I thought possible. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The refs look good, though a purist might sniff at page and pages in favor of "p." and "pp." :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...ok, I'll see what can be done. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pohick2

very good work

• Barren Hill - I believe assigned command of advanced guard by washington, which the british ambushed, and he slipped through the trap.
• Virginia campaign - again assigned independant command taking over from Baron Steuben, almost captured at battle of green spring, near [[3]]green spring plantation, saved by mad anthony wayne's counterattack, acted as go between at yorktown with Rochambeau
• also some mention of the differing assessment of americans and the french would be nice. user talk:Pohick2 203:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the review. Good points, all. I will address these in the next few days. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning this up

• Barren Hill - i believe the sequence of events is - British withdrawal from Phila to NY, Lafayette assigned advanced guard with picked men (including Washington's life guard), British get wind and send out rear guard to ambush, outflank Lafayette get between him and main body at Valley Forge, Lafayette sees and recovers, feints with 'heads of columns', marches via sunken road back to main body, British continue withdrawal

(complicated little skirmish)

• • Ya, from what I read you're correct. Lafayette was sent by Washington with 2,200 men to reconnoiter. Howe was recalled, and had a large party on 18 May. The next day, he heard that Lafayette had made camp nearby. Howe sent 5,000 men that day, and himself led a further 6,000 the following day. General Potter was unable to protect Lafayette's left flank, but the British force waited for reinforcements, enabling Lafayette to escape (feints, etc) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Battle of Green Spring more of a skirmish than battle, reminiscent of Barren Hill, hmm, i seem to recall that Lafayette was with the advanced guard, got ambushed, and Wayne attacked to keep him from being captured, unlike what the article says, but i will look up my sources Pohick2 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. Lafayette was with the advanced guard when Wayne led the bayonet charge. After the attack, Lafayette ordered the retreat. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks much for brining these things up. I'm away until late tomorrow, but will start into these soon. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • good job incorporating changes, the Barren Hill is hard to condense the action, i might add something about the British stategic move from Phila to NYC - both actions do give a flavor for Lafayette's bravery, and independant command (minor military history); Virginia campaign shows Fabian strategy learned from Washington, but Richmond was burned, Tarleton chased Jefferson, etc.
• Oh, i don't know if cornwallis was preparing port, or waiting to get shipped to NYC from Yorktown (it was an existing tobacco port) Pohick2 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • • • Thanks. During the original rewrite, I skimmed over Barren Hill because I was concerned about space. But, I'm glad that you mentioned it, because I think it demonstrates Lafayette's reaction to a numerically superior force (as he would face similar unbalanced fields throughout his career). Cornwallis had been ordered to build a deep water port at Yorktown for an eventual attack on Philadelphia-I'm sure you're correct, that there was already a port, but assumedly it wasn't outfitted for a navy of that magnitude...Lazulilasher (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
        • good point a lot of this was confusion of written orders far from NYC, hope you don't mind my transition from barren hill to monmouth, yes i think it good to show the proof of capability of independant command (unlike Gates) although a little reckless that seems a character trait
• Gates remind me of Lafayette's role in exposing the Conway cabal, they trusted him, and he went right to Washington with some damning letters Pohick2 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hughie Edwards

I have recently been working on this article, and was seeking any ideas for improvement. Any and all ideas and comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Looks good. A few comments, not really much to be honest.

• Might want to link "Ailerons" in Early life, it doesn't provide context otherwise.

•  Fixed

• "Due to the accident, he was declared unfit for flying until April 1940 when he was posted to No. 139 Squadron." This is slightly unclear, does that mean that in April 1940 he had recovered and was posted to 139, or he was posted to 139 to recover?

• I think I have made it clear now, if not, can you please say so and I will go back and fix it up. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few jargon issues that I can say. A few more wikilinks to explain them would be helpful I feel: Substantive rank, General Officer Commanding etc

•  Fixed Although there is no page that I could find relating to substantive rank. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the references you use two types of date format: ISO 2008-08-24 and the International 23 August 2008. This needs to be consistent, so use |accessdaymonth= |accessyear=}} instead.

•  Fixed I was meaning to fix this, but was a little slack. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The text generally doesn't flow in some paragraphs. It is just a list of appointments.

• I agree; particually in the "Later career" section. However, I do not know how else I can write these sections, as I do not have any resources that state what else he did during this period of time. Any suggestions on how I can improve these areas? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing is written about his personal life. Did he do anything outside the RAF, get married perhaps? You mention his wife once, in the later life section. Did they have any children? Where did the couple live etc.

• Again, I was meaning to include more in this area, but was slack. He was married twice and had two children, but his first marriage was in 1942 and I am not sure exactly when, so I was unsure how I was going to include his marriage in the World War II section without knowing when it was or where to place it. But, I'm sure I will think of something, and more will be included in this area shortly. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have added more in this area now, so hopefully it should be ok. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am not so sure the ribbons are needed, but personal preference I suppose.

• Personally, I don't like this section at all, but was afraid of retribution if I was to remove it. I will remove the section and use this peer review as a reason why. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, I really can't find many problems with it. There is limited scope for expansion, it is all there apart from the comment above about personal life. The references are there and reliable. So, I would clean up my issues and possibly head off to A-Class to see if there is anything I missed! Good work. Woody (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks mate! Do you really think it is good enough for A-Class if I fix the above areas? Thanks for your input Woody, I really appreciate it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere

Overall I think it looks pretty good. Comments below.

• "Under heavy opposition," in the paragraph about the Philips Factory raid seems awkward, might despite heavy opposition be better?

•  Fixed

• Did anything notable happen to him in 1944? Everything is covered in detail up to February 1943, and then it skips to January 1945.

• None of the sources I have on hand go into much detail nor do they mention this period of time. However, I have just purchased a copy of his biography which sould be arriving early next week, and I should be able to get some useful information out of this. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than saying his second wife was "knocked over," might it be better to say she was "hit by a car" or something like that, to clarify? Knocked over could be taken to mean that somebody came up and punched her, for example.

• Changed to "after being knocked over by a car on a crosswalk". Lol, I like your example. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph on the controversy over his knighthood needs to be cited. It's very debatable and one of the least cited places in the article.

• This section was added quite sometime ago by another editor, and I contacted him to ask if he would be able to supply me with a reference. However, he was unable to find a published reference for this section by stated it was quite publicised in the media at this time. I was hoping I would be able to find something in the biography I have just purchased; otherwise I guess I will have to remove the section. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The book has now arrived, and I have referenced this section. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

These were all the problems I was able to find besides the ones Woody mentioned. I think it's a great article, and has a decent shot at A-class. Joe (Talk) 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look mate; I appreciate it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blair Anderson Wark

Prior peer review located here.

I am requesting a peer review for this article with the aim of fixing up any problems and possibly improving it further before/if I take it to FAC. The article is rated A-Class with this project, but I have been reluctant to take it through FAC as it is relatively short, although is quite comprehensive. My decision has been swayed somewhat on viewing the article Issy Smith; a Featured Article also on a Victoria Cross recipient which is slightly shorter then Wark's. EyeSerene has also given the article a light copyedit. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• I'd say that the second paragraph of the lead needs to be extended a bit. I'll add some more comments when I can. Skinny87 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure how I can expand the lead, particularly the second paragraph, as it does summarise every major facet of Wark's life. The only thing I thought I could include in the lead that isn't there already is the fact that he established his own business; which I have now done so. Also, for an article of this size I think the two paragraphs there suit well, however I am open to any suggestions. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Maxwell

I have recently been working on this article, and was seeking any ideas for improvement. Any and all ideas and comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

• The second paragraph of the Lead seems a bit too much like original research to me. Can we stick to the facts? Most, if not all of that second paragraph is not included in the article itself.

• Sorry. I have since re-written the second paragraph to only include actual facets of his life. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...was training out of the line" Which line? Make sure you avoid jargon

• Changed to "... was training away from the frontline" Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MOSNUM: dates again, either link them all or none at all. (By that I mean those without years).

•  Fixed

• Note that autoformatting has been deprecated, i.e. no longer encouraged. It is no longer a policy nor guideline and should only be used if it adds value to the article in regards to the dates ("Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so."). There is also no rule to state that if a date is linked, the rest of the dates should be linked as well. Read WP:MOSNUM carefully. Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Change World War I to the Commonwealth-English First World War.

•  Fixed

• Is there anything more on his early life? It seems a bit small in comparison to the rest of the article.

• The information there is all I can obtain from the sources I possess, but there is a book that was recently published that I think has more information on Maxwell; so hopefully I can add to the early life section when I obtain a copy of the said book. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, I can't really see much wrong with it. It looks good, comprehensive, images are there, a few instance of jargon, well sourced. Well done. Woody (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)a

• Thanks Woody. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

I had performed a copyedit and these are my thoughts on going through the article.

• Continually specifying the dates he went into the hospital, go into a rehabilitation area, and back to the unit is redundant. Instead of making it a calender-like chronicle of events, trivial matters can be eliminated and stronger focus (grammar, style, content) paid to the key events of Maxwell's life.
• "Wire" (barbwire lines of defence, barbwire fence?) should be rendered in layman terms or clear to the general reader (who might wonder what is the significance of a single wire for the Germans).

• I have slightly re-worded this area, so hopefully it is okay now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think a full quote of the citation for Maxwell's Victoria Cross is needed. Just quote the key text (i.e. the last three paragraphs or such).

• It is common practice to give the full quote of a Victoria Cross recipient's VC citation. See Harry Murray, Issy Smith and Eric Gascoigne Robinson, all are VC articles of at least GA status and include the full VC citation. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did Hell's Bells and Mademoiselles enjoy any literary or commercial success?

• I'm not sure actually, all of the sources I have don't specify how well the book was, but I will have a look around to see if I can find out. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Maxwell's deeds can, on the whole, speak for him and need not be pettered with superfluous details like exact dates of each event. Eliminating the need to specify each date would remove a prose- or timeline feel to the article, allowing the reader or editor to focus on the prominent events of this soldier's life. Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

I've just expanded this article and would like it to progress to B-class and hopefully on to A class. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

Looks very good. On a first glance: 1) A few more cites at the end of paragraphs 2) Spell checking. The difference between American spelling and British spelling keeps me from correcting all the typos.

Hope that helps until I can do a more through read.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the cites to the end of sentences or paragraphs and added a couple more - let me know what you think. My spell checker (UK english) only objected to redesignation and proper names. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Benea

Just a quick comment, I'll have a more thorough look later, but shouldn't the full 'World War I' and 'World War II' be used, rather than the abbreviation? Or given that this is about a British act, the more standard commonwealth English usage, i.e. 'First World War' and 'Second World War'? Benea (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed WWI and WWII as you suggest Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Looking good: I have assessed it as B-Class. It meets all those criteria. A few comments:

General

• I am not sure whether to class this as a list article or as an "article" article. I think this is in the grey area between the two, a grey area that is yet to be adequately defined over at FAC/FLC. In that sense, you could head either way. You could split off the list of protected shipwrecks into a separate list, that could easily reach FL class, all the information is there. It is then a question of finding anymore information (if there is any) to fill out the main article and bring that up to FA.

Good point. There is some extra material for the main article. I've added a wish list on the article's talk page. It is then a question of deciding how much text the list article should have Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

After additional expansion of the list of designated sites (2012 & 2017), I have split the embedded table into its own list article. Que (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Are there any cross-overs with List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act. A point of expansion might be any cross-overs with that. Was the Miiltary Remains Act a split from the Protection of Wrecks Act?

I think it would be good to have something discussing the POW. There is no overlap in fact (i.e. no vessels designated under both), although legalistically there is nothing to stop this. I'm not aware of any secondary sources however that have discussed this, so the potential for verifiable material will be limited to the factual statements. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS specific

• I agree with Benea, First World War/Second World War should be used instead of WWI and WWII, it looks more professional.

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure that your date-links are consistent. You need to either remove all date links, or link all of the dates in the table.

dates in table now linked with dts Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would link High Court in its first instance.

linked Merchant Navy, High Court, Appeal Court and Secretary of State Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• References should come after punctuation.

Think this is all done now (thanks to David Underdown) Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some reviewers at FAC strongly prefer the references to be at the end of sentences/paragraphs so as not to interrupt the flow of articles. I am ambivalent, but some reviewers have stronger feelings on the matter.

I've done this, except where I think it's necessary to separate the links for the 2002, 2006 and 2008 designations Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:DASH, there should be an emdash in the table. ([[Jutland]]—International Waters)

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, some small MOS things, but this is a very good article, well-written. Good work, if you have any questions, leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Lets have those "little arrows" at the top of the table, that allow you to sort the columns. Mind, you'll have to probably edit the text a bit to make it "sorting friendly". Ryan4314 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and in the table, change the use of "Falklands" link to either "Falkland Islands/War", this wont affect the size of the columns and it looks a bit sloppy (sorry I mean that in a nice way ;). Ryan4314 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Airman Basic

I recently re-built this article with complete sourcing as it previously has none. I'd like to build it up/clean it up, but don't really know where to go from here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

I like the idea of the article; maybe because I was once in AFJROTC. Two quibbles:

• What does an AB actually do? They obviously don't fly the planes. If just grunt work, what kind, as obviously it can't be too technical.
• Back when I was in AFJROTC, we were told that having three years in allowed us to skip a few ranks. Is that still the case? Might be worth mentioning?
• How does AB compare to similar E-1s in other countries' air forces?

Hope this helps.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that's three quibbles.  ;^)

• A previous iteration of the article talked about the expectations and duties of an AB, but I removed it as unsourced. Previously it said

  Airmen Basic are generally those currently in their initial training status, either in Basic Military Training (BMT) or attending their technical training school, adapting to the requirements of military life, acquiring knowledge of military customs and courtesies, learning to adhere to Air Force standards and guidelines, and striving to attain technical competency in their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). If holding the rank of Airman Basic at their first permanent duty station, they are capable of performing basic tasks under OJT or close supervision.

  Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? I'll look more into depth for that sort of stuff if it is.
• That's true; I completed three years of AJROTC and put on my first stripe right out of BMT. Is that pertinent? Maybe? I'll look more into the sourcing available and get back to that.
• Hrm. This could be most difficult to source, to find information about other militaries' enlisted ranks and the duties and expectations thereof. I'll definitely look into it though, thanks!

Much appreciation for your input, Bedford! If you can think of anything else, I'd love to have more! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

A good start, it is a solid base. It is unlucky that I can't give you a good example to follow as I couldn't find one that has already been developed. So, you are a trail-blazer. So, onto the comments:

MOS suggestions

• Perhaps link E-1 in the Lead
• The MOS/WP:LAYOUT dictates to us mortals that ==See also== goes above == notes and references.==
• Make sure your dates are consistent, some are linked, some aren't.

Areas for expansion

• I would have a section on responsibilities, what are the jobs that they typically do? Are there any specialisations?
• How have these changed over time, if anything?
• I would have a section on comparisons with other foreign E-1s. Are there any variations in responsibilities.?
• Where are they accomodated? On base? Barracks etc?
• Is there anymore on the history. What were the recommendations from the "studies made in 1950 and 1951." You could expand on the reasoning behind the creation of the ranks.

So, a few areas to improve. If you have any questions, you can leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping to find a shining example for wherefrom to proceed; that's actually why I brought it to this review to get input on the previously unexplored territory.

• E-1 is just a (poor) disambiguation page, ultimately incorrectly linking to the Army's rank as its meaning. I might expound more on the connection to the NATO ranking structure that it's tied into, especially with regard to the above comment about other militaries.
• Does it? Done. I should probably comprehensively read the MoS someday. Not today though.
• I think they should all be de-linked unless following the link to that specific date can be important to the context. I've been counseled on that before. Done.
• As above, I'll look more into sources and see if I can either (a) source what was there before or (b) build something new with what sources I can find.
• Yikes! Maybe, although that seems to be somewhat hopeful on my part to find. I'll look into it though.
• See above, will look into.
• Ooh, that's good. Should be easy enough to source & cite; thanks.
• I only have one source for the history of enlisted ranks right now, so will look into more to see if I can better flesh out that information. Thanks.

Thanks for the great input, Woody! If you can think of anything else, please feel free to lay it on me! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

This article has promise, and is very interesting. A few suggestions below; I'll try not to repeat what was said above.

• More on the duties of the rank. What is this rank for? Why have it?
• You may wish to move the style of address out of the lead, this doesn't seem like something to go in there.
• In 1959 why was the name change?
• Why did the studies recommend changing the name? Expand on the results of them.
• Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but why is the promotion blocked unless the commanding officer recommends it, but is always made once the people who enlisted for six years have completed the training course? That seems self-contradictory to me, but again, I may very well be confused and misreading it.
• It might be interesting to note why they have no rank insignia, when Seaman Recruit and Private (rank) both wear one.

Otherwise it looks pretty good, good luck improving it. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That would sort of traipse more into the history of the E-1 in general, which I don't think I want to get too into here. Maybe just a "here's where it came from" with a wikilink to a more in-depth historical look at American enlisted ranks?
• I may, and I've thought the same, although I don't think there's anywhere it would fit well at this time. After some expansion as suggested in this review, I think I'll have someplace better for it to go.
• ... I don't know. /me checks. My source doesn't say, so I'll just have to flounder on that point and see if I can find out.
• I'll try to find that information. I can opine if you're personally curious, though.  :^)
• I tried to clarify it; all promotions require the signature, the exceptions are only as to how long AB is worn before promotion is eligible.
• I think that's a mistake on your part; all US military E-1s have no rank insignia. (a) The Army has two "Private" ranks, only the E-2 wears the single chevron. (b) The Coast Guard wears the single stripe Seaman Recruit rank, but the Navy does not.

Thanks for the compliment! I really appreciate your input and if you have more, I'm happy to hear it! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hines

Thomas Hines is high on my list on subjects I wanted to reach FA sometime. I have made a major overhaul of the article, and request it be inspected to see if it could pass a GA review.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Overall, a good article, some comments:

• "...as an grammar instructor." Is that meant to be ironic? ;) (a grammar instructor)

•  Fixed

• Hines was five feet nine inches tall, and weighed a mere 140 pounds. You need the metric equivalents and non-breaking spaces in-between the measurements. (written as 140 pounds)

• I've never been good at this. When this gets DYK exposure on Main Page, it will be done by someone.

• No idea what this is meant to say: "(known are known to serve in the Union army). "

•  Fixed

• I am not aware of the ranking system of the Confederate Army, but was he promoted to First Lieutenant or Second Lieutenant or was it just Lieutenant then?

• Source does not specify

• Captain is a DAB page, please correct the link.

•  Fixed

• The gravestone image is way too big, please leave it at default thumb size.

•  Fixed

• I know you made the Image:Hines Raid Map.jpg, but we could do with the book that you photocopied it from for licensing purpose (or provide the original).

• It was made for my Master's Thesis, entitled Galloping Up the Glen" pg.25--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• With reference to "despite the rules of law, " what rules of law? This needs to be explained for the general reader.

•  Fixed

• "...the Confederate officers used hooks to climb the twenty-five foot tall wall effortless..." That needs rewording as it makes no sense.

•  Fixed

• The misinformation section needs to be sourced, referenced and cited.

•  Fixed

• You can remove the ==see also == section as the links are already in the text as a {{see also}} hatnote.

•  Fixed

• References should be renamed "Notes" and the sources section can remain the same, or renamed to References as is convention.

•  Fixed

So, overall, there are a lot of problems with prose. It needs a good read-through before any FAC, though it seems to be complete. It just needs finishing now. Some more references are needed in places, though I think it will be ready for GAN after you fix some of the above issues. If you have any questions, you can leave them at my talkpage or here. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is looking better. I would suggest that you put it up for GAN, but before ACR/FAC, I would strongly suggest it undergoes a copyedit. You might want to list it at WP:MHL to find a copy-editor. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

It's a very good start, and I learned a lot from reading it. Here are some comments:

• In the lead, cite being on the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and the resemblance to John Wilkes Booth. Fixed
• In Early Life there was a typo; I went ahead and fixed this for you.
• "Coolness and leadership" needs a citation.. Fixed
• Colonel Duke's comment about how lazy he is needs to be cited.. Fixed
• Cincinnati, Ohio should only be linked the first time it occurs.. Fixed

Besides that I don't see any real problems. It is an excellent B-class, and would probably pass GAN now. I wish you luck on A-Class and FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I corrected all the problems you saw (I believe I saw what you meant by lazy).--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

Have made a number of improvements to the article. Would appreciate comments and suggestions for further work. Buckshot06(prof) 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Overall, it has problems, the majority stemming from the article being the product of plagiarism. Some comments:

• "Selecting the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) was easy, since everyone’s first choice..." That is just speculation and not very encyclopedic in its tone, just say "The first choice for Commander was..."
• Actually, after looking into it, this section is copied directly from NATO which might be an infringement of copyright, but is most certainly plagiarism. Remove the copied text and write neutrally and in your own words.
• The relocation to Belgium section could be more concise. Merge the short paragraphs (ie all of them) into three or four all-consuming paragraphs.
• It is currently very bullet-pointy, the prose needs a lot of work in this section to make it flow. Again, this is the result of plagiarism from NATO.
• All of the references need to be formatted correctly. Many of them are missing titles, publishers, dates etc. They all need to be written consistently, citation templates can help with this.
• Just have it as a "Further reading" section.
• "ACO is likely to also take command at some point of the..." Instead, write "ACO is likely to take command of ... " and then vigorously source this and the whole structure section.
• There are a lot of unsourced speculative statements, make sure they are referenced and cited.

So, needs a complete rewrite to remove some neutrality issues, which all stem from this article being a copy of the NATO website. It is full of jargon in places as well. Some work still needed. If you have any questions, I will watch this PR, but of course my talkpage is always open. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

As Woody said, it is very poorly written. It is full of Jargon, some of the prose reads badly, and there's the plagiarism issue. Other than that, it isn't too bad. The structure is fine, although the "Structure" section could use a lot of work. Also, you may wish to make it more obvious that the command structure isn't the current one. The history section could be combined into one or two paragraphs (this throughout the article). Borg Sphere (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Military sociology

As a part of an educational assignment (details here) a group of students has created this article, with the aim of bringing is as close to Good Article criteria as possible. I think the article has reached a level where there is substantive content to review. Comments would be appreciated. Can we transclude this review at Talk:Military sociology? I am afraid the new editors may have trouble finding the review via the MILHIST template.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

I've been watching this article religiously since Piotrus brought it to the MILHIST projects attention, and have in the process been making mental notes for things that need improvement. The article has a ways to go before getting to GA, but I am impressed at the amount of work that has thus far been done.

• To begin with, aim for completeing the B-class criteria. This means
  • Adding images to the article
  • Ensuring that all information in the article is cited according to the Milhist Manual of Style (MoS)
  • Copyeditting the material present. This includes:
    • Removing all instances of question/answer format;
    • Checking for the proper use of grammar;
    • Checking that all words are spelled correctly;
    • Ensure that all punctuation in the article is correclty formatted.
• Wikilink. Roll up your sleeves and add [[]] to every term or phrase that may have an article here. At present your article lacks a lot the internal linking other article rely on to better explain terms and jargon and such. This will be an issue at a GA review, so handeling now will spare you the headache later.
• See if there are any aplicable info boxes that could be added to the article. I can say for near certainty there will not be any at milhist, but that may not be true over at WP:Sociology.
• Make sure your references are, and remain, properly formatted. Earlier today someone added <ref>1</ref> to the article, which I assume was meant to inform people to g to the 1st cited reference in the section; if this was in fact the case then the reference needs to be reformatted. Those at the GA review will come down hard on this as a result of shifting standards at FAC (I found this out the hard way, as it was a major hangup for the Montana class battleship article during its FAC bid)
• If at all possible try to figure out a way of getting the military sociology line in ahead of the definition of military and sociology; as it stands this formatting in the intro is ackward.
• I am dueling with the administration at UTEP at the moment over alleged finicial inconsistancy, but I will make an honest effort to get back here and update my comments as you all address them. In the mean time though I do hope this helps. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ALR

First of all, good effort to those who have been contributing so far. I hope that the interest doesn't wane. I have a few observations, some of which are already active on the talk page.

• The opening sentence doesn't really capture what the article is about, but instead opens with a wooly definition of military and kind of gets to the point eventually. In all honesty I wouldn't have bothered reading the article as there is no hook to bring me in. I would suggest stating that MilSociology is the use of the discipline in the military context, then define the discipline and what is meant by military, with sources. The purist meaning of Military is the officer corps of the army, whereas the article tends towards the popular usage of the three branches of the armed forces as a whole. Needs to be clear.
• Global context is an issue, several of the sections start from a presumption of the US case and a US readership. Looking at other articles that tends to lead to a structure of The US does it this way, then the UK does it this way, then the Canuks do it this way..... Not a particularly readable or informative style. I would suggest starting from the general case, then using some illustrative examples. The most obvious example here is the homosexuality section, which is US specific, never mind biased.
• Sourcing is non-existent in large chunks of the article, and some of the assumptions illustrate the opinions of the writers rather than practicality. The section on insular mindset reads to me like anti-military prejudice. that may not have been the intent of the originator, but that's how it comes across. I do, however, acknowledge that the US service culture is very different from many others, although experiences in the 'stan are helping that culture to mature. I do recall that the Military Brat article experienced a lot of problems with sourcing, and ended up having to focus exclusively on the US culture, because of the paucity of sources covering elsewhere.
• The deployment lifecycle needs to be completed, as in practice there are significant stresses associated with returning from deployment, or mid-deployment leave. Again it's worth considering the generic case, rather than the specifics around US deployment cycles. Personally I've had anything from 24 months to 48 hours notice, each brings it's own pressures.
• The research & industry section needs to be more general, it emphasises the current civilian bete noire of CBRN where that is a small part of most military/ industry interaction.

I'd suggest that each section needs to be written as a mini article in its own right, with a clear thesis at the beginning, then supporting material. That's very much a stylistic issue and I accept that most contributors probably aren't in a position where that's familiar. I hope that lot is found to be useful.

ALR (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

OK, this is the first time I've ever commented on one of these, so bear with me. I'll try not to repeat what others have said.

• I really didn't like the structuring. For example, there were no subheadings anywhere, just 12 major headings. The stages of stress could be integrated with where they were first mentioned; it felt strange to read about the stages once, go to a different topic, and then return to a more in-detail description of the stages of stress. Also, I would suggest making the stages into their own subheadings (===Initial shock===, etc.)
• The prose could flow a lot better throughout, but I noticed it most in the second section, but I can't put my finger on why.
• This was brought up before, but I'll say it again: citation. Many sections had no references, and others had controversial or other statements that needed citing but didn't have inlines.
• The table about minorities could use a key on the left, for each row. Minor, but it would make it easier to understand.
• And of course some images or infobox, sometime to break up the text and make it more interesting for a reader.

Borg Sphere (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge

The article recently passed GAN. Looking to promote to A-class in the future. Recognizing that material from the German side is not well studied in this particular case, I am seeking constructive criticism. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is certainly a good article. I learned a lot about this battle from it and I particularly like the use of images. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:

• The article needs a copy edit - some sentences are too long, and jargon should be stripped out  Done
• Things with articles of their own should only be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article (eg, there's no need to link to Canadian Corps, Battle of Verdun and the like multiple times)  Done
• The first sentence should be merged into the second paragraph  Done
• The 'Artillery' section is a bit abrupt - it doesn't really fit into the article at present given that it's a snapshot of the artillery support available and isn't focused on artillery's role in the battle plan
• The 'Tactical plan' section says that Canadian observations of the Battle of Verdun led to the adoption of more flexible tactics, but the 'Training' section attributes this to a British Army pamphlet - this seems a little bit contradictory as written

Some clarification has been made. I don't really see a contradiction however as the influences of the pamphlet were likely the result of the same Verdun lectures.

• The reasons why the Germans made such a limited response to a two week bombardment should be expanded upon, as this seems to have been remarkably lax. Were they short of reinforcements because of the need to respond to Allied offensives elsewhere?
• I haven't seen the term 'battle untested' used before  Done
• The sentence "The Canadian Corps had achieved an impressive advance however the failure to capture the entirety of Hill 145 or the Pimple left much of the territory gained in a tenuous state." needs a cite removed  Done
• I think that the 'Commemoration' section needs a lot of work. This section should explain the significance of the battle to Canada, and use the current content only as examples of this. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The section has been re-written in a Gallipoli Campaign style. Done

Borg Sphere

I also thought that this was a very good article, generally informative and good. Only a few issues:

• As Nick said, several major grammatical issues. A thorough copy-edit is needed. Done
• In the "Main Assault" section, you mention that one of the commanders in the 4th division asked to leave part of the trenches intact, but don't explain why. This is obviously unusual, so a bit more explanation might be nice. Done

More explanation would be nice, but unfortunately that's not possible. In the Godefroy's The 4th Canadian Division: 'Trenches Should Never be Saved' chapter of Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment he laments that no more data is provided in the Nicholson history or its citations. Labattblueboy (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then a perhaps a mention that the reason for this unusual choice is unknown?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Green," "new," "fresh," or something like that might be nice instead of battle untested. It makes it look like a translation by someone who doesn't speak idiomatic English and translated it literally (from French?). A couple other places also have this problem.  Done

What are the other examples that are of issue? Labattblueboy (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the Aftermath section, you might want to talk more about the long-term strategic implications of the ridge capture, for example if it was retaken during the 1918 Spring Offensive, if any attacks were launched from it later, etc.
• You might want to combine some more citations, for example, instead of Nicholson 262 and Nicholson 263, you might want to put Nicholson 262-3. I'm not sure what MOS says about this, but it seems to me that it would look better.

Overall an excellent article with only a few issues, the biggest of those being the need for a copyedit. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Albert Corey

I have recently been working on this article, and I was wondering if it might be good enough for me to nominate it for GA? All comments and ideas for improvment welcome. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Looks good, but seems a bit short to me.

• I agree; that is the main problem I thought I would have if I did try and nominate the article for GA, but there is very little information that I can find on the man, and all that I could went into the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS

• Per WP:MOSNUM, dates should either be linked completely, or not linked at all. There are some dates that are unlinked (4 September instead of 4 September). Consistency is the key here.

•  Fixed

• The references need publishers included.

•  Fixed

• You also need to link or delink the dates in the references to be consistent with the article.

•  Fixed

Article points

• Is there anymore information available on his early life? The section seems a bit sparse.

• As I said above, I could only find a very little amount of information on Corey, but I will try and see if I can dig up some more. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• If all sources have been exhausted, then they have been exhausted. I know how this can happen with some award recipients who have little about them documented other than their citations. Woody (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence in the Lead that he is the only recipient of the MM*** needs to be cited, especially as I don't see it repeated anywhere in the text.

•  Fixed

• Speaking of the Lead, that needs to be expanded as well per WP:LEAD. A good two paragraphs should do it.

•  Fixed

• Could you integrate the citations into the text? There might be an accessibility issue having them hidden, but purely for aesthetics, I don't think it works well. The citations are small, as opposed to some VC ones. I think they can easily be amalgamated into the text.

• I like the way the citations are displayed, but if there are accessibility issues then I am of course willing to try alternate methods of presenting them. To tell you the truth, I'm not fussed on integrating the citations into the text in the World War I section (I assume that is what you meant) as I do not believe that having four quoted texts in the section will exactly go down well, but, as I stated above, I am willing to explore other ways of displaying them. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• When you expand the WWI section, perhaps include a picture of the MM?

• I'm not completely knowledgeable when it comes to photographs and fair use or such, but do you think I would be able to use the image in the Military Medal article? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, you can't use it: that throws that idea out then! ;) Woody (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So, a few points for expansion, though I suspect that the hidden citations thing is a matter of personal preference. I can't see any FAs that do it this way though. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This article is very good. My comments are:

• Is it correct to say that Corey was "allocated to the 55th Battalion as a stretcher bearer" in the lead given that the World War I section says that he was initially posted to a grenade section and later volunteered for stretcher bearing duties?

•  Fixed

• "Corey's division" - you should probably name the division (the 5th, I assume) and rephase it to something like "The 5th Division, of which the 55th Battalion was part, spent four months in reserve" given that Corey was a member of the division and it wasn't his division.

•  Fixed

• Do we know what illness he contracted while in England in 1918? It must have been serious for a combat soldier to have remained in hospital for 90 days at a time when the Army was critically understrength. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure actually, I even had a look through his service record at the National Archives and it didn't even specify; it just stated he was sick and in hospital for a total of ninety days. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is not verifiable and I shouldn't be included, but I'd guess the Spanish Flu. Borg Sphere (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

I have recently re-built this article and was wondering if it was good enough for me to nominate it for GA. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

Overall I think it looks good and probably could pass GAN. Just a few comments:

• The lead could use some more citations.

•  Fixed

• The section on the Gallipoli Campaign might be better to have at the start See also: Gallipoli Campaign.

• I'm not sure I understand what you mean on this one. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Later in the same section, this sentence has some big grammatical error. "He was wounded again on 8 August when the machine-gun section of the 4th Brigade the withdrawal after the attack on Hill 971."

•  Fixed

• In the Western Front section, you misspelled seized.

•  Fixed

• "Despite rarely attending Anzac Day services of functions for Victoria Cross recipients, he and his wife travelled to London in 1956 to commemorate the centenary of the Victoria Cross" I think you mean or there, instead of of?

•  Fixed

Other than those, it looks good, and I wish you luck with GAN. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look mate, I appreciate it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Looking good, I have a particular interest in VC related articles. A few comments:

MOS stuff

• Check for WP:DASH, I note you need an endash in the first sentence.

I'm not sure where you are indictaing it should be placed, but I am guessing you mean the part about the VC?

You need ndashes everywhere: inbetween dates especially so [[1 December]] [[1880]]–[[7 January]] [[1966]]) You need those in the infobox as well... See WP:DASH for more information. Woody (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed

• Check for dates, some dates aren't linked, particularly in the Gallipolli section. By the way, it is no longer a requirement to have dates linked: either have them all linked or not at all. Oh, and it shouldn't be 4th July, simply 4 July

•  Fixed

• Times should be in 24 hour clock to remove any confusion.

•  Fixed

• You need publishers on the web references. Given that you use the cite-web template, move them from the title of the ref into the publisher parameter.

•  Fixed

Prose stuff

• "...returned to Australian" He changed nationality? ;)

•  Fixed

• "...who had elected, under the education schemes, to study agricultural methods through a tour of the farming districts of Britain and Denmark.

•  Fixed

• I would try an split up the Western Front section as it is very long. Perhaps a separate one for the VC, or split it into dates (Western Front April to June, Western Front June to September) etc.

•  Fixed Split into Western Front June 1916 to April 1917 and Western Front April 1917 to Reparation March 1920

So, it is looking good. I would suggest going for ACR/FAC once you get a good copyeditor to give it the once over. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look mate, I appreciate it. Could you suggest a good copyeditor? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:MHL#COPYEDIT. Woody (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen has now completed a copyedit of the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

SS Pennsylvanian

New article that I think has potential. Would like to get some other opinions, though. Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Brad

• In the introduction area the first paragraph mentions her return to the A-H lines but is repeated again in the third paragraph.
  • Good catch. I changed the sentence in the third paragraph.
• In the WWII section you mention she was operated by A-H as she had in WWI but there is no mention of that in her WWI service. So this was a US Navy ship with a civilian crew in both wars?
  • Pre-Navy WWI Pennsylvanian was a USSB ship manned by A-H personnel. I reworded the comment in the WWII section to help make that distinction clear.
• Looks good all around; I'm sure it would pass GA without trouble.

--Brad (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Brad. I've made changes based on your suggestions (and interspersed other comments above). — Bellhalla (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Active duty American servicewomen and their weapons

1.

2.

3.

Despite the joking title, this is a serious review request. Out of the 105 featured pictures at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery, not a single one depicts an actual female on active duty (it's partly my fault; nearly 20 were my nominations). So let's do something about that. Due to copyright issues these are all American (would represent other countries if we get access to quality free license images). So here are three potential candidates; presenting them as a group. They're not exactly in competition with each other: please comment on any, all, or none.

1. U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Tanya Breed demonstrates a Barrett .50 caliber rifle during a special operations training course at Hurlburt Field, Florida.
2. U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Kelliea Guthrie and Senior Airman Greg Ellis guard a C-130 Hercules aircraft during cargo operations at Feyzabab Airfield, Afghanistan. (Image needs denoising and spot removal, which would be done before FPC).
3. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the Kentucky Army National Guard is the first female in United States military history to be cited for valor in close quarters combat, for action near Salman Pak, Iraq on March 20, 2005. Sgt. Hester's squad of 10 soldiers were guarding a supply convoy that got ambushed by a group of 50 Iraqi insurgents. Hester executed a flanking maneuver, assaulted the enemy with grenades, and personally shot and killed 3 enemy combatants with her rifle. Her unit killed 27 enemy, wounded 6, and captured 1. She received the Silver Star in recognition.

Nominated by

Durova^Charge! 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I really like the first two. I think the first in particular seems very likely to pass. Would it be possible to crop a little sky from the second without damaging the aspect ratio particularly? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The longer I look at it, the more I also like the third, which has outstanding EV. I'd say it's worth a shot - what's there to lose? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Personal Opinion: The second one is very likely to pass with a bit of tweaking. The picture can do with a little color adjustment. It seems a bit too yellow. Also a slight downsize might help with the sharpness and noise. The first is a VERY good picture but I'm guessing it was taken after the gun was fired. All the smoke really detracts from the picture a shot when or before the gun was fired is probably favorable. If a picture could show a sniper and a target far away I think it might make for an interesting composition. If you need an edit just call. victorrocha (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By all means give an edit a try if you're interested. It sounds like you have a particular vision and I'm curious to see how it develops. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Although please don't downsample. Downsampling never improves an image; at best it'll be the same, so it's really only appropriate when the original is an unmanageably large image that wouldn't lose any detail from doing so. This one looks pretty detailed at full-res, so I wouldn't. Thegreenj 03:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I've already tweaked the histogram. The suggestion about the color balance looks worth exploration and the cropping idea is intriguing. The changes I had in mind when I put this up for review were to blend in spots with the healing brush, then selectively denoise parts of the sky. What's curious is that nobody has commented on the third photograph, which is the most encyclopedic and has some pleasingly subtle compositional elements. Note the groupings of the male soldiers behind Sgt. Hester, whose faces form approximate diagonals from the upper corners that converge toward her face. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• To me No2 has the biggest impact image-wise, though I find its EV a bit marginal. No1 actually gets better the bigger you look at it, the thumbnail isn't much, and I'm not entirely sold on composition, but could be worth a try. No3 to me just looks like a snapshot. --jjron (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I like the first picture best; the second is pretty good as well, although I do think that cropping out a little of the sky (as suggested above) would be a good idea. The third image is not bad, as well, although I do think the other two are better. Anthøny 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• At the risk of seeming a jerk, I don't think that any of these images is close to FP standard. The first is indistinct and looks like a snapshot, the second is OK but looks staged but the gender of the people in the photo is unclear. The third photo is my favourite and the one with by far the most encyclopedic value, but it lacks a 'wow' factor. Image:C-130 - First all female crew.jpg seems to have potential though and might be a good FP prospect. and I'm biased in favour of Image:PTE Shaylee Gomes and her truck.jpg (which I uploaded and is a bit snap-shooty, but is a great photo of a woman who looks very comfortable in her job). Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• While the third lacks a wow factor for the image itself as Nick Dowling points out, it's encyclopedia value is so high compared to the other two, that it's as if we're being asked to compare Hank Aaron's home run record and my five-year-old son's first at bat in t-ball. I would love to see an image of Leigh Ann Hester on the main page as a featured picture, even if it were this one. Is the title really necessary, "chicks with guns?" I am so lamely tired of the gender bias on Wikipedia, then being spit upon as being too sensitive when I complain about it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If any of these go to FPC (and one or more probably will), I assure you that nomination will have a serious title. No offense intended, and if this one seriously bothers you consider yourself welcome to move the page to a title you prefer. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• No. 1 I already commented about on FPC and indeed I think it's the weakest. No. 2 is the most photographically interesting composition, although I agree with Nick, not so much that it looks staged, but more that the photographer tried to make it more dramatic by kneeling or standing on lower ground. As far as illustrating women in the military, unfortunately the C-130 and the stark, beautiful landscape of Afghanistan seem to overpower the image, making the soldiers look relatively anonymous to me. No 3. stands in interesting contrast to No. 2, because whereas No. 2 offers a dramatic composition, No 3. is fairly plain, just a soldier standing with other soldiers. But coupled with a good caption, No. 3 is extremely encyclopedic, showing the first woman to win the Silver Star in combat. Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • When I uploaded no. 2 I wondered whether it would be a better FPC candidate on Commons where esthetic composition weighs more heavily than encyclopedic value. Some images have the former at the expense of the latter and this may be one. The androgyny is appealing in its way: on some level it doesn't matter whether a servicemember is female or male as long as the job is getting done. With the third image, I keep thinking of Doris Miller: a genuine war hero and a historic first. The only thing left to confirm is that the shot was taken on the day she received her medal. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Pistol Packin' Mamas - additional submission

• Added nice image of female B-17 pilots in training to ferry bombers. Looks good and meets size requirements, but when viewed full size, you see lines forming a grid pattern throughout the image... I wonder if there is a photoshop filter that could clean it up? Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What a pity that someone had to ruin the image like that. The grid pattern is a result of poor jpeg compression followed by heavy oversharpening. If nothing else, it should serve as a reminder always to save in a compressed format as the last stage of editing, and never to try to compensate for lack of detail with heavy unsharp masking. Thegreenj 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the kind of poor archival practice I deliberately avoid. If you can get a better source file, by all means send it my way. :) Durova^Charge! 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Dang. It looks like that on the Air Force site, too, so it's not as though a Wikipedian messed it up. Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I did some quick googling, but I didn't turn up any higher quality versions. Thegreenj 03:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That happens a lot. Thanks very much for searching. :) Durova^Charge! 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)

Article passed a GA. Looking to get it promoted to A-class then, of course, FA class. Are there any suggestions for how it can be improved? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This article is in good shape, and should be able to reach A-class after a bit more work. It provides a good overview of the unit and I also like the use of photos and images. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:

• The introduction needs to be tidied up. The first sentence should be included in a paragraph and the wording can be improved (eg, "the brigade was deployed during World War I but never saw combat there" -> "the brigade was sent to France during World War I but did not see combat")  Done
• I'm a bit uncomfortable with the sentence "It was also deployed during World War II but only saw a few months of combat" given that the brigade didn't really exist during the war - this should be reworded to make it clear that its talking about the small unit from which the brigade claims lineage rather than the actual brigade.  Done
• "Its infamous 16 month deployment in that campaign was one of the longest deployments ever for a US Army unit, and the most time deployed for any US Unit since the Vietnam War." This seems incorrect - many US Army units spent several years in Vietnam, and units were deployed outside the United States for very long times in the Civil War and World War II. The brigade appears to have the distinction of the longest tour to Iraq, but the length of the deployment is far from unprecedented.  Done
• The 'Organization' section should explain the different roles of the units and how they are themselves structured.  Done
• Was the 86th Reconnaissance Troop an independent unit, or did it form part of a division?  Done
• The unit is called "the brigade" on one instance in the World War II section - this should be changed to 'the troop'.  Done
• Is it really correct to write that the "3rd Platoon, 86th Reconnaissance Troop was converted and redesignated as the 172nd Infantry Brigade"? - this implies that the platoon was hugely expanded into a full brigade. I imagine what happened is is that the platoon was carrying the lineage of the former brigade and that this was transferred to the new unit.
• "The 172nd Brigade was designated a Reorganization Objective Army Division (ROAD)" this is unclear - was it a division or a brigade?

I've tried to explain this; reactivated as a ROAD formation, but in brigade size. Buckshot06(prof) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• The section on the Cold War seems to imply that the brigade did nothing but periodically reorganise. What was its role during this period (eg, was it to defend Alaska, or was it intended to deploy elsewhere in the event of war), and were there any highlights or lowlights?

Some details for this can be found in Gen. Schwarzkopf's biography, 'It Doesn't Take A Hero'. Buckshot06(prof) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• The 'Transformation' section seems a bit short, especially as the conversion to a Stryker brigade involve more than just being re-equipped. How did the brigade manage this transition?
• There's nothing on what the brigade did during its deployment to Iraq prior to November 2006. The reason its deployment was extended (were other units' tours also extended?), what happened to the units which had reached Alaska (were they sent back to Iraq?) and the reaction this extension provoked should also be mentioned.
• The "Reactivation in Germany" section needs to be updated now that the unit has been reactivated.  Done Nick Dowling (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere

• Put a couple inlines in the lead, for the tour length, WWI operations not completely clear, and a couple other instances.

Other than that, I can't find any major problems that haven't been already mentioned by Nick. It looks good and I doubt you will have much of a problem at A-class, and I wish you luck for it. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I purposefully made the lead general so that citations in it would not be necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. All information in the lead section is now cited in other sections of the article. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

United States Air Force Research Laboratory

I'm looking for general feedback on the article. I'd like to get it to at least B-class if I can. I've done a lot of work on it over the past couple of months and external feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten input from User:TomStar81 from WP:MilHist already. I'll be working on fixing those soon, but please add additional input. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MuZemike

You should redo the Mission Statement section. It's not the best idea to copy the organization's mission statement right into the article as it can be construed as not following NPOV. (It also will get some flack up at higher levels of review, especially for GA/FA status.) I would either get rid of the section or rewrite the section from a neutral, third–person perspective, i.e. simply paraphrasing the mission statement from a neutral perspective.

I kind of reworked the Mission Statement. Mostly I just made it a list and tried to reduce "marketspeak" types of phrases. I'm not entirely happy with it, so I might come back to it later.

The history section needs more citations; I have pinpointed where you can best add additional references in order to verify the laboratory's history.

I pretty much rewrote the History section. It grew out of a History Office section and didn't feel like it flowed right to me. I think I addressed all of the citation notes, but one or two could have slipped through.

For the organization section, get rid of the bulleted lists at the beginning of each subsection; describe the locations in one or two sentences using simple prose. Readers may not understand what the locations mean if you use bulleted lists.

• In its vision statement, the Directorate includes the goals of "integrating personnel with systems technology," and "protecting the force." — just as in the mission statement section, rewrite it from a neutral, third–person perspective. The same applies to any other mission statement quotes in this section.

• I have added places where you should add citations.

Working on it. I've got references, it's just going to take time to sort it all out. :)

• Where I have placed [[cite this quote]], you should replace the direct URL link with a citation which includes that URL link. I have placed these after the mentioning of the directors.

I believe I've now transitioned all of these to inline references.

Otherwise, it looks good, so far. The organization of the article is there, and all sections are well–built. The big thing is citations. Every fact stated needs to be cited. Finally, watch the original research and any qualitative statements such as XYZ has played a significant role in developing aircraft.

As far as assessment is concerned, I think this is surely a B-class article, looking at the assessment scale at a glance; add more citations and make the other noted corrections, this has a shot for GA. Nice work! MuZemike (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

From a MILHIST perspective there are too many unsourced paragraphs to warrent a B-class rating at the moment, our general policy on citations as it relates to B-class is outlined in our MoS, and at the moment there are large areas where citations are noticably absent, hence the Start-class assessment from our camp. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you people know the standards here more than I do. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm using strike-throughs and notes here to keep track of my work and so you can see that I'm working on it. Feel free to comment on any of my changes. Thanks for the input! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

I've copied his comments from my talk page to here for completeness sake. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patients on this matter, I apreciate it. I have added some {{fact}} tags on the information that seems iffy, including several paragraphs that have no references at all. In addition, I have a few other comments/suggestions for the article:

• See about removing the external links to the men in charge of the R&D branches. It will make it easier to clear higher levels on the assessment chart (in this form, it could be argued, you are using two different citations styles, and that won't sit well with others when and if you decided to go past B-class).

These are now all inline citation format.

• Lose the see also section. The argument here is that the information present in a see also section should be incorporated in the main article body. If you need to have the see also sections consider adding them under the different R&D headers with the {{see also}} template.

Done. I think they were all already wiki-linked earlier in the article. I just wasn't sure if it was OK to get rid of it before.

• I am not sure about this, but there may be a standard infobox template that could replace the one you currently have in the article at the top on the right. If this is in fact the case I would recommend switching out the one currently in the article for the standard one, it will help with assessments past B-class should you choose to go that route.

I actually didn't even notice it wasn't a standard template until now. I've switched to the Infobox Military Unit and moved the budget with ref to the intro paragraph.

• File a request for peer review. It may help you ID other points of interest for improvement.
• Lastly, what I have added to the article is only suggestive material from one coordinator for how to improve. Asking others for input may provide you with points that I have missed.

As always, if you need help with anything, feel free to ask and I will see about lending assistance. Good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's easier for me to keep track of the non-{{fact}} tagged issues, I'm doing a strike-through when I address specific points, typically with some comment. Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen

• The article has an extreme lack of third party refs, with most coming from its own websites and affiliates. The article needs refs because many sections have none at all

Lack of 3rd party refs, right? I think every section has some refs, they just may be AF at the moment. I noticed the skewed ratio a week or so ago and I'm in the process of looking for 3rd party refs for as much of the citable content as possible.

• The lead needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article.
• WP policy is generally against referring to everyone using honorifics in the main body, there's no need to address every head of every group as "Dr".

I looked around and it does appear you are correct (not that I'm surprised). I've removed the Dr, Mr, and Ms honorifics. I left military rank in abbreviated form ("Col" instead of "Colonel", etc).

• Are the official names of the labs in the table actually "labs" - because shorthand notation of formal names is not a good idea.

Actually, the table I'm referencing in the book does call all of them "labs" but I'm thinking it may be a better idea to spell it out instead. I believe the formal names were always "Laboratory" or "Laboratories".

• "HTML" isn't required in teh refs because that is the default.

Good point. I think that's taken care of now.

—Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As with the previous two, the strikethrough is me. I've added these to my growing to-do list. Thanks for the input. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Born2flie

• Lede

  • 2nd para

    It sounds awkward saying that the lab was formed. I know that it is a military organization and military units are formed, but it just comes across as awkward. The facts surrounding the creation of the lab seems more important than the budget or its size, so perhaps this information might work better in the first paragraph. Numbers less than 10 should be spelled out rather than be represented numerically. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    3rd para

    The first sentence reads as if the demonstrators were conducted. Use of Notable not necessary if the projects were indeed notable. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Body

  • Mission Statement

    A whole section just to cover the mission statement in list form is overkill. This whole section could be introduced at the end of the History section in paragraph format, "Today, the Laboratory's mission includes..." --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    History

    This section feels out of order. "Prior to 1990,..." feels like the beginning of the history, but it comes in the middle of the first paragraph. There is no mention of the Packard Commission and its study and recommendations. This section skims over more relevant facts from Duffner's history and glosses over some of the more negative aspects of his accounting of the history. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Organization

    Mission seems to be overused. quoting each of the directorate's mission or vision statement doesn't seem to explain exactly what each does in everyday english and leaves it in militarese. The current directors of each directorate or section will probably work better in an infobox or table unless the director does something notable for that section. There is also some general clean-up needed throughout this section. --Born2flie (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

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

YellowMonkey

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

Skinny87

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

The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay)

My {{merge}} request on this article has been reverted, so here am I. IMHO, it's the same as Battle of Lake Erie, albeit of much lower quality. Is there anyone who can see what can be included to Battle of Lake Erie before being sent to Afd? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• I readded the tag, as it should not have been removed. I think the best course of action for you would be to create a user subpage and add the article there, then add the material you have that isn't in the real article there. By moving the material to a user subpage you can proceed at your leisure. Thats my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebel Redcoat

• If you are merging I think you should be very careful. Much of this article is little more than patriotic bluster

Great Britain once again began to anger Americans with unjust policies

The British still had not recognized the United States as a formidable nation and disregarded them as fierce opponents

However, the Americans would prove themselves free and independent

It is remembered as a fantastic accomplishment by brave American boys yearning for adventure and excitement.

Other parts are historically dubious to say the least:

It marked the start of an age of naval superiority for the United States of America. What!

Wholly unacceptable. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:

The battle put the British Royal Navy on their heels After the summer on 1813 the RN blockade was such that US ships could hardly venture out to sea, and had highly limited success.

Never before had a whole British fleet been defeated 'A British fleet'? A flotilla of ambiguously rated craft does not make a British fleet.

The faults of this article are too numerous. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree strongly with RR. It doesn't even read like an article, but more like a textbook entry written by Joseph McCartney. I don't even want to cite examples; every paragraph is rift with patriotic language and disparaging of the British army. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did I just write McCartney? I meant McCarthy. Anyway, the point was that it sounded like patriotic drivel written by a red-blooded American. I'm the first to admit that we got our collective butts kicked hard in the War of 1812. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do fully agree with Rebel Redcoat too, the questionable quote about the start of an age of naval superiority for the United States of America was why I came here in the first place. Comte0 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I say just change it to a redirect, no need to merge, I wouldn't be suprised if the content has been completely ripped from the sources (it reads just like a textbook does, as someone mentioned). It's well beyond saving and appears to be identical to The Battle of Lake Erie. Fin©™ 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

As Comte0 has made it clear that he wanted to know if there is any information that can be merged into the proper article, I took a look through. I definitely agree that the whole article is biased and has a "point-of-view"-ish bent to it. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the information in this article is already in a summarized and neutral form in the proposed target of merge. With no references (and inline citations), it is difficult to verify each statement in this article as well (not withstanding the unreliability of it using Wikipedia as a source). As such, I recommend simply deleting this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

I agree that this entire article needs to be deleted. It is not at all neutral, minimally cited, and the other article is about the same engagement. I was looking through it to find specific places to improve it, but it's all equally biased. Basically, the best thing to do at this point is to wait till its AFD is finished, right now that looks like it will be deleted, and then work on the other article. Borg Sphere (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Barbarossa-class ocean liner

This is the first ship class article I have written and would like to see what areas need work, like what is missing, not covered in enough detail, etc. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

My POV for what its worth is that you have a solid B class article that I believe would pass a GA. What are the prospects for expansion? I think the subject has been covered well enough for a class article and further information could be found in the individual ship articles. The only negative I could find was the table of ships is pushing to the right of my screen requiring that I scroll to read the complete table. Of course this just could be my screen settings. --Brad (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is wide. Is all the information in the table really necessary, do you think? Or is table form (since there are only ten ships) even really the way to go? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The table form is better than a numerical or bullet listing. If you eliminate one or two columns from the table it will stop the scrolling. Columns most likely expendable are Dimensions and Later Names. --Brad (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I took out the dimensions per your suggestion (and the one below). How does it look? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks great now. I also adjusted the infobox to meet the count stated in the lead of the article. --Brad (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Marathi_mulgaa

Good article. To your question on the need for all the data in the columns, I think this could be useful data. I'd only question the need for the tonnage and the dimensions, since all of them seem pretty close to each other (since all the ships were of the same class). Brad's probably looking at the table on an 800x600 screen res. It looks fine as-is on my screen. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was unusual that all of the ships, even thought the same class varied so much, which is why I included the dimensions. They do seem to take up a lot of room and don't really add a lot. I'll take them out and see if that still looks alright. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101

A very nice little article which I too think should make GA without too many problems. I recommend expanding the lead to include some of the notable aspects of the ships' careers, but I think the information in the tables is relevant and interesting and should be kept if possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the lead a bit sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen

The article looks fine for GA except that the lead needs to be longer. For FA, the whole article might want to go into more detail if possible. Also, I am not sure, if it is compulsory, put multiple pages or page ranges usually use "pp." whereas you have used only single p for single and multiple pages. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

• It's correct that the multiple pages need to be pp.
• Otherwise it looks good except for the lead. I would suggest rewriting and expanding the lead to be a more general overview, and then making another section that has the statistics, such as propulsion, etc. that you have in the lead, and also have more statistics there. You might be able to put the tonnage in this section, should you decide to create it, and take it out of the table.
• Overall it's a very good B-class and could probably make a GA. Borg Sphere (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Tractable

This article just passed its ACR on June 26, and this is sort of meant to be a pre-FAC Peer Review to ensure that I've worked out all the bugs and have all of the info present that needs to be there. Respectfully, Cam (Chat) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, and I'm aware that the article needs maps, I am currently working to try and rectify this situation. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

I had a cursory read and make the following suggestions.

Lead

• "which aimed at capturing the" -> "which aimed to capture the"
• "against the forces of Germany's Army Group B" -> "against Germany's Army Group B"
• "was part of the largest encirclement on the Western Front"

  Who encircled who? Perhaps, the entire sentence could be rewritten to make clearer the points it was trying to present.

  It's actually simply meant to refer to it as being the largest encirclement undertaken by either side during the Western Front. I'll see if I can clear that up a bit. Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Although the Falaise gap had been significantly narrowed, a protracted series of fierce engagements between two battlegroups of the Polish 1st Armoured Division and the 2nd SS Panzer Corps on Mont Ormel prevented the gap from being completely closed and allowed thousands of German troops to escape."

  I think this sentence is a bit run-offish; that the gap was narrowed already implied that it was not closed. Furthermore, I find the second clause hard to read with its length. Perhaps this sentence can be broken into two or so sentences.

  I think I've fixed it, you should probably check though. Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Through two days of nearly continuous fighting, Polish forces managed to hold off counterattacks by elements of seven German divisions, the defence characterised by massive artillery-barrages and close–quarter fighting between German and Polish infantry." -> "Through two days of nearly continuous fighting, Polish forces managed to hold off counterattacks by elements of seven German divisions; their defence was characterised by massive artillery-barrages and close–quarter fighting."
• "leading to the capture of the remains of the German Seventh Army" -> "leading to the capture of remaining elements of the German Seventh Army"

Most of the lead has been corrected. Cam (Chat) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Main text

• "Despite initial gains from an innovative night attack"

  What is innovative about the night attack? A brief description of this should suffice as I think the reader should not be teased to read another article just for an explanation of this adjective.

  Fixed. Cam (Chat) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "From there, all three formations would punch towards Trun [...] From there, a linkup with American forces at Chambois"

  Rephrase the second sentence. The repetition of "from there" feels a bit disruptive to the "flow" of reading.

• "2nd SS Panzer Corps counterattack"

  Should the section's title have an "August 20" in it to be in line with the preceding "August 16–19" and succeeding "August 21"?

  Maybe "August 20 counterattacks"? Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "St. Lambert-sur-Dives and Hill 117", Image:Elfeld Capture.jpg

  Per MOS:IMAGE, left-aligned images should not be directly below second-level (===) headings. The image could be right-aligned and "Hill 262 (Mont Ormel)"'s Image:Polish hill 262.jpg can be left-aligned on its second paragraph. Done. Cam (Chat) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article did quite well. My mind did not tune out during the reading and it was quite a smooth experience. Good luck for the FAC. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Thanks for your help! Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments... generally looks pretty good (I'm here from VG for the record).

• "Operation Tractable was the final Anglo–Canadian offensive during the Battle of Normandy, which aimed at capturing the strategically important town of Falaise and subsequently the towns of Trun and Chambois." - I think this would read better if split into two sentences (stop after "Normandy" I'd say). —Giggy 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cam (Chat) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellhalla

• For an article of this length, I would expect a lead section of at least three paragraphs.
• Do sources call it an "Anglo-Canadian" operation? It seems strange since it appears to be a Polish-Canadian (or Canadian-Polish?) operation with no mention of British forces, for example, in the infobox.

Bah, don't know why I didn't catch that. Thanks for pointing it out. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of military operation names used without much context. Example: the first paragraph of "Background", with Operation Cobra and Operation Lüttich mentioned. Yes, they are linked, but some context would be nice. You could do something like "… Operation Totekatzen, the German operation to kill Canadian cats, began … "

Done for Cobra (sentence immediately before) and Totalize (sentence immediately after), I'm pretty sure I've fixed the others as well. Cam (Chat) 16:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever your decision on auto formatted dates, be sure that you are consistent. Right now some are formatted, some are not.
• Some strange case choices (I'm guilty of this a lot myself). Example "… Tractable would be launched in full daylight". How about just "… Tractable was launched in full daylight" instead? The choice of would can often lead to uncertainty as to whether it actually did happen or was just intended to happen.
• Times, per MOS:NUM, should be formatted with a colon, even in 24-hour time. As an example, in the first sentence of the "Initial drive for Falaise" section, the time of 12:00, as currently formatted, blends in with the 800
• Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and units (like between 500 and grenadiers)

Mostly done (it wouldn't hurt to check though). Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• metric or standard conversions for all measurements, please. Some that are missing: "88 mm anti-tank" (which should be "88-mm", incidentally), "six-mile front"
• Image:St.-Lambert-surrender.jpg is immediately below a second-level heading, which is a no-no.
• Consistency with commas for four-digit numbers: Some have them and some don't.

Done. Cam (Chat) 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some of your notes need publisher information.

Done. Cam (Chat) 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• The McGilvray book needs a place of publication.

Done. Cam (Chat) 16:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes 1 and 28 refer to "Van-Der-Vat", but the book's author is listed as "Van der Vat " in the "References" section.

Fixed. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed Note 32, also. The Der is still capitalized in the Notes section but lowercase in the References — Bellhalla (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Prior to FAC it wouldn't hurt to request a copyedit. There's nothing really wrong, but the prose could use some fine tuning in places.

Way ahead of you. I've already put in a request at the Logistics Department. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I don't disagree with anything you struck above, but it's generally regarded as poor form to strike another reviewers comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere

• There weren't any citations in the lead. It seems that at the least it could use them at the number of prisoners taken, and a few other places would be nice.
• In the Hill 262 section, the sentance "If this major obstacle could be cleared, German units could initiate a full retreat out of the Falaise Pocket.[22]" doesn't seem to flow well to me. It might be better rephrased as something along the lines of "If this major obstacle could be cleared, German units would be able to initiate a full..." Fairly minor, but using could twice in a row seems to make it sound wrong.
• Later in the same section, instead of "massacred," you may wish to put "inflicted heavy casualties upon" or something similar, rather than using the term Massacre, which MOS says to avoid when possible. Since it doesn't seem that they were massacring the Germans (killing unarmed ones), another term might be preferable.

Otherwise it looks good and I wish you luck with Featured Article. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814

(Note:Page moved and title amended to reflect article move --Woody (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi, looking for feedback on this article and people's opinion on whether it has the legs to make FA or not. This article is a first for me, because I have only found one book that covers this campaign systematically, most focusing on the more exciting events without the wider implications and events of the campaign. As a result, in some places the article has had to patched together from different sources, although I like to feel I've done quite a good job of doing so. I am especially interested in finding someone who knows the modern Croatian names of many of the places mentioned. At the time they were Italian controlled and so the names in my sources (and in the article) are correspondingly in Italian. I've tracks down many to their modern Croatian name and linked them but there are still a number I am unsure of. Any other comments are more than welcome. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

An excellent article, overall; I think it can easily make FA. A few points that might be considered, though:

• The title seems awkward to me; I'd suggest one of Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814, Adriatic theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, or Adriatic campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars. The first of these would also have the benefit of unambiguously defining the scope; see my next point.

I think the first one would be the most appropriate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Presumably the Russo-Ottoman campaign of 1800 is treated as background because the conflict is being considered to be part of the French Revolutionary Wars rather than the Napoleonic Wars? Given how the terms are sometimes used less precisely, it might be worth making this point explicit.

Yes, I would consider that a seperate (but definately connected) campaign. The British campaign in the Adriatic was a deliberate if (in its early stages) disjointed campaign with a single aim in mind throughout - to disrupt French control of the Adriatic and the consequent use of the sea both for the transport of French troops and the development of the French Navy. The Russo-Ottoman campaign was primarily aimed at Corfu only and preceeded British activities in the region by seven virtually uninterrupted years - The Russian and Turkish forces played no part in the 1807-1814 campaign at all that I have seen.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarified (hopefully).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• The 1st Greek Light Infantry should probably be linked; it's a worthy topic for an article.

Will do, although I may not be the best person to create it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• The footnotes generally have "Vol" but "p."; the presence of the period should be consistent between the two.

Will do.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I find the multiple bracketed dates for reprinted books to be unreadable, and prefer the CMS bibliographic style (with dates at the end) for that reason; but that might be a matter of taste rather than substance.

I'll look into this, I was just using the cite book template.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "Battle of Lissa" section could use {{details}} to link to that article, as it's a straight summary.

Will do.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

I would like to know how to further improve this article. I understand that too many red links are still remaining but besides this I would like feedback on structure and presentation. I am also seeking feedback on translation of German terms and abbreviation. My ultimate goal is to bring this article to featured list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101

A very nice and interesting article which I don't think should have too much trouble reaching FL status in the near future. I have attached some comments below.

• Tense. The article's tense wends all over the place. I strongly suspect that this article was written by someone who does not have English as their first language. If true, this makes the work put into the article even more impressive but leaves a few prose problems as a result. I have copyedited the lead but I suggest others do the same to weed out any other mistakes.
• "318 German soldiers or servicemen of the Kriegsmarine" - I don't think the Kriegsmarine had soldiers, just sailors and marines. I suggest removing the soldiers bit entirely and just having "318 servicemen of the German Kriegsmarine".
• There needs to be a clearer explanation of what the number in the first column indicates. This should also be located in the lead rather than the first section.
• Not all those killed in action are listed as such on the page (i.e. Gunther Prien). Either list them all or none.
• I would suggest putting the German translation of the award's name in brackets and italics after it is mentioned at the head of each section. This is because the awards are German in origin and many sources and links will give them in German (e.g. Gunther Prien's infobox). Thus it may aid the reader to see them in the correct context. It would look like "The Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz mit Eichenlaub) was based on the enactment . . ."

Otherwise a nice article. I also recommend turning as many of the redlinks blue as you can. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Woody

(Edit conflict with Jackyd101) Hi there, first off, great list. I have a couple of suggestions.

• Remove the first sentence. Repeating the title in the first sentence is being phased out at FLC and it is the pet peeve of some reviewers. First impressions and all
• I would switch the second and third paragraphs in the Lead. That way you can merge the first and third to make a two paragraph Lead that works better. (So, move 318 below ...concluded the variants, and then merge the existing first paragraph)
• Excellent work on the column widths, another pet peeve of some people, well done.
• Why mix chronological number and alphabetically. (Incidentally, an explanation in the Lead of the chronological number would be helpful)
• Why link all of the ranks in one table and then not in another (The Knights of the Iron Cross one). As it is a sortable table, it is preferable if you consistently link all of one column.
• Why do you have notes for some and not all of the recipients? They don't seem particularly extraordinary circumstances. I would suggest just leaving them out altogether, though that is my opinion (that is how I do the Victoria Cross lists)
• Specific references tend to go above general ones.

• The other main problem, as you know, is the proportion of redlinks, something which has come up recently at FLC. I would suggest that the recipients need at least 80%, preferably 90% bluelinks. Good work. Woody (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

Indeed English is not my native language. So please excuse grammar errors I might have made. I do appreciate constructive help that goes beyond this is wrong because sometimes I wouldn't know how to fix it myself. Secondly, I am still in the process of verification. Sources sometimes are contradicting on some issues and I Wiki-link the rank when I feel confident that the stated information on this person is correct. Thanks so far for the input. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

SMS Von der Tann

I've recently rewritten and significantly expanded the article, and added nearly a dozen sources and quite a few citations. I'm working on tracking down suitable copyright-status photos to add to the article, although there are already a couple currently. I'm looking for some pointers or suggestions to continue to improve the article, with the aim of eventually reaching FA-quality. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Comments
  • The first thing you might consider doing is finding the conversion templates so those who can;t think in metric can get an idea of what the size, weight, gun calibure, and so forth are.
  • Link all dates with a day, month, and year.
  • If I spot anything else when I get home today I will let you know (reading for school, you see; we get our reading assignments on monday :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The figures should all have the conversion templates now, and I've linked most of the dates as you have suggested. Thanks for your comments so far, and I anticipate more suggestions later on. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good. I spotted some instances of figures that still do not have metric/standard measurements in tandum, and I think the article needs some work with regards to WP:HYPHEN. If I recall correctly Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) are pretty good at finding and fixing these two points; I would suggest leaving a message on either users talk page.

Ok, I think I've got all of the conversion templates in place now, let me know if you find one I've missed. I've also added in the – for the date ranges, as Climie.ca pointed out below. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• After two days of searching, I have finally relocated an article I think you can use as a blueprint of sorts for this battleship : HMAS Melbourne (R21). Melborne was an aircraft carrier, but like SMS Von der Tann was a unique vessel and as such contains a rather well developed section going into her background, construction, and equipment in addition to her service history. This may be useful for your effort to push the article to FAC by giving you a better idea of what you will need to do insofar as article building goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

Other than what Tom suggested I don't see any glaring issues with this article. I bumped it up to B class as it was certainly worthy of it. You may want to expand on the fate of the ship a bit further than two sentences however. You should run this through GA. What are the prospects for further expansion of the text for an A or FA run? --Brad (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some information about the desertion of crew members shortly before the end of the war, but further information relating to the scuttling and scrapping appears to be rather sketchy (in fact, information about the ship overall is pretty scarce; most of the books I've used are actually about the battles in which the ship participated; only Staff's book goes into any detail about the ships themselves.) The text can probably be expanded, but I wouldn't say dramatically. As I stated above, details are often few and far between. I'll see what further information I can scrounge up. Thanks for your comment. Parsecboy (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional details about the specific time line of events during the battle of Jutland, as well as some relatively minor fleet advances in 1916 before Jutland. I've also added some additional design information, relating to the ship's machinery and powerplant, etc. I'm skeptical that much more can be added with the sources I've currently got (and until I start speaking/reading German, I've probably exhausted the number of references available on the topic). Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a second reading and caught one minor double wording issue which I fixed. I think you're looking good for GA after the image tag fix. Even the minor expansion on a few topics helped to make things read smoother. --Brad (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:SMS von der Tann.jpg has an expired tag. That will be an issue for GA.

Yeah, I had intended on removing the non-linked instance of "raid on", but I must've gotten distracted before hitting the save button. Thanks for catching that. I've gone ahead and just removed the questionably licensed illustration for now, and left a note on the uploader's talk page on Commons; hopefully s/he can update it accordingly, and it can be re-added to the article. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cam

I think Tom & Brad have summed up most of the stuff. However, there are a few things that caught my eye:

• Would it be possible to expand the lead, as it is currently quite short?
• You use "AP" & "HE" as abbreviations in the section concerning the design of Von-Der-Tann; it should probably be the full word. Although you and I understand military jargon, an average reader probably won't.
• In several of the sections, you have two very-short paragraphs (some of two sentences or less). Would it be possible to combine these into a single paragraph, so as to not make it look so (for lack of a better term) "skimpy"?
• "causing Von der Tann to ship 600 tons of water" --> "causing Von der Tann to take in 600 tons of water", just for clarity
• For times, you shouldn't leave them as not having a ":". 1853 should be 18:53, etc.
• for date ranges, — should be used.
• In the "References" section, would it be possible to add the locations of the publishers?

Other than that, looks pretty good. All the best, Cam (Chat) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the minor points, including the AP/HE, combining short paragraphs, "ship" -> "take in", colons for times (an old Army habit :) ), longer dashes for date ranges. I've added publishing location for the books I actually have, the others I found through google books, and they don't provide that specific bit of information. I'll see what I can do with the introduction. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded the introduction, take a look now and let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, mucho mejor señor (you can look that up on your own). That should do it. Excellent expansion in such a short time. Good luck in the future with this article. Cam (Chat) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better ;) Thanks for your help in getting it there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Very nice! Always good to see another capital ship article better-developed.

• I agree the lead could be longer (would need to be for FA status, for instance)
• The design section could be more detailed. More on the design process would be nice. Also there is some technical vocabulary which needs to be explained or wikilinked (battle line, pivot mounts, staggered turrets).
• The article could do with a few more wikilinks throughout (dreadnought, steam turbine, for instance).
• Robert Massie is not a very good source. I don't think he is too bad for the statements where you rely on him, but I'd prefer it if a better account of the relevant incidents could be found.

Regards, The Land (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, I've expanded the lead section, can you take a look and offer any suggestions? As for the design process, there just isn't much information on it in English, and I don't yet speak German. The only book that really goes into any kind of detail is Staff's book, which is fairly short, and nearly all of his bibliography is from German works, and the German archives.

I've added a bunch of links, do you think they're sufficient, or does the article need more? What's wrong with Massie? I was unaware that his works were considered sub-standard. I can tell you that the sailors who deserted prior to the mutiny isn't mentioned in any of the other books, and many of the specific details about the timelines of Heligoland, for example, aren't mentioned in the other books I've got. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead's better. Regarding the design section, the main question in my mind is how much the designers were influenced by the [[Invincible class battlecruiser], details of which were gradually becoming known to the Germans in 1906-8. Other things you could go into, if you have the information, might be the arrangements of big guns which were considered, or how much armour Tirpitz favoured...

Massie has a fair few of errors in detail. I only notice them in shipbuilding, because that's a subject where I have detailed sources to hand. However, it indicates that they might extend to other areas. I am fairly confident that if you get it to FA, someone will complain that Massie isn't a good enough source. The Land (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only major impact of knowledge of the Invincible class was the switch to larger caliber guns. Von der Tann seems to be more of an incremental outgrowth of Blucher; the ship is basically a slightly larger, slightly faster Blucher with bigger guns and thicker armor. This is essentially a result of the Kaiser getting his way, irt to the provision that VdT be able to fight in the line. On the other hand, had Tirpitz gotten his way, VdT most likely would've come out looking like German copies of the Invincibles. Of course, one could argue that Blucher herself was a response to the erroneous information the Germans had on Invincible, but by the time VdT was designed, the details of the Invincibles were already known. This, of course, is OR on my part. However, the only explicitly stated indication I've seen in the books I've got of influence from the British ships is again, the jump from 8.2" to 11" guns.

As for Massie, I didn't know he's known for having errors in his work. I'll see if I can find some other sources that have the same information. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found and added a source that corroborates the timeline for Heligoland Massie provides, in Strachan's The First World War, so I'll assume that it's fine to continue to use the cite from Massie at least for that paragraph. I'll continue looking for other sources to corroborate/correct what else I've got from Massie. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

Nothing major at all. However, in an article about a German battle cruiser it would be nice to have more German quotes in it. The map from "Germany's High Sea Fleet in the World War" is a nice touch though.

• The contention that Von der Tann had three turrets in operation "before the end of the battle". Hipper in G.39 (after moving his flag from Lützow) sent a message to Scheer at 0305 on 1st June - by which time the battle was over - stating that Von der Tann had "only two heavy guns serviceable". (Tarrant. Jutland: The German Perspective. p. 318) --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 13:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some suitable quotes to add to the article. As for the question about turrets being repaired during the battle, I got the timeline from Staff's book, which uses mostly German sources for the information, but does not specifically cite it in a footnote. I have seen in other books that only two turrets were rendered operational by the end of the battle. Perhaps the explanation is that one of the three turrets that were repaired during the battle later failed/been damaged again, by the time Hipper had made his report to Scheer. I have not before seen the claim that only two guns were serviceable, only of there having been either two or three turrets having been repaired. Of course, none of the latter explicitly state that both guns in all turrets were in working order, but I would assume that to be the case, unless it had been otherwise stated. It would appear that further investigation is required to get to the bottom of these conflicting reports. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarrant gets his info from a translation by the Admiralty Naval Intelligence Division of the more important signals passed between the Germans at Jutland; I can't think of any reason (for once!) to question its veracity. Of course, there could be subtle errors of omission here - the sources referring to turrets could well be correct - three turrets were working before the end of the battle, but only two of the guns out of six could be used, i.e. both views could be correct?

And something dear to my heart, have you checked Google books? I've just found in a preview of a biography of Hipper a quote from Von der Tann's captain at the Scarborough raid on the problems posed by poor coal, and then some sourced information on how the battle cruiser suffered quite badly in trying to keep fires lit at jutland. And that was just from typing "Von der Tann Jutland" into the search box, and was the first source I looked at (ignoring the usual run of the mill Indefatigable materiel). --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking re: the guns/turrets discrepancy. Yes, the Tarrant cite doesn't seem to be questionable in its veracity, although I'm wondering if it's a possibility of a translation error on the Admiralty's part? I have seen the assertion that two turrets were later returned to working order by the end of the engagement. Again, it could be a simple miscommunication, as you suggest.

Yes, I am well familiar with Google Books; that's how I came across Scheer's book (and the nice illustration I lifted from it :). Can you provide the link to the book preview you mentioned? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks for your comments and contributions to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something interesting; I was re-reading through Massie's book, and came across a mention of Von der Tann, stating that the guns were firing so fast that "the guns had become so hot that they jammed in their slides and would not return to firing positions" (p 604). I wonder if this is the discrepancy between the turrets being operational, but the guns being jammed. Parsecboy (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this link (it may work, it may not depending where you are); http://books.google.com/books?id=jlmkFfJDDKQC&pg=PA56&dq=von+der+tann+jutland&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U2ksvgBccUlHEaDeHW7AiQkta6Y-w

As to Massie, I assume he's referring to the run-out gear except he doesn't directly refer to it (I just checked). I may as well go on record as saying that I don't think Massie would be a good source on a FA run, because as The Land points out he gets things wrong in one area he'll get them wrong in another - and he has in multiple instances. Not that this applies to the sources in this article, but so many people read Castles of Steel then think they're an expert and then somehow misinterpret Massie even more than he managed to misinterpret the record in some cases. Tarrant has some more on Von der Tann which I'll add later. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The link didn't work; it said I had reached the limit of my page viewing. I have found some other books that I had somehow missed in earlier searches though.

Massie is most likely referring to the run out gear; Brooks, in Dreadnought Gunner and the Battle of Jutland mentions the run-out gear causing turret malfunctions, on page 256. (see if the\is link works for you 1). I'm slowly trying to find sources that can corroborate what Massie has, and then just substitute the sources. I have already found discrepancies between Massie and other sources, so the point that he can be unreliable is well taken. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed something interesting; Staff's book, for which I've relied mostly for the timeline at Jutland, seems to be written in UTC +1, I'm assuming owing to the fact that he uses primarily German sources. The British sources of course use UTC. Do you think the article should stick with what its got, or change it to UTC? Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://icanhide.com then plug the address I listed above in, and theoretically your "limit" should disappear. Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland I have - one of the best books on Jutland by a mile (and pretty unimpeachable too unless you think Jon Tetsuro Sumida is God and love Beatty).

I think the German time would be best - after all, most people reading the article would assume that German ships would not unnaturally use German time. It's only on things like the Battle of Jutland when you're actively trying to reconcile the different times when trouble begins. Maybe put a note in italics at the top of the article or the section concerned? That's my two cents anyway. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That worked perfectly, I'll have to bookmark that site. Yes, Brooks' book is quite good, from the snippets I've been reading online. I'll have to pick up a copy. Keeping the German time makes sense, I'll put a small note at the start of the Jutland section denoting the differing time from the main article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By George I think I've got it: on p188, in Tarrant's book, it states "But by 8:30, both midships turrets had been repaired, although breakdowns recurred later in the battle. The after turret was also made ready...The turret could, however, only be trained by hand." What is likely is that when Hipper made his report, both of the two amidships turrets had again failed, and the D turret was the only turret still in action, if even at a decreased capability. Parsecboy (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I already put in the bit about hand-working :p scant hours ago, but I got my details from a paraphrasing of the Der Krieg in der Nord See from the 1920s. I get the feeling Tarrant read the same article as I did! I'm somewhat perplexed at my not recalling p188 before!! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you snuck that in while I wasn't looking ;) I was about to add it, and happened to see it mentioned a few lines down, so I said to myself "well, who could've put that there?" so I checked through the history, and saw your name, damnit :p Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As some people are wont to say; lolololol. Back to business, while looking for information on German fire control (I'll add a bit on Von der Tann's when I have the chance) I came across a mention of the ship's gunnery officer. Since there's hardly reams of information available for the ship, and the gunnery of it was relatively exceptional, I think he warrants a mention when I can spare the time! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just picked up a copy of "Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918" (in German, of course, which I don't yet speak), which appears to have tons of information on the ship, and the rest of the German BCs. So, as I muddle through it with the aid of an online translator, I'll be able to add more to the article. It's got some pretty interesting alternate design proposals, including one that had three centerline twin turrets, and two staggered wing turrets that mounted one gun each. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Warwick Castle

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've essentially run out of ideas to improve it. I'd like to take the article to WP:FAC but would like it to be checked over by a fresh pair of eyes first. I know the lead needs expanding (I've barely touched it since I started the rewrite a few weeks ago). All ideas are welcome and I'd like to thank contributors in advance. :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Warwick Castle/archive1.

11th Airborne Division (United States)

I'm putting 11th Airborne Division (United States) up for another peer review for before I attempt to go for FAC once again. Prose problems was the primary issue highlighted in the previous FAC, so I was hoping that any reviewers could concentrate on that more than anything else in particular. However, comments on other areas are welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Here are some suggestions. I wouldn't accept then wanton, since I may be wrong; but suggestions nonetheless. :P

• The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne division in the United States Army which was first activated during World War II. <- It seems that you are defining a word with the word. I think that "The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne force..." would sound better (even if not perfect); maybe you can think of a better way of defining it, but the way it is currently just doesn't roll off the tongue well.

I can see what you mean, though at the moment I'm at a loss as to what to replace it with. Force doesn't quite seem right. I'll keep thinking. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to 'formation' Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division was officially activated on 25 February 1943 and took part in several training exercises throughout the rest of the year, including the Knollwood Maneuver; the division played a vital part in this exercise, helping to ensure that the airborne division remained as a military formation in the United States Army after the poor performance of American airborne forces during Operation Husky. <- Very long and clunky, I think. I think dividing it into at least two sentences, and re-writing the second part, would make it sound much better. Also, it's not very clear how partaking in maneuvers helped the division survive deactivation. It's just sort of confusing.

Completely rewritten it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division remained in the United States as a reserve formation and did not take part in the early airborne operations conducted by the Allies, such as Operation Husky and Operation Neptune, only transferring to the Pacific Theater in June 1944. <- "Remaining in the United States as a reserve formation, the division did not take part in early airborne operations conducted by the Allies..." I think this sounds better and is simpler, and you should probably watch out for redundant words like "the" (in this sentences).

Same as above, rewritten. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some of these sentences are very long; it might be good to split some of them off.

Done! Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the rest of it later (only got the intro). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I copyedit the article, slightly? You can revert anything you want, if you feel it wasn't an improvement. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, fell free! I'll get to these suggestions when I can. Skinny87 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a massive rewrite of the Knollwood Maneuver section, which is a particularly bad piece of writing in the article. I would appreciate it if the article were to remain un-edited by anyone until I finish, hopefully by tonight. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I managed to finish the rewrite early, so any copy-editing is now more than welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments

• Despite being activated in 1943, the division was not immediately shipped out to Europe to participate in the first large-scale Allied airborne operation, the Allied invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) – unlike the 82nd Airborne Division, which had been activated a year prior to the 11th Airborne. <- Was it normal for a division to be shipped out immediately? The sentence gives that connotation, although it then says that the 82nd was activated a year earlier. If this isn't the case, I would suggest something like, Activated in 1943, the division was not shipped out to Europe in time to participate ..."

Done!

• Another general officer took command of the division until Swing returned. <- Would it be possible to include who this was?

This came up last time and I couldn't find their name, but I'll look again.

Devlin doesn't say. I have a suspicion it may have been Brig. Gen. Albert E. Pierson who headed a smaller version of the Swing Board, but there's no actual evidence saying that. So it's just an un-named officer at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits to part of the article, most of them minor. In one case I split a paragraph up, because I got confused half way through it, and finally realized that it was talking about something else. I hope this is OK.

Hey, that's fine, thanks.

• I made some edits that I thought made the text clearer. If you don't agree, then you're probably right, and just undo them. :P
• The ridge itself was an open space some two thousand yards (1,829 m) wide and four thousand yards (3,657 m) wide <- Should one of those be "long"?

Done!

• (sentence slightly different due to minor ce) The division was ordered to breach the Genko Line and drive into Manila, linking up with other American forces attacking the city from the north. All three of the divisions regiments were committed, and they began their advance on 5 February, managing to break through the defensive line despite fierce resistance by Japanese units manning the section of the line the division attacked. <- Is that last part necessary? I didn't want to outright remove it, because it's a large change you might not agree with, but it seems intuitive that the resistance would be coming from Japanese units those divisions were engaging... so to me, it seems sort of redundant.

Redundancy made redundant! Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over everything after Luzon in about ten minutes, after I eat. I hope this is OK, insofar. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the article is ready for FAC. In my opinion, any changes that have to be made are minor, and will be made over the next few days. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flanagan wrote a book on the division, called The Angels: A History of the 11th Airborne Division. Unfortunately, the cheapest price they have it for on Amazon.com is $26, and I couldn't find it on ABE books. Amazon.ca has it for $30 canadian collars, while Amazon.uk doesn't have it available. The cheapest alibris has it for is $26 (there are some copies that are over $100), and ebay has it for $26. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't have the option to look inside it (probably because all copies are being sold by third parties), and it's not on Google books. I thought it would help decipher who took command while Swing was in Sicily. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I've been trying to get a copy of that for less than $Texas, but in the UK it's insanely expensive. The snippets in Google Books are useless as well, and no library in my area has a copy. Gah! Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Flanagan's book. Would be happy to search for specific information for you. My Dad was in the 11th AB 472nd. He was a paratrooper and radioman. user deeaugust

Found a few thesis' online referring to the Board, but none actually stating who replaced Swing whilst he was on detachment to the Board. This is so frustrating, but at least this'll be good evidence for FAC if someone brings it up like they did last time. Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• The first paragraph is better than it used to be. Of the 17 divisions formed in 1943, only the 2nd Cavalry Division preceded the 11th Airborne Division overseas, and nine divisions did not depart until 1945. Officially, the 11th Airborne Division departed San Francisco POE for the South West Pacific Area on 8 May 1944. It arrived in Papua between 25 May and 11 June 1944 (not "sailed").

I'll adjust the writing for that, but have you got a source to cite for those divisions not departing until 1945?

Stanton is a good source. Also Palmer, Wiley, Bell and Keast, The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 488-493. Of the divisions formed in 1943, only five departed in 1944: 2nd Cavalry (March), 11th Airborne (May), 17th Airborne (August), 106th Infantry (November) and 66th Infantry (December). The Battle of the Bulge caused a panic in which all remaining ZI divisions were shipped to ETO in January-February 1945: 13th Airborne, 42nd, 63rd, 65th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 97th, and 16th, and 20th Armored Divisions (plus the 13th Armored Division, formed in 1942). The 10th Mountain Division was shipped to MTO in January 1945 as originally scheduled. These divisions included three already preparing to move to the Philippines: the 13th and 20th Armored, and 71st Infantry Division - a division specially trained in jungle warfare. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I don't think I'll add that in - instead I deleted the bit about the 82nd going first, as your info rightly points out it wasn't a big deal that it didn't go to Sicily for Husky. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sailed' adjusted to 'arrived'

• How about adding an Order of battle?

Order of Battle - 11th Airborne Division Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 11th Airborne Division 187th Glider Infantry Regiment 188th Glider Infantry Regiment (Parachute Infantry from 20 July 1945) 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment Military Police Platoon, 11th Airborne Division 11th Parachute Maintenance Company 152d Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 11th Airborne Division Artillery 457th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion 472nd Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (from 20 July 1945) 674th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 675th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 408th Airborne Quartermaster Company 511th Airborne Signal Company 711th Airborne Ordnance Maintenance Company 221st Airborne Medical Company 127th Airborne Engineer Battalion

Source: Stanton, Order of Battle, U. S. Army World War II, p. 94

• Why does the 11th Airborne have a separate linage to the WWI 11th Division? This is not the case with other airborne divisions.

Honestly, I have no idea and I'm not even sure where to find out about that.

It might be because the 11th was demobbed in 1919 and presuambly never reactivated - that's according to its wiki article. That sentence is a relic from when this article was a start-class one months ago. Perhaps I should just get rid of it all together?

I removed that sentence - it can always be added on if any evidence linking the two comes up. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You note that the strength of the division was around 8,500 when first formed, but it remained this way for much of its existence. Whereas divisions in Europe adopted a larger establishment. The 11th moved to the 1944 War Department tables in June 1945, increasing its size to 13,000.

I'll add that in if you could cite a source for it. I'm coming to find Flanagan more and more wanting as a historian of the 11th.

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 349. Also Stanton, p. 11 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to think that the Knollwood piece is very interesting, but may overstate the case. McNair wanted small, light divisions, and had proposed converting four airborne divisions - all but the 82nd - to light divisions in May 1943 ie before the invasion of Sicily. The light division concept failed, and McNair retained the four airborne divisions. There wasn't enough troop carrier capacity in SWPA to lift the whole of the 11th at once, so it was accepted that it would act as a light division. Eisenhower eventually adopted Ridgway's plan for a larger airborne division.

I'm getting kinda nervous now - I didn't know any of that and my sources didn't say that either. Could you tell me where this is coming from - maybe I can buy it if it's a book?

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 344, 349.

I think there's enough detail in this article about Knollwood, but I'll use that source and expand on the exercise when I write the Knollwood article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leyte: "It was ordered to relieve the 7th Infantry Division, engage and destroy all Japanese forces in its operational area," What was its operational area?

Good old Flanagan fails to state this - I'll try and find it out.

Devlin to the rescue! Specified.

See Cannon, Leyte: The Return to the Philippines, p. 296 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment was ordered to conduct the attack against the Japanese," What attack? Where?

I'll get on to rewording that.

Reworded via Devlin!

• "when conventional transport, such as mule-trains," Actually, mule-trains weren't all that conventional either.

Thank god, something easy! Re-worded

• Why hyphenate Major General? To me, that it a British-ism. But the rest of the article is in American. Maj.Gen. is okay (the wartime abbreviation - MG is used today) but my personal preference is to spell it out in full.

Part of that is that an anon. I.P kept changing things in the article, including that rank. I'll try and change them all to Maj. Gen.

Right, all changed to 'Maj. Gen'

• Luzon: You place all the blame for the inaccurate drop on the 317th TCG, but lack of jump discipline on the part of the 511th also contributed.

Only because that's what my sources stated - I'll look again, but some help would be appreciated if you have another source on the matter!

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 228. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's been seen to, added the online source Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing a description of operations in the Lipa corridor after Los Banos in March and April.

My sources have failed me completely - I didn't know there were any operations. I apologize, but I'm not sure what to do. Could you suggest a source?

Holy Moly! I found those operations - they were under 'Occupation of Japan' in Devlin. I'll add it as soon as I can.

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, pp. 425-435. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the section ysing Devlin, but I don't want to add in any more detail as this article is big enough as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, I would put the order of battle in its own article and link to it. This article is already very large. It's a good idea (and a potential featured list). JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that's a lot of comments :) Thanks Hawkeye, but just to let you know some of these might take me a few days to get back to you with. Skinny87 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye - I started a conversation over on MILHIST about web references like Hyperwar, and to be honest I'm not comfortable using them in an article I want to get to FA-Class. Like SandyGeorgia said in the FAC for the Nevada, Hyperwar isn't exactly very reliable for several reasons. Hence, I'll add what I can from my text sources, but I'm afraid I don't want to use Hyperwar or any other web resource I'm not completely sure about. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't use web sources either - I use the books. These are the Green books, and they trump any other secondary sources, such as Flanagan or Devlin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinions on official accounts aside, I guess they're good enough for wikipedia; but are those links reliable in terms of transcription - are they RS? Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And per your comment on the MILHIST talkpage, I don't have access to the Green books - Warwick University only has the British Official Histories, not the US ones. But if Hyperwar is reliable, I'll use them. Skinny87 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If those books use the official histories as sources, then the official histories are theoretically superfluous. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In practice, since we can't use the primary sources, the official histories become the final arbiters of any conflicts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true. For example, the official Soviet histories on the performance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front are horribly unreliable. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War II

I've been working on this article for some time, and would appreciate comments on its structure, content, how it could be brought up to A-class standard and any other topics. I think that some obvious areas which need work are the introduction and balancing the coverage of the different campaigns, but I am interested in seeing what other editors think. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• This inadequately equipped and outnumbered Allied force was not able to halt the Germans when they invaded on 6 April and was forced to retreat. - Needs a citation.

• Lead could probably be expanded a bit more for the size of the article.

• This inadequately equipped and outnumbered Allied force was not able to halt the Germans when they invaded on 6 April and was forced to retreat. - Could do with a citation, especially if you intend for A-Class and beyond.

• The collapse of British power in the Pacific also led Australia to reorient its foreign and military policy towards the United States. - Needs citation

That's all for now, I'll add more later. Great article! Skinny87 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• You cite that Australia fought two wars in the lead, yet don't cite the number of casualties taken by Australian armed forces. Consistency is needed, either way.

• In the 'Outbreak of war' section, you should mention that the two wars are WWI and WWII, as this could be assumed to mean any conflict. I would also cite that the Depression caused lower funding and military ineffectiveness.

• Australia's first shot of the war took place several hours later when a gun at Fort Queenscliff fired across the bows of an Australian ship which was attempting to leaving Melbourne without the required clearances. - German ship, possibly?

• At the time war was declared the Australian armed forces were less well-prepared than they had been at the outbreak of World War I in August 1914. - Can this be expanded upon, at all, even if it's just a paragraph?

• ...and whatever auxiliary units the Army could raise within this troop ceiling - Clarification needed for the uninformed reader by specifying that the troop ceiling is the 20,000 troops.

• During the first years of World War II Australia's military strategy was closely aligned with that of the United Kingdom - Citation needed.

• Although the fortress was manned by a larger Italian force, the aggressive Australian infantry quickly penetrated the defensive lines with the support of British tanks and artillery - Remove 'aggressive' as a possible weasel word.

• On 30 March 1941 a German-led force launched an offensive in Cyrenaica which rapidly defeated the Allied forces in the area, forcing a general withdrawal towards Egypt... this whole long paragraph could do with a couple more citations.

• Following the campaigns of 1941 the Australian I Corps was concentrated in Syria and Lebanon to rebuild its strength and prepare for further operations in the Middle East. Following the campaigns of 1941 the Australian I Corps was concentrated in Syria and Lebanon to rebuild its strength and prepare for further operations in the Middle East... again, needs a citation for this paragraph.

• These squadrons were unusual in that they were truly Australian, having arrived in the Middle East with Australian ground crews.[24] - Unclear, how were Australian squadrons 'not truly' Australian before this? Needs clarification.

• While the majority of the Australian military fought on the Western Front in France during World War I, relatively few Australians fought in Europe during World War II. - Citation would be a good idea.

• The RAAF's role in the strategic air offensive in Europe formed Australia's main contribution to the defeat of Germany. - Citation definitely needed.

• Measures were taken to improve Australia's defences as war with Japan loomed in 1941, but these proved inadequate - what measures were taken?

• From 1944 the Australian military was mainly relegated to subsidiary roles, but continued to conduct large-scale operations until the end of the war. - Citation needed

• Following the withdrawal to Singapore the 8th Division was deployed to defend island's north-west coast... - this whole paraghraph needs several citations.

• These forces proved too small to resist the Japanese, however, and were swiftly defeated during the first months of the Pacific War. - Citation needed

• The force (made up mostly of the 2/21st Battalion, 8th Division artillery and support troops) at Ambon was defeated in the Battle of Ambon which was fought between January 30 and 3 February 1942. While the 2/40th Infantry Battalion at Koepang was defeated, Australian commandos waged a guerrilla campaign against the Japanese in Portuguese Timor until February 1943. - This and the next two paragraphs need multiple citations.

• Curtin refused to authorise this movement and over-ruled Churchill in a heated exchange of cables. Could do with a citation

• Approximately 30,000 Australians were taken prisoner by the Axis during the war. Only 14,000 of the 22,000 Australian prisoners taken by the Japanese survived captivity. The majority of these deaths were due to malnutrition and disease. Needs a citation for the numbers.

• References could do with being combined.

I haven't gone through the rest of the article. It's extremely detailed and well-written, it just needs some clarifcation and much more citing if you intend to go for A-Class and beyond. Skinny87 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

This is a very good article indeed.

• Greece, Crete and Syria
  • While you mention that Menzies' leadership was weakened, there is no mention of the fact that he was tricked into approving Australian participation in the campaign in Greece.
  • I dislike the characterisation of the Fadden government as "the UAP government" given that Fadden wasn't even a member of the UAP.
  • Curtin's ascension to the prime ministership is mentioned, but not his later death, and his successors.

• El Alamein
  • The Australian Government agreed to British and United States requests to leave the 9th Division in North Africa until victory over Erwin Rommel was assured, however. True, but this was on the understanding that it would perform garrison duty. It wasn't the Curtin government's intention that it should be committed to intense combat.

• Italian campaign
  • As most Australian units in the Mediterranean were redeployed to the Pacific during 1942. Coming on the heels of mentioning the Q class destroyers, this is misleading.

• Malaya and Singapore
  • Lt.-General Percival. I hate abbreviations anyway but this one is kind of weird.

• The Defence of Australia
  • Although Australian General Thomas Blamey was nominally MacArthur's land force commander, he exercised little control over Allied forces and almost no Australians served in the staff of the main Allied headquarters.
  • MacArthur's headquarters should be referred to as GHQ. Could this be reworded? It seems unnecessarily negative, especially as Blamey also wielded real authority as Commander in Chief AMF and GOC New Guinea Force.
  • You mention that the Army was reduced in size, but not the reasons why.
  • There is no mention of the Volunteer Defence Corps.

• Papua
  • This force was successful in delaying the Japanese advance but was unable to stop the much larger South Seas Force. The South Seas Force was not actually much larger than Maroubra Force.
  • the Japanese continued to make ground until supply problems and further 7th Division reinforcements forced them to break off the offensive and withdraw on 24 September. Japanese accounts attribute breaking off the offensive to (1) fear of an Allied landing at Buna; (2) supply problems; (3) pressure from Allied air attacks.
  • Due to a lack of supporting weapons and the Allied high command's insistence on unreasonable deadlines The deadlines were not unreasonable under the circumstances, as the Japanese possessed the power to reinforce their garrison. The sudden arrival of a Japanese force could have turned the tables.

• New Guinea offensives
  • You speak of a 'pincer movement' and a 'race' to Lae but fail to mention the 9th Division's landings east of Lae, leaving the reader to wonder.

• Advance to the Philippines
  • A RAAF airfield construction squadron Wouldn't it be just as easy to say 'No. 3 Airfield Construction Squadron'? (Is there an article on the airbase construction squadrons?)

• Mopping up in New Guinea and the Solomons
  • The policy of the Curtin government deserves a passing mention in this regard.

• Home front
  • This is the part I'd most like to see expanded. Things that might deserve a mention include:
    • Lend Lease and Reverse Lend Lease.
    • Australia's role as an important supplier of food and raw materials
    • The role of industry, particularly the production of aircraft, munitions, weapons, armoured vehicles, and ships
    • Rationing. You mention rationing but not what was rationed.

• • You mention the National Security Act as an example of the expansion of Federal power but not:
    • The Income Tax Act of 1942
    • The Australia First Movement
    • Censorship

• I'd also like to see more on the role of Australian scientists, including:
  • The tropic proofing effort
  • The Medical Research Unit in Cairns and the fight against tropical diseases
  • The role of Australian scientists in the development of radar, and the Manhattan Project
  • Chemical warfare

Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

A year has come and gone since this article was last reviewed in any official capacity, and since I wish to ensure the battleship maintains her FA-star I am submitting the article for a peer review to get input as to how the article can be improved. Note that I am in summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients, its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Copyedit to reduce reduntent info
• Edits are needed for clarity and flow
• Check for repetativeness
• Check for NPOV compliance (de-DANFS-ify)
• Check for exotic words/phrases
• Ensure infoboxes for all Iowa class battleships adhere to a single format
• Check sources against those questioned during FAC for Montana class battleship (wp:reliability compliance)
• Assertain whether the attack of March 19, 1945, for a bomb run or a kamikaze run (re USS Franklin (CV-13), "Service with the 5th Fleet, Admiral Spurance")
  • Not a kamikaze attack; this has been corrected

Jappalang

I apologize for not reading the full article before writing the notes below. However, I believe my comments, even if extracted from the first half (up to Bombardment of Japan), are reflective of the article as a whole.

While reading the earlier sections, I find there to be more details than I think is necessary. Examples would be:

• Her shakedown and refitting, which was uneventful and dull. Unless the ship had no shakedown or had an eventful shakedown, I think this detail can be forgone to the benefit of the general reader.
• "On 24 September 1944 Wisconsin sailed for the west coast, transiting the Panama Canal, and reporting for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October. The battleship later moved to Hawaiian waters for training exercises and then headed for the Western Caroline Islands. Upon reaching the Caroline Island Ulithi she joined U.S. Navy Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet on 9 December 1944." -> "Wisconsin reported for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October 1944 and joined U.S. Navy Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet at Caroline Island Ulithi on 9 December 1944."
• "On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force— seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers— during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during the American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group 17 December with the intention of refueling all ships in the task force and replacing lost aircraft. Although the sea had been growing rougher all day, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull (DD-350), Monaghan (DD-354), and Spence (DD-512), capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Wisconsin reported two injured sailors as a result of the typhoon, but otherwise proved her seaworthiness as she escaped the storm unscathed." -> "On 18 December 1944, Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook them during a refuelling attempt at sea. At the time, the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force had rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group to refuel and replace lost aircraft on 17 December. They saw little warning of the approaching small but violent typhoon. The tropical cyclone overtook the Task Force on the next day while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and were buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull (DD-350), Monaghan (DD-354), and Spence (DD-512), capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars. The force suffered the effective loss of 146 planes due to fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Wisconsin reported two injured sailors as a result of the typhoon, but otherwise proved her seaworthiness by escaping the storm unscathed."

There are several cases of redundant or rambling elements within sentences as well:

• "she was actually completed": The "actually" is redundant especially when "although" was used at the start.
• "Due to the length of time it took to build," -> "Due to her long construction time,"
• The last three paragraphs of "Shakedown and service with 3rd Fleet, Admiral Halsey" can be copy-edited and combined into a single paragraph.
• "On that day, one of Wisconsin’s float-planes landed and rescued a downed pilot from the carrier Shangri-La (CV-38).": Landed on the carrier? On the sea? Why not just delete "landed and"?
• "Wisconsin ultimately put into Leyte Gulf and dropped anchor there on 13 June 1945 for repairs and replenishment." Why the use of "ultimately"? -> "On 13 June 1945, Wisconsin put into Leyte Gulf for repairs and replenishment."

There is an occasional disjointed flow or confusion in the readings:

• The very first paragraph is disjointed; Some description of the Iowa class before the second statement could provide a flow-in from the previous statement of "fast battleship" design. Something also needs to be done between the laying of her keel and her launch as those two sentences do not flow smoothly with each other.
• Three (four) consecutive paragraphs at the start of "Service with 5th Fleet, Admiral Spruance" beginning with "Wisconsin". This cna be rephrased.
• "redesignated TF 58": Was this TF 38?
• "Japanese shipping, both naval and merchant, also suffered drastically, as did hangars and aircraft installations." How do hangars and installations suffer drastically?
• "They revisited Tokyo on 25 February": I do not think a mental image of TF members taking a guided tour through Akihabara and Shinjuku should possibly be presented.
• "Wisconsin's task force stood out of Ulithi on 14 March 1945 bound for Japan." What is meant by "stood out"?
• Although I understand that the BPF consists of Commonwealth ships, the phrase "British battleships of the British Pacific Fleet" reads a bit funny. Any way to rephrase it?

Other comments:

• The main armaments of the Iowa class are not mentioned to be housed in how many turrets. An omission of details.
• Was Wisconsin part of TF38 or was she an independent escort?
• What were the results of TF 58's "eliminate airborne resistance from the Japanese homeland to American forces off Okinawa"?
• Active phrasing generally works better, e.g. "resulting in heavy damage to" -> "dealing heavy damage to"

I think a thorough copyedit and trimming would help this article greatly and will gladly review again a trimmed copy-edited article. Jappalang (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs

Some initial comments:

• “Wisconsin was last decommissioned” – you mean the Wisky was decommissioned last? Or what? Was it just plain decommissioned (I didn’t know they came back after being decommissioned.)
• Forgive me as I’m just a video games editor :P but is it allowed usage to refer to the ship as “her” and “she” rather than “the ship”?
• “She was launched on December 7, 1943, sponsored by Mrs. Goodland, wife of Walter S. Goodland, the governor of Wisconsin, and commissioned on April 16, 1944, with Captain Earl E. Stone in command.” The sentences in these paragraph suffer from repetitive construction and this sentence is somewhat rambling. Reword or chop up.
• ” Working round-the clock, Wisconsin’s ship’s force and shipyard personnel completed the operation which grafted the new bow on the old battleship in a mere 16 days.” – mere sounds POV-ish; unless you can demonstrate that 16 days was very little for the operation.

Overall, looks good so far, I'll check back later with some more comments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. The only immediate answerI can give is for the "her/she" comment: if you look on the talk page for good ole WisKy you'll find an FAQ box which provides the answer to this question (and a few others). Thanks for the comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

• There are several sensationalist phrases like "Her turrets boomed again" and "Blasting/ed Japanese targets" that should be altered.
• The number of references should be increased if possible using different sources ie: not so much reliance on DANFS.
• One thing I have noticed across all of the Iowa class articles is that the infoboxes are not all laid out the same way. Perhaps now would be the time to figure out what to do with those before going for Featured Topic.

--Brad (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Doncram

• I have personal views on what is appropriate use of public domain text, which I believe are not widely shared by SHIPS editors and reviewers. There is history in wikipedia of including EB1911 and DANFS and other text in articles, but i and at least some others think that it would be better for Wikipedia policy to change, at least for featured content. There is some current discussion of draft policy at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Supporters of recycling public domain text tend to believe that it is the wiki way, and highly value the ability to reuse other free text, just as wikipedia allows and hopes for others to re-use wikipedia text according to our license. However, I personally believe that it is not good practice to treat public domain text as anything different from any other source, at least not in GAs or FAs. Although it is not a violation of copyright to incorporate PD text, it makes the resulting wikipedia article less valuable, in my view. It is not currently policy to require any different attribution than is included in this article, but it could be good practice to do so. A Featured Article is supposed to be Wikipedia's best writing. In my view, an article which contains passages of recycled text is inferior than that, it is not Wikipedia's best writing, much of it is not Wikipedia's writing at all.

• One reason to treat DANFS like any other source, is so that the wikipedia article is itself more valuable. Consider, if someone might wish to cite the Wikipedia article, version as of a certain date. Note, one cannot accurately credit Wikipedia with authorship of this article. If you quote from it, to be accurate you would need to say, this is from Wikipedia or sources that Wikipedia has copied from, and there is no generally available guidance about how to cite in any such way. To cite giving credit to just Wikipedia, accurately, you would have to do a special analysis of DANFS source, to check whether the real source of wording is from DANFS as opposed to wikipedia editors.

• About the use of DANFS text generally, I and perhaps other reviewers in their comments above find that DANFS text is often in quaint language and is not in modern idiom. The editors of this article are perfectly capable, as shown in their treatment of other sources, to treat DANFS text like any other text and give explicit credit to DANFS for wording (besides giving credit to DANFS for being the source of facts). This would involve use of quotation marks and so on, or rewording. If you had to do that, though, I expect you would usually choose instead to do complete rewriting, rather than add excessive quotes, and in recognition that the DANFS text is old, itself.

• Setting aside general policy, about the current article, I personally feel it would be a better article if the extent of DANFS text recycling was reduced, and if the attribution of any copied text was made more clear than it currently is, right now. There does exist a small print disclaimer "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" included in the Further Reading section. You editors and I know exactly what that means, but I believe that is inadequate notice for the general reader and for many who might ever wish to rely upon the information in this article.

• Consider the following example. The DANFS source has passage:

The second Wisconsin (BB-64) was laid down on 25 January 1941 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 7 December 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Walter S. Goodland; and commissioned on 16 April 1944, Capt. Earl E. Stone in command.

• The article has corresponding passage:

She was launched on 7 December 1943, sponsored by Mrs. Goodland, wife of Walter S. Goodland, the governor of Wisconsin, and commissioned on 16 April 1944, with Captain Earl E. Stone in command.[2][3]

• About that example, I don't think that Mrs. Goodland is worth mentioning, I don't expect she is a notable person, especially as her importance is suggested to be only in her association with Walter S. Goodland. The revised version is somewhat better for attempting to explain Walter's notability, but that has the effect of expanding this, when it would be best to reduce it, in my view. It is DANFS practice to write in this quaint way. The current article passage is mostly the same. Rather than introducing quotes to give explicit credit to DANFS for the wording, I would suggest dropping most of the sentence and rewriting entirely new text.

• I hope some may find these comments helpful. doncram (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank

Reasons for requesting peer review:

1. The article has undergone a complete rewrite from Former FA, Start Class to B Class, trimmed from 60kB to 37kB, improved citations, references and links to 50kB with no increase in the text length of the article, added images, a timeline, external links - I think it's ready for peer review.
2. Co-editors Micheal Z. and Trekphiler seem to have no significant problems with the article and consider it greatly improved. Edit: see below Dhatfield (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I need feedback on style, content (or lack thereof), contestable statements, weakness in the article: the usual suspects.
4. I may be unaware of MilHist conventions that I should be using.

Dhatfield (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mzajac

Tank#Blitzkrieg and combined arms, ¶ 3, starting with "Operation Barbarossa started as an echo..."

This seems to be missing some important factors, and not quite right in the details. It may be hard to explain completely in just a paragraph, but there are some critically important lessons in tank warfare buried here.

I don't know about rigid structure, but the Soviets were completely surprised by the attack, were deployed without depth, and had poor training and tactical skill. They had tanks in huge numbers, but a dismal maintenance state and dire lack of replacement parts and even recovery vehicles did in much of the Soviet armour. The 1930s purge of the officer corps is also often cited, but there is some disagreement as to how important this was. In fact the Germans did precipitate a panic, but they had much, much farther to go than in France, and there was some bad weather.

Another often-cited idea is the shock of the Germans upon encountering the hitherto unsuspected T-34 and KV tanks, and "tank panic" which affected their infantry.

Finally, the Soviets' turned the war around in part thanks to their ability to completely overproduce the Germans even though they had to relocate their entire tank industry to the Urals and had significantly fewer resources. If you had to sum up the whole thing in relation to tanks, I would say that they fortunately had the best tank in the world and managed to concentrate on non-stop production while minimizing design changes to make it serve throughout the war. See T-34 and Operation Barbarossa for more detail and some good citations.

I have rewritten this section based on Operation Barbarossa#Causes of initial Soviet defeats and Operation Barbarossa#Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa. These are sparsely cited so I cannot determine which contains the relevant facts. I am keeping Deighton for now. T-34 statement now has an appropriate citation.  Done, subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Firepower, ¶ 1: "A modern type of tank ordnance arising from the close range urban combat in Iraq is a 120 mm calibre "shotgun" round for the M1 Abrams which will fire 1,100 tungsten pellets."

The particular round may be new, or new to US forces, but canister shot and flechette ammunition for cannon, artillery and tank guns go way back.

Good point - this has been re-written to indicate that this is the a recent application of canister shot to the tank. As far as I know, no modern tanks have flechette ammunition other than the KEP. Subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have any references, but I still don't think that canister is a recent application to the tank, or that it has experienced a general revival. My understanding, based totally on hearsay, is that a tank would typically carry one or two for self-defence in wartime, but this may change for urban combat.

Edited to: "Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE rounds is unacceptably high." Acceptable? Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be poorly-publicized, because of the sensitive nature of antipersonnel ordnance. The only thing I can find off-hand is Flechette#Controversy for the Israeli use, and Beehive (ammunition) for US use in Vietnam. This question needs a better reference than USA Today.

As far as I know, Beehive and the Isreali flechette ammunition are fired from artillery pieces. I haven't seen any mention of tank AP flechette. Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tactics otherwise proscribe" urban combat also needs clarification or better context. Tanks have been used to good effect in urban warfare since at least WWII, and various armed forces have developed and codified the tactics. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:02 z

It was my perception, and I did not think it was contested. Since it is, it's gone.  Done Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, urban areas where AFVs are vulnerable are typically bypassed by the first elements of an advance. But when it's time to clear the cities, tanks are a valuable asset, if used properly. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 01:47 z

I think the level of detail we are talking about needs a Tank tactics article to do it justice. Dhatfield (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another possible approach here. We could roll 21st century and urban together? Dhatfield (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Water operations, ¶ 1: "Combat engineering teams require large quantities of specialised equipment and hours or even days to construct pontoon bridges capable of carrying the weight of a main battle tank in combat conditions."

But this is not necessarily typical after WWII. Although the need for reconnaissance and preparation should be taken into account, bridging tanks can be deployed in mere minutes, and I understand that some of the Cold-War Soviet pontoon bridges can be erected across substantial rivers in well under an hour. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

I cited lotsa Soviet water-crossing info at talk:Tank#Water operations. Executive summary: 17-m tank-launched bridge in 1.5 mins, a motor-rifle battalion can conduct a crossing from the march in 45 mins (but tanks usually take longer), a division can build a 119-m pontoon bridge in 17 minutes, which tanks can cross at 30 kph! —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 07:46 z

Excellent data.  Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Tank power plants, table: might be interesting to add the weights and/or power-to-weight ratios to the table in "tank power plants" but best not make it too complex. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

 Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Hey Doug,

The Tank article looks a lot better, but here are some things that I think could be improved. I would like to here your opinion if you think otherwise, as my suggestions may or may not always be the best! But, in any case, here it goes.

1. I think the 21st Century section under History focuses too much on U.S. involvement in Iraq. Apart from M1 Abrams and Challenger 2s, the Italians deployed the 4th Armored Regiment to Iraq under Operation Antica Babilonia, from late 2005 to sometime in 2006, when the regiment was supposed to leave due to Italy's decision to end involvement in the war. Due to Leopard 1s and 2s being deployed to Afghanistan, including Canadian and Danish tanks, perhaps this should be mentioned, as well. I think it would be better to avoid exact details about country's involvements with tanks in assymetrical warfare, since the list is big (those already mentioned, plus French Leclercs in Lebanon and tanks used in Kosovo and Israel's experiences in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank). Instead, in my opinion the article should focus on tank warfare in assymetrical warfare, in general. Perhaps, avoiding exact instinces will also avoid potential heat from people who are opposed to certain countries and certain wars, thereby avoiding conflict in the talk page.

I completely agree, although a list (a timeline?) of conflicts shouldn't be too contentious? That section of the history is by far the weakest. You seem very well informed, maybe you'd consider writing a section? I'm more of an amateur images, cleanup & copyedit kind of guy. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start here. Would you take a look and tell me if you think I'm heading in the right direction? Dhatfield (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The article needs referecing, and soon I will take some time to add as many as I can.

Brilliant. You are a referencing genius. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled bricks that detonate when damaged by HEAT fire, bending or disrupting the incoming molten metallic jet. - A HEAT jet is not really molten metal, it's just an extending-penetrator (as some papers have called it) moving at hypervelocity relative to its own medium and the medium its penetrating, and so it can be called neither solid nor liquid. I have a source that can be used when it's reworded, and if you'd like I can reword it myself. Furthermore, explosive reactive armor is made up of flier plates, more so than just explosives. In fact, I will work on the sentence myself and we can discuss how it looks here. The comment on tandem warheads can be expanded by giving some information on Kontakt-5, but unfortunately I only have the patent in Russian and have not yet paid anybody to translate it (I planned on doing so after finishing basic training, here in Spain).

We look forward to your input. I'll be on hand, I'm currently going through the images on the page and doing enhancing them. I haven't forgotten about the Challenger 2 smoothbore - I'm just gathering my strength for another go at EasyTimeline. Anybody know how to centre and frame a transcluded page on WP?

Otherwise, it looks good! JonCatalan (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and input Jon. If we keep going, maybe we can bump up to GA assessment in a bit. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

Nice work on the article. My comments are:

• The lead photo (of an M1 in Iraq) should be replaced as it's low quality (the image seems to be a bit out of focus and the colours blend together) and shows a tank operating in the relatively rare role of urban counter-insurgency.

• Very interesting you mention this. Two points:

1. I am working on an image that will show the parts of a tank and this may be a good choice for the lead image once it's finished. See image on right.

   

   Diagram of M1A1

2. We are currently debating the content for the 21st Century section. I desperately need input (preferably someone to write the section), because I'm just learning and hacking together whatever I can find on the net - not the best recipe for a good section. The start of it is here, but Jonathan (see above) tells me this is mostly nonsense - not surprising - and is sending some refs, so hopefully I can improve it.

• Update: I have fixed the colour bleed in the sky (a mistake from my early GIMP days) & put the new pic (now Featured) in the design section. The 'out of focus' appearance is from jpg artifacts in the original - they were horrible. I haven't found another image that is as dynamic, has as much atmosphere and illustrates a tank 'in action' like the current lead. If you have any suggestions, please fire away. Dhatfield (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• More citations are needed, especially for the 'tank design' section

• Again, references have me stumped. I have scraped together whatever I can find, but I don't have the library that an expert does. I've said this before about five times and I'll keep saying it, any assistance you can provide with references would be much appreciated.

• Some bits of the history section are missleading - eg "Operation Barbarossa started with the Soviets having a superior tank design, the T-34" (true, but T-34s made up only a small part of the Soviet tank force in June 1941)

• That may or may not be true (I honestly don't know), but Soviet mass production quickly made good any lack of numbers. They did, however, start with the design. I'm not defending this sentence to the death, if you can think of a better (referenced) phrasing, please make the changes.

and Shermans "were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks" (this is arguable given their greatly better reliability and somewhat irrelevant given that Shermans operated as part of combined-arms teams).

• Now written as:

When entering WWII American mass production capacity enabled her to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap Sherman tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank vs tank battle they were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Numerical and logistical superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to overpower the German forces during the Battle of Normandy. The Sherman Firefly was introduced to improve the Sherman's firepower, but concerns about protection remained.

The 21st Century section of the history section needs to be reworked as it is too brief and doesn't discuss tank development. The 21st Century section should discuss the recent debate over whether heavy tanks are still useful in modern warfare. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• True, I'll look into this. Dhatfield (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Glad to see someone taking this on! I get the impression that you've done a good job of removing semi-irrrelevant detail and forking it off to daughter articles. I would now expect the article to get longer, as more important detail is re-added. I am no tank expert but know a fair bit of military history, and I can see a number of problems, listed below. The Land (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing an interest - this article is desperately lacking contributors. To give you a bit of background, I copyedited the article and made us a new timeline and Featured Picture (my first, it's in the design section), but I don't have the knowledge or references to generate new, high quality text content. That just isn't my area of expertise. As a result I can only reply to your comments in the areas where my (sketchy) knowledge exists.

• History. In general, this section is written with insufficient awareness of the context.
  • More is needed on World War I: there needs to be much more about how and why tanks were developed and deployed.
    • The paragraph that starts "In contrast to World War II..." - why not contrast the lack of tanks in the German army with the many tanks in the Allied armies?
    • It should be noted that the tank, in spite of its problems, was part of the combined arms offensive techniques which won the war in 1918.

• Fair enough, but the point may be contested because if I remember correctly, the number of tanks in the Allied armies at the end of the war was dismal. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Interwar: Again, needs more depth. Go into some detail about what the technical and doctrinal changes were.
  • World War II: "However, the geographic scale of the conflict, the dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, Soviet manpower and production capability and the Russian Winter prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of 1940". Not quite. The Blitzkrieg on the Eastern Front captured huge amounts of Russian territory.

• True, but not strategic panic and certainly not capitulation of the state. Could use clarification on that point. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "strategic panic" is exactly what happened. The Land (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Okay, you got me. Dhatfield (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Len Deighton is probably not a very reliable source.

• As I am told repeatedly :) However, lacking other sources I do the best I can. When I arrived citations in this article (barring WWI) were rare. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Surely the vast tank battles on the Eastern Front which decided the War deserve some mention in the article?

• I am concerned that too much information in the history section could unbalance the article and cause the reader to lose interest, but you make a good point. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tank doctrine probably warrants a section - you might replace the C3I section with doctrine, which is a broader topic.

• There have been rumblings about a tank tactics and/or tank doctrine article for some time. It would be fantastic, but if I write it it would be unreferenced opinion - not good. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are some low-value links which can be remove, e.g. obsolete.

• Perhaps, but I wanted to make this 'kiddie friendly'. What does a male teenager look up first on WP (okay, after pornography). To me that means linking all terminology, however trivial. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that we could really use your input, particularly with respect to high quality references. The biggest lack in the article is the 21st century history section. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in the areas I mentioned. The Land (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Brevity

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigma strikes back

well not really :)

Am glad of the mangaling of my edits :) That is my main problem at the moment and i fear somewhat will be a major problem once i start my uni studies is that my grammar, on the whole, sucks!

I've struck through two of the points above as they have now been worked though. I would have struck through the section headers but am still not too sure if what is there now, is sufficient.

As for the point regarding Rommels epiphany on the importance of Halfaya Pass, i will have to reread his memoirs and the information in Jentz book and will get back to that one soon.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, i have just re read your remaining point - Rommel could not fortify Halfaya Pass following Brevity as it was still in his pocession. He did so after Skoprian, which am going to start a new article on. I will however mention in the aftermath section his realisation on how important the pass was.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the pass though, is it? If you read Operation_Battleaxe#Axis_preparation you'll see that Rommel fortified other positions as well, and this is still lacking from the Brevity article. Presumably this can be redressed by simply lifting the relevant statement, which is sourced, from the Battleaxe article? --FactotEm (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted, i agree it should be noted and lifted from the article but only in relation to the ridge and other point - not Halfaya Pass. The entire statement from the Battleaxe article cna be dropped in the Skorpion one though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko

A few points.

* Try to use plain language. What you have looks alright at a glance, but I would imagine that words like "whilst" are not used in typical conversation by most our readers.

• AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.

* I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place. * I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.

Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Factotem

Oops. Displaying my ignorance of the MilHist peer review process here by completely missing this page! I've mangled a lot of Enigma's efforts with a couple of days worth of copyedits, but hopefully that has improved the prose. Ain't nothing wrong with "whilst" in English usage, but a moot point as every instance has now been changed to "while" as per the original editor's usage. --FactotEm (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the section headings/organisation, how about the following...?

• Rename "Opening moves" to "British advance"
• Eliminate the "Afternoon fighting" section, incorporating the 1st and 3rd paras which detail British actions into the "British advance" section, and incorporating the 2nd para which details German actions into the existing "German reactions" section
• Rename "16 May" to "British withdrawal" --FactotEm (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, ill rename the two sections. However for now i will not remove the afternoon section as it will require some bits and bobs to be rewrote and am not up for it at the moment. If anyone else wants to, go ahead! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. How's that looking now for everyone? --FactotEm (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

Checked grammar & style. Generally good. As far as I can tell, the map you provide shows Rommel's offensive, not the Allied counter-attacks. That would require a much smaller scale.

A few other general comments:

• Add flow - I struggled to get a sense of the flow of the battle through the attacks and counterattacks. The best way to do this is with a notated map. You can use Inkscape to do this quite easily. You will probably need a better map of the immediate area in svg or pdf format. As second prize, a timeline or even a summary list of major actions on each front would clarify the flow somewhat. Is there a MilHist convention on this? I'm not a battles expert, I generally stick to tech.

Am at work so i cant download this programme just yet, does one load a map into the programme and then use the programme to put placenames/lines of advance etc on it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It is best if the image is in a Scaleable Vector Graphics format. A couple of arrows, a few X's and some text should do nicely.

You may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve and request a raster to vector conversion of your map, then label it. Alternatively, take a look at the historical map tutorial. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add scope - sometimes you refer to Coast, Central and Desert forces, sometimes to actions at a place with no indication of who was fighting there other than a regiment name. To link up a place-name combination with a force is making your reader work hard.

In the plans section, these three units are mentioned and what battalions/armoured units made them up is detailed. Following this, when place names are mentioned it is only (i think) in conjection with the battalion/armoured unit names. Could you give me an example of where it is confusing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is all there in detail and for that you are to be commended, but detail is very difficult to read, especially when one is expected to skip between sections to get the picture. Example:In 'British Advance', a Company (A Company?) of 2nd Scots Guards advanced towards the Sollum barracks (paragraph 4). G Company of the 2nd Scots Guards is listed as the third element of a group heading to Halfaya Pass in paragraph 2. From Plans, I can infer that the 'Halfaya Pass' group is the 22nd Guards Brigade Group (paragraph 3). Then I must look in line 4 of paragraph 2 of Plans to discover (in brackets) that 2nd Scots Guards is part of 22nd Guards Brigade Group. Now I know that 2nd Scots Guards is part of the group tasked with taking the Halfaya Pass (also known as the central group). The Plan says that they were going to swing north to Sollum after taking Fort Capuzzo. What are they doing at Sollum? How on earth did they get there? Oh, I can see on the map that Sollum and the Sollum Barracks are on different sides of the Halfaya Pass. The details are still fuzzy in my mind but it seems to make sense, and I've spent a lot more time trying to figure it out than the average reader. Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the main author of this article but have done some extensive copyediting, which may have generated some of this confusion. A map will certainly help, but can this also be resolved simply by organising the "British advance" section better; either by merging the narrative for each battle group (coast, centre, desert) into a single paragraph for that battle group, or by introducing section headers for the actions of each battle group? Also, some points that may well be adding to the confusion...

• The plan actually says that 2nd Scots Guards were to swing north towards Sollum, not actually to Sollum, two different beasts.
• Although the above refers to the town, when it is covered in the Battle section, it is reported as an advance towards Sollum Barracks. Further, the objective is reported ambiguously, leaving the impression that it is the barracks that are being fought for by the (non-specific) Scots Guards company. The fact that this section ends with the statement that following the action "...the advance continued" leads me to suspect that the action was fought for some intermediary position, and not Sollum (town or barracks) itself.
• The plans section reports that it was actually the Coast Group, not the centre group of which the Scots Guards are a part, that was tasked with taking Sollum Barracks. --FactotEm (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Company the Scots Guards sent to the capture the barracks is called somelike "left force". Looking through an article the other day, it mentioned that companies in some guards battalions were labled as such instead of being given a letter. I ommited the name they gave the company as i felt it could add some confussion to any reader.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-organisation is a good idea. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add context - was this fought between the entire Western Desert forces on both sides (what proportion?), or advanced elements of both? The reader, accustomed to European battles may be confused. Was this near the start, middle or end of the Western Desert campaign? Your background is too dense and detailed to get 'the big picture'.

An entire order of battle is provided, the info box also states it is elements of which particular Corps and the number of tanks involved, that 3 infantry battalions were the main allied force (similar information for Axis forces is to sketchy, otherwise i would have noted). What exactly is it your suggesting, am confused somewhat?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you provide excellent detail, but the text should contain some sense of scale. Something like "The battle involved the majority of the Allied forces outside Tobruk and approximately half of the Axis tank forces." (or whatever the numbers are) Now I know that this was a big deal as far as the Desert War was concerned. Did the Axis lose 20% of their tanks or 2%? How severe were the losses to the British in terms of their fighting effectiveness? Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Dhatfield (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, some questions underneath your points for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars

After extensive rewriting of the article, I need some feedback, and a "cooler" look than mine. What is left to be done? What is missing?

I don't know if there can be any help with the translation of these two excellent maps in the German wiki, that would enrich the English article, Bild:Julian vs Persien.png and Bild:Justinian Byzanz.png.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko

It looks quite good, well referenced and having a sensible framework. A few suggestions:

• I think it'd help to have a "background" section, briefly discussing the rise of the Romans and Persians and how they initially came into conflict.

• Background section treating the Roman ambitions in the East and the Persian revival under the Parthians added.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to include "See also: Parthia#Conflicts with Rome", almost of that content should already be included in Roman-Parthian Wars and it would look cleaner to have just the one link.

• Removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maps which show the relative size of both empires would be beneficial, right now they're a bit sporadic and include only one of the factions at a time. Ideally, an animated map showing the fluctuations of both empires over time would be best.

• The two German maps above would be of great profit for the article. But any way to translate them?!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• For such a broad topic spanning centuries, I would recommend pruning out the names of all but the most important individuals (emperors and such). Most of the time it appears that an individual is introduced, with no background, and then not seen again.

• Trying to keep the names of the emperors and of the most important general.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Roman-Sassanid Wars section goes into too much detail. I would imagine that it warrants its own article (which it mostly has), especially as the Romans had divided into two quite independent political entities.

• Trying to implement WP:SS and transferring material to the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The tactics section should include a few more of the relative strengths of the two empires. Superior Roman engineering (i.e. siege equipment and fortifications) should likely be mentioned.

• Relevant info are gradually incorporated.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

This comment has moved to a historical map tutorial.

Reasons why this does not look the same as / as good as Captain Blood's German version is that the projection is different - Captain Blood uses the source elevation maps and texture data and renders the projection himself. That is too hardcore for me. Sadly, he is inactive. As for the rest of his techniques, you now have the answer. Good luck, if you have any problems drop me a talk. Dhatfield (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this great advice!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

I asked for a translation/version without text at the German wikipedia. This may take a while.

Please have images at size that one sees the basic features without opening each one. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I never liked these large-size maps! I do not see why it is a problem to click on a map or an article if you want more details.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's less confortable opening a map each time and a seperate window. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Land

I was curious to note that this article didn't include the wars between Romans and Seleucids. I am no expert, but had assumed it would do. The Land (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Seleucids are in no way regarded as a Persian empire. There is some uncertainty even about Parthia! But, at least, the Parthians were Iranians.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Leopard 2E (tank)

I just finished the 'rough draft' and I'm looking, as always, for criticism and ways of improving the prose (my main weakness). Any help would be great! JonCatalan (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated Comment: Since the article failed the ACR because not enough people supported (I guess this is the reason?), I plan to go straight to FAC. So, I'd like to orient this peer review towards that goal - I plan to keep it open for a few more days. JonCatalán (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: do you think it might be clearer if you renamed this to Leopard 2E (tank)? :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It might, especially if you think it would (from my perspective it's clear, but to one who doesn't know the subject it might not be). Although, there is nothing that the article name can be confused with (no other Leopard 2Es). JonCatalan (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME (which is policy) talks about titles having a minimum of ambiguity. Adding (tank) removes any to my mind. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved it! Hopefully, I moved everything else I had to, as well. JonCatalan (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. All seems fine. Better move it now than later :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Very promising indeed.

• Perhaps re-structure the "references" and "bibliography" sections into "Notes" (short cites) and "References" (full reference) along the lines of your Verdeja article. It's easier on the eye and avoids unnecessary repetition. You also need to identify Spanish language sources with the {{es icon}}.
• euro is lower case.
• Section headers are lower case, i.e. Spanish armor programs

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, references and bibliography have been renamed Notes and References, while 'Spanish Armor Programs' has been re-written as Spanish armor programs (Program Coraza I kept capitalized since it's a name), and I lower-cased 'euro'. Apparently not everyone agreed with moving it to 'Leopard 2E (tank)', so it was moved back to 'Leopard 2E' by another editor. JonCatalan (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Lenape (ID-2700)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class. Also, is there enough substance to think about FA-class? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I think there's enough to make a reasonable attempt at FA status, although you'll likely face at least some complaints that it's too short. A few things to fix before then:

• The lead should be at least two full paragraphs, even for an article of this size.
• Is there a reason why the pre-Navy career elements are omitted from the infobox?

Keep up the good work! Kirill ^(prof) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've since found sources that detail the ship's demise, and will add that information soon. That should fill out the article nicely. Responses, in order, to your other points:

• I'll work on expanding the lead.
• No reason for the pre-Navy elements not to be in the infobox (other than laziness, perhaps?)

Thanks for taking the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

Here from the WP:VG project.

• The infobox image caption... I see a weird character, which the wikitext says is  . Not sure what it's meant to be?
  • Appears a few more times in the article, actually.
• The lead definitely would be criticised for length at GAN/FAC/whatever you go for. As Kirill says, it needs expansion.
• "...and, on 28 May,..." - it'd make a bit more sense if you said what year this was.
• "U.S. destroyers based at Queenstown, Ireland, and French destroyers joined to escort the convoy." - check commas here, the wrong meaning might be sent across (or maybe it's just me... that's likely).
• Are all these redlinks notable?

An interesting read, thanks for your work. Hope this helps! giggy _(:O) 11:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order, to your points:

• It is a unicode "thin space" character that keeps the non-wiki apostrophe/single quote from crashing into italicized text for a possessive form of the ship. It's not so important here because the ship ends with a lowercase letter, so I'll remove it. Is there any way you can take a screen cap and e-mail to me so I know what you're seeing? (My e-mail is in my profile.)

• Just took a look now and it's not showing. My computer has been playing up today so I dunno... I'll take another look some time in the near future and get back to you if there are any more issues with it. giggy _(:O) 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I definitely need to work on the lead.
• I see your point. I'll work on a better wording.
• I did up a quick article on armed yacht this morning, and the remaining redlinks are the steamship line and other Navy vessels. All would be considered notable and would be created (at least as stubs) before going forward with, say, an FA nom.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this promoted to A- and FA-class. I had an informal review by several editors at WikiProject Israel in regard to possible NPOV terminology for the American Palestine Line era, and I made some changes based on their suggestions.

Some questions I'd like to have addressed:

• Is the lead too long? If so, what can be done to shorten it?
• What are some alternatives for the really long infobox? One thought I'd explored was to have a separate box for each owner/operator, but I'm concerned how that would interfere with image placement throughout the article.

Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• If I recall correctly the infobox sections can be made to collapse; I am not sure how to do this but MBK004 may know, so I would suggest asking him for help on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be a great solution. I'll ask. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually don't know if this is possible or not. The person to ask is TomTheHand (talk). He works with the infoboxes quite a bit developing new features for them. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

USS Finland (ID-4543)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class and possibly FA-class. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Very interesting article! A question to begin with though, and not necessarilly for the edit, but what does USAT stand for? Regardless, here are some comments:

- In 1912, Finland was chartered by the American Olympic Committee to take the U.S. team to the 1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm, Sweden. -- Perhaps a citation? It's nothing that I would consider 'arguable', but I would think that perhaps it would be interesting to see a source and it's a specific fact. Looking at the rest of the introduction, it seems citations are avoided because the information is presented below. From my experiences with the T-26 I found that people were still interested in citations in the introduction, despite the information being covered in detail below; this may or may not present itself as an issue when you present it for FAC, although admittedly none of the information is horridly questionable, or something someone would question.

- Although this is another one of those 'it may or may not be an issue', maybe making articles for the red links? You could create them into stubs.

All in all a very well written and well cited article, on a little known but very interesting (at least to me!) subject. It should be mentioned that while I don't normally read naval history, especially on a topic such as this one, it actually was extremely interesting - so, in my humble opinion the writing is wonderful. Good work! JonCatalan (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order:

• USAT stands for "United States Army Transport". I usually make that more clear when introducing it, but must have missed this one. Thanks for catching!
• I do try to avoid cites in the lead, if possible. The chartering itself is specifically cited below.
• Most of the other redlinks are for other Navy (or otherwise notable) ships. Before proceeding with an FA nom, all would be created (at least as stubs), or de-linked.

Thanks for taking the time to read and review, and the kind words. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neovu79

Removing a lot of the red ink would help; they are always an eyesore. Neovu79 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would help. I am following Naming conventions (ships) where it says "Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship" (see the section "Referring to ships"). The result of following that guideline—especially when it is considered that World War I ships, particularly transports and armed/converted yachts, seem to be an underrepresented interest of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS editors—is lots of red links. Any help you can provide in creating articles about the notable ships linked in USS Finland (ID-4543) would, of course, be welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Mercy (AH-4)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class. Also, is there enough substance to think about FA-class? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the incomplete USS Illinois (BB-65) can get to FA-class then this surely can too, its just an issue of getting all your ducks in a row. I'll take a look after dinner and offer suggestions for improvement then. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall; but a few things that might be improved:

• The single sub-sections aren't really the best thing to have.
• The listing of notable passengers might work better in a box of some sort, rather than as a rump section.
• The image with the footnotes essentially turns it into a three-column layout, which is somewhat cramped on smaller resolutions.

Kirill ^(prof) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order:

• Easily removed. (see item below, also)
• I can easily prose-ify the notable passengers (and eliminate the section heading in the process)
• Good point. I'll remove an image so that doesn't happen.

Thanks for taking time to do all the reviews that you do, Kirill. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uriel Sebree

Just finished this article, have been working on it off and on since March 2007. Sebree was a rear admiral, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and 2nd acting-Governor of American Samoa. I am looking for advice on how to improve the article, places where the text needs to flow better, etc. My hope is to bring this up to A/FA standards. Thank you for your assistance!

JonCatalán

I am not one to comment on the grammar, but it looks very nice overall; well-sourced and well-written. I hope that someone offers a better peer review, since this is not much more than an attempt to motivate you to try to get the article featured. Here are some quasi-suggestions, however:

1. Is there any way the early life and career could include more on his life prior to military service? Admittedly, I have not looked over many biographies, and this is one of the best I have read so far, but it seems to me that the opening paragraph is quite short and there's almost no information on his life prior to service. In fact, there is only one sentence!
2. How were those Los Angeles Times articles accessed? If they were accessed through an onine database, I think that a retrieved date should be added. If not, then ignore this!
3. I would suggest to put the article through a Good Article review, as you will get someone to look at it in depth (at least, this was my experience) and may offer you even more help than a peer review.

I'm sorry that I couldn't offer some more helpful criticism, but it really does look good. JonCatalan (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jon, thanks for your comments. To point #1, his early life is somewhat difficult. Most of the writing that has been done on Sebree are from military sources or have a military bent-- that is where he spent most of his life and he did join the academy at 15. I have one source that talks more about his father, but not much about him. I'll keep looking. To point #2, they were ProQuest articles. I can add an accessdate, but I've not had to do that for any of the others since they are scans of the original papers rather than transcriptions. For #3, I hope to put the article through GA (and maybe eventually FA), after it gets a few more eyeballs on it through this peer review process. Thanks for the words of encouragement! JRP (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101

A very nice article that would not require a vast amount of work to challenge for GA or even FA. There are however some problems that I have listed below.

• The lead is OK, and does introduce the article, but I am not convinced that the level of detail devoted to his Artic expeditions in the lead is in correct proportion to his career. Undoubtably they were important, but were they significantly more important than his work in American Samoa or the major events of his naval career? When thinking about this consider breaking the lead into three paragraphs and reviewing the prose.
• Prose. The prose lets itself down in places. The article needs one or two thorough copyedits from experienced editors, but I have listed some of the points of issue below. The biggest problems are wayward and excessive punctuation and the tendency to repeat words within the same sentence, which breaks the prose up and makes it much more difficult to read.

• "This rescue mission was successful and gained Sebree and the other officers of the expedition a level of fame." - awkward
• "Two features in Alaska, Sebree Peak and Sebree Island, were named for the admiral." - should be "are named"
• "the group trudged slowly" - I don't think ships can trudge, try sailed.
• "returned to "civilization" at" - the inverted commas a little patronising, try removing it entirely (i.e. "the relief expedition sailed initially to Upernavik, Greenland")
• "Sebree and the other members of the relief expedition gained fame from the voyage." - Again, awkward. Try to think of another word other than gained.
• "his decision was not not act" - Not to act?
• "After caring for his wife," - to me this sounds a little like she died. Try "Following his wife's recovery" or similar. (Unless she actually died, in which case say so)

• Is any greater detail known of his background, upbringing or early life?
• No need to link "riot". It is a common enough word. Only link if there is an article on that specific riot. Check other common words that may be linked elsewhere in the article.
• Link Rear Admiral William T. Swinburne (if one doesn't exist, make one)

Despite these comments, this is an excellent article which could quite easily get though GAN and even FAC with a bit of prose tinkering. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lissa (1811)

Hi, just passed GA with this and hoping to take it on to FAC. Would appreciate any comments from reviewers on the article, particulaly related to the prose, which can be a weakness for me. I would also appreciate the opinion of anyone with a background or interest in the subject on whether the sourcing is appropriate. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cam

My colleagues below have probably said most of it, but just one thing that I caught after a quick read-through:

• I'd prefer to see the casualty statistics in the infobox cited, just for verifiability purposes. Although you have cited them in the tables further down the article, I think it'd make slightly more sense to cite them in the infobox for the overall statistics (at least that's what I'd do)

All the best in taking the article forward. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Serviam

• In the introduction, you mention that the British fleet was made up of frigates. It might be nice to mention what the French and Venetian fleet was made up too.
• The "Backround" section is good
• I don't particularly like the "Squadrons" section. The name doesn't sound right to me, perhaps it could be renamed to "Forces" or "Fleets" or "Strength" or soemthing like that

• That whole section definitly needs more prose. You should write out what's in the table, and make the tables smaller so they fit at the side of the text, or just put them at the bottom of the text.

I disagree, I think the table is the best way to present the information in a clear fashion. Out of interest, how do you think turning the table into prose would improve it? I'd be interested in getting wider commentary on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "Battle" section looks good, though I've only scanned through it and not read it through
• The "Aftermath" section looks good
• On a general note, I don't like the dates. They're written 15 November 1992, and I would prefer them to be written 15th November 1992

--Serviam (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't the manual of style state that we're not supposed to use "th" or "st" with dates, such as 15th November? Cla68 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

hmm...yes, it does — didn't know that, and I prefer the other way--Serviam (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review. I've looked at the lead, but I am reluctant to change the squadrons section without wider discussion. Cla68 is correct, "th" etc. are discourgaed by MOS, and I have always been told to remove them at previous FACs. I agree that this is a bit illogical, but that is how the system works at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh

• This sentence needs fixing: "British numerical superiority in the area was assured, when French reinforcements departed on 25 March from Toulon they were hunted down and driven back to France by Captain Robert Otway in HMS Ajax before they had even passed Corsica."

Not sure what is wrong here. I'll try swapping the comma for a semi-colon. Is that better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It was a bit confusing with the comma. Kariteh (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Lessina be spelt Lesina?

Yes, it was an archaic spelling in one of my sources. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• This sentence has a misplaced modifier: "...the larger Franco-Venetian forces under Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu unable to bring the British under William Hoste to a concerted action at which their superior numbers might prove decisive." It reads as if the British had superior numbers, not the Frence. It's also somewhat redundant to a line in the paragraph below about Dubourdieu's plan to use French superiority in numbers to destroy the British

Did you change this? It reads differently now which I think addresses the problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else must've, because I did not. The sentence now reads "...concerted action at which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive.", which is quite correct. Good work to whoever fixed it! Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, and the above comments, the prose is pretty good, and reads well. All in all, good work.

Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

Based on this version, I make the following comments and suggestions:

• "The engagement was fought in the Adriatic Sea and contested possession of the strategically important island of Lissa," -> "The engagement was fought in the Adriatic Sea for possession of the strategically important island of Lissa,"
• "The French needed to control the Adriatic to allow them to supply a growing army ..." -> "The French needed to control the Adriatic to supply a growing army ..."
• Why does the lead state 4 British frigates, but the infobox states 3 with an accompanying 22-gun ship?
• "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four frigates based on the island and in the following battle Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron." -> "Four British frigates under the command of Captain William Hoste met Bernard Dubourdieu's French invasion force. In the ensuing battle, Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron."
• "At Tilsit", should it not be "In the Treaty"?
• "a campaign of raid and counter raid" -> "a campaign of raids and counter raids"?
• On that note, "By 1810 the British and French frigate squadrons were engaged in a campaign of raid and counter raid, with the larger Franco-Venetian forces under Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu unable to bring the British under William Hoste into a concerted action in which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive." -> "Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu's Franco-Venetian forces were unable to bring the smaller British force under William Hoste into a concerted action in which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive. Instead, the opposing forces were locked in a campaign of raids and counter raids up to 1810."
• Like Serviam, I am concerned over the table on Squadrons. However, my concern is that this table is overly detailed for Wikipedia. I am quite certain that the general reader has no interest in knowing the exact losses in each ship. Imagine if such a table was done for larger battles...

Such tables are: See Order of Battle at the Glorious First of June. I think this table will be of significant interest to many readers, particularly those with a strong interest in Napoleonic naval history. For now I'd like to keep it in.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I love the Battle section (this is the sort of stuff and style I love to read), but some explanations needed for general readers (and me!), e.g. "triple-shotted", "ordered his ships to wear", "a punt"
• "Several of the French ships were then at an angle at which they could bring their guns to bear on Cerberus," -> "Several of the French ships came at an angle at which they could bring their guns to bear on Cerberus,"
• "the battered Favorite leading the way by attempting to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention." -> "the battered Favorite leading the way in an attempt to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention."
• "the leading French ships Flore and Bellona only succeeding in reaching the rearmost British ship, Amphion. Amphion however found herself caught between the two frigates": The "however" is incorrectly used and not needed.
• "To the rear, Amphion, despite being outnumbered, succeeded in closing with and raking Flore, causing such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, she surrendered, her officers throwing the French colours overboard." It is a bit confusing in who the "she" is referring in the last part of the sentence (Amphion or Flore, imagine you are still not familiar with the force disposition at this stage). I suggest "To the rear, Amphion, despite being outnumbered, succeeded in closing with and raking Flore, causing such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, the officers of Flore threw the French colours overboard and surrendered."
• The same issue with "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion also forced her surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00." -> "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion also forced the ship's surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00."
• "despite having already surrendered." -> "despite their surrender."
• "Franco-Italian"? I think it is "Franco-Venetian"?
• "despite no British officer being on board." -> "despite the absence of a British officer on board."
• "she too headed for safety", the "too" is redundant here
• "Two British midshipmen left in command of the town organised the British and indigenous population into a defensive force and successfully intimidated Gifflenga and his 200 men into surrendering rather than pressing their attack. The junior British officers informed Gifflenga that the return of the British squadron would bring overwhelming numbers of sailors, marines and naval artillery to bear on his small force and that if he surrendered immediately he could expect better terms. Gifflenga recognised that his position was untenable and capitulated." Is it a wrong order of events, or wrong tenses used? The passage makes it seem as if the officers informed Gifflenga of the British squadron after his surrender.
• "eventually being driven off" -> "but was driven off"
• "were making strenuous efforts to" -> " were straining to"

I'm not convinced this is better, this strikes me as a more subjective issue than most of the others listed here. For now I have left it as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "but not without the loss of five men killed and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." -> "but not without the deaths of five men and the heavy injuries of several more when the blazing mainmast collapsed." The "loss of x killed" seems redundant.
• "His own crew prevented him from destroying the vessel, but only because the captain was confined below by his mortal wounds." Eh, who or what exactly prevented him from doing so?
• "Duodo died minutes after the prize crew boarded, still believing that the fuse had been lit." Possibly confusing sentence. Who believed the fuse had been lit, the prize crew or Duodo?
• I also advise caution on usage of the past participle (the simple past tense would usually suffice). I have been criticized many times for their improper usage. Examples where I see possible concerns:
  • "Russia had granted France control over the Septinsular Republic"
  • "As Favorite and Amphion had closed with one another, firing had continued between the British rear and the French leeward division, led by Danaé." (I am sure they are incorrectly used here.)
  • "The smaller craft of the Franco-Venetian squadron had scattered during the battle's final stages and had all reached Lesina independently."
  • "where Captain Duodo had attempted to ignite the"
  • "Hoste was furious at the behaviour of Flore's officers and had sent a note"
  • "The British ships had suffered 190 killed or wounded in the battle"
• That is all and I thank you for the marvelous and engaging recount of the battle (which I had no knowledge of prior to this review). Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A brilliant and much appreciated review which has significantly improved the prose of the article. I have addressed all your points in the article, with two exceptions which I have discussed above. Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

This was quite an interesting read and looks to be a good candidate for FA. I didn't really read through the comments above, so I apologize if I repeat some comments. Anyway, here are some things that popped out at me.

The lead

• This is probably nothing, but one squadron is introduced as "French and Venetian", but referred to as "Franco-Venetian" throughout the rest of the article. Maybe introduce it as "...squadron of French and Venetian (Franco-Venetian) frigates..."
• Minor tweaking to make the sentence more balanced and less POV.
  "The battle has been hailed as an important British victory, not just because of the disparity between the forces but also from and the signal raised by Hoste, a former subordinate of Horatio Nelson."

Background

• This sentence felt a bit awkward, but I'm not certain if my suggestion retains the original meaning.
  "Thus, the Treaty of Schönbrunn formalised Napoleon's control of almost the entire coastline of the Adriatic and, if unopposed, would allow him to use it to transport troops and supplies to the Balkans."
• I think adding "British" would help distinguish the "Royal Navy" for a reader unfamiliar with the subject.
  "To disrupt the preparations of this army, the British Royal Navy, who had..."
• Is "vainly" needed here? It seems a bit POV. But if the source described it as such, I guess it's no big deal.
  "...Dubourdieu landed 700 Italian soldiers on Lissa while Hoste sailed vainly in the Southern Adriatic in search..."

Should have read "in vain". Corrected--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Squadrons

• I believe flags are generally discouraged. However, adding text of the country of origin along with the flag makes it acceptable. I'm sure if you add such info in the "Key" section it should be fine. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) for more info.

I've not heard of flags being discouraged in naval orders of battle before, and I've taken two through FLC. The identities of the nation's the flags represent are in the infobox, are you suggesting that they be also shown in the key?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of just flags without an text is discouraged. But that doesn't matter as I missed them in the infobox. However, I still think adding them to the key wouldn't hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Battle

• Minor tweaks.
  "By 06:00, Dubourdieu was approaching the British line from the north-east in two divisions, leading in Favorite at the head of the windward or(western) division."
• This sentences seem a bit long and difficult to read. Maybe try this:
  "As he closed with Hoste's force, Dubourdieu realiszed that due to his enemy's speed he would be unable to successfully cross Active's bow, due to his enemy's speed, and would also be unablebreak through their line, due to the close proximity of the British ships to one another, to break through their line."

Per "realized", British English not American should be used throughout this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another alternative is:
  "As he closed with Hoste's force, Dubourdieu realiszed that due to his enemy's speed he would be unable to successfully cross Active's bow and break through their line, due to his enemy's speed and due to the close proximity of the British ships to one another, to break through their linerespectively.
• Minor trimming.
  "He instead therefore sought to attack the second ship..."
• I think an emdash would work better here.
  "Dubourdieu possessed not only a significant advantage in ships but also in men,—the Italian soldiers aboard giving him..."
• Missing comma.
  "...fire to attack the leading French ships, Favorite and Danaé, unopposed for several minutes."
• The second "of" is not needed; the "and" distributes the first one to both parts of the sentence.
  "Hoste was aware of Dubourdieu's intentions and of the French advantage in numbers..."
• I think an emdash or semicolon would work better here instead of a comma. Take your pick.
  "Among the dozens killed and wounded were Dubourdieu and all the frigate's officers,—leaving Colonel Gifflenga in command of Favorite."
• Minor trimming.
  "Several of the French ships the came at an angle at which they could bring..."

Removed "the", but without "at" that sentence doesn't make sense.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to strike out "at which" instead of just "at". Either way, your call. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Hoste's manoeuvre

• Some tweaking (active voice versus passive voice) and I think this sentence might work better as two.
  "Following the death of Dubordieu, the order was given by Captain Péridier on Flore orderedfor the French and Venetian ships to attack the British line directly, t The battered Favorite leading the way in an attempt to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention."
• Missing commas.
  "Hoste, however, was prepared for this eventuality and immediately ordered..."
• Minor tweak, just sounds better to me.
  "...opponents, the leading French ships Flore and Bellona only succeedinged only in reaching the rearmost British ship, Amphion."
• Minor trimming
  "...carronades and left the ship much weakened, with only a single gun with which to engage the enemy."

This revised sentence doesn't read correctly to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have time for now, I'll try to finish up the review later. I hope this helps some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Copyedited the article based on the partial review above. I didn't agree with all your suggestions; some I didn't change at all, others I changed but in a slightly different way than suggested, others following your advice. I left some comments above regarding certain points, but the review was much appreciated. Look forward to the second half. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments:

Chase

• I know ships are often referred to as "her", but I think removing such terminology would be more encyclopedic. The sentence still sounds a bit off this way, so some more tweaking might be in order.
  "...Cerberus took heavy damage but inflicted similar injuries on her opponentto Corona."

The is a guideline somewhere about this, but female pronouns are considered acceptable when referring to ships on Wikipedia. In this instance however the use of "her" is confusing and I will change it.

• I think "fight", "battle", or something else might sound better here, but that's just me. Also, a conjunction would help the readability of the sentence.
  "This engagementexchange continued until the arrival of Active, which had been strenuously attempting to reach the combat at the front of the British line, and caused the Danaé, Corona and Carolina to sheer off and retreat to the east."
• This sentence was rather long and hard to follow; breaking it up might help. Also, I don't understand what Captian Peridier being injured has to do with surrendering. Could this part be better clarified?
  "To the rear, Amphion,—despite being outnumbered,—succeeded in closing with and raking Flore,. The Ampion causinged such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, Flore's officers threw the French colours overboard in surrender."
• Trimming for conciseness and another instance of "her".
  "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion alsothen forced the Italian ship'sBellona to surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00."
• "Also" is not necessary here.
  "...the small ships Mercure and Principessa Augusta also fired on Amphion until the frigate was able to..."
• A semicolon is appropriate here.
  "...around one another for the next hour,; captains Gordon and Paschaligo each seeking..."
• Tweaking and punctuation.
  "At 13:45, the frigates closed with one another and engaged in combat. 45 minutes laterThe Corona surrendered, forty-five minutes later after having taken severe damage in the engagement."
• Minor trimming; "as" makes the sentence sound weird to me.
  "...while Flore had indicated to each British ship as she passed that she had surrendered and was in British possession..."
• Missing comma, verb agreement, and another instance of "her".
  "Once Flore was clear of the British squadron, itshe headed for safety, and reachinged the batteries of Lesina shortly after her compatriotsthe Carolina and Danaé and ahead of the limping British pursuit."
• I'm not sure what was meant with this sentence. the subject is singular (smaller craft), but the last part sounds like refers to a plural. Should it be "crafts"? "The smaller craft of the Franco-Venetian squadron scattered during the battle's final stages and had all reached Lesina independently."

In British English at least, craft is like fish or sheep: the plural is the same as the singular. I will however try to clarify the sentence.

Sorry, for the disjointed review, but this week is not the best time for me. Please don't wait up if you're planning on taking it to FAC. Once again, you have my apologies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

No problem, thanks very much for your input. I probably will take this to FAC soon, so if you have any further comments, stick them on the talk page or raise them at FAC. Your review is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lince (tank)

I have just finished what I consider to be a rough draft, and I'm looking for input on how to improve the grammar (since it was written while looking at various sources and I just wanted to get the ideas down) and how to improve the, admittedly, short article. Thank you. JonCatalan (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Leithp

1. A comparison table to contemporary MBTs would be useful. How does it compare to the Leopard 2 that they eventually adopted or the French, British and US tanks they could have gone for? Pretty much what you provided on the Verdeja article would do the trick.
2. Unit conversions: Speeds, mass, power etc
3. Vickers offered the Valiant? Are you sure they didn't offer the Challenger? I'd only heard of the Valiant WW2 tank, so that stuck out.
4. "Coproduction" or "Co-production"?
5. How successful was the testing? The article covers the procurement process extensively, but is light on manufacture and testing. Was it a match for competing tanks? Was that part of the reason the programme was canceled?
6. Perhaps not actionable, but I'm curious that Spain started off with a domestic future tank programme and ended up by adopting last-generation cast-offs from the US. Were there Army cut-backs? What was the reason for the indecision? A change of government? There might be something more to say about that.
7. The infobox gives two figures for length.
8. You mention that the Lince "was almost entirely based on the Leopard 2A4". What is the difference between it and the licence built Leopards that they eventually adopted?

The article looks quite good so far, though.

Leithp 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your extensive help in both this article and the Verdeja; there are few editors willing to do so much copyediting to transform a relatively poorly written article, into a well written article. Now, on to your points!

1. I added a table with the Lince, Leopard 2A4, Leclerc and M1A1 Abrams. I did not add the Italian MK3, because AFAIK this never entered production either (or did as the Ariete), and the Vickers Valiant since I don't have a good literary source on the vehicle.
2. I converted all the units in the infobox and will convert most of those in the text when I start to clarify the article, and perhaps add some more information (not much more I could find, admittedly).
3. I actually had a problem finding information on the Vickers Valiant, as well, although the referenced article in El País specifically mentions it as the Valiant. I remembered that Vickers presented what was called the Vickers Mark 7/2 to the Chieftain Replacement Program in 1987, but any text I have does not refer to it as the Valiant. So, I did a google search and apparently the Vickers 7 is the Valiant.
4. Changed coproduction to co-production!
5. No prototypes were ever built. I need to clarify in the article that it was mostly a procurement program, leaning heavily on the German offer. For example, had Spain opted to manufacture the Leclerc it would have still be named Lince. I was going to add that the Leopard 2E's battle management system is called the LINCE, but I'm not 100% sure that the acronym was made to 'transfer' part of the 1980s program to the Leopard 2 program.
6. From conversations on Tank-Net the Spanish Ministry of Defense was running out of funding, and as said in the article Krauss-Maffei was not particularly happy about the waste of funds due to the indecision. Apparently, the Spanish Army preferred the Lince but the government did not (in the end, the Leopard 2E was really the better choice, though), as it would cost much more to produce than the Leopard 2. According to those on Tank-Net, this was a similar issue which befell the Italian government when it decided to put the Ariete into production - it could only procure a limited series due to production costs. I believe that with the issues in avoiding a specific contract, pressure from the French government and the availability of cheaper tanks to replace ageing M47s and M48s the Spanish government simply decided to scratch the program and opt for the M60, and later succumbed to pressure from the Army to begin negotiating for the Leopard 2.
7. Oops; thanks. I specified its length gun forward.
8. That's a good idea. When I begin to clarify the article and whatnot I will also add some information on the differences between the two.

Again, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ham

(WP:VG collaborator)

• Article name and lead sentence: Is the Lince a "tank" or a "tank program"? This needs to be established clearly so that there is consistency in how the subject is approached. If the Lince is a tank, as the article name suggests, it should be called a tank in the lead sentence. If the Lince was a tank development/acquisition program, without any actual resulting tank, you might consider changing the article name to Lince tank program or similar. In any case, if no Lince tank was actually built, the article needs to be clear that this tank only exists on paper.
• Image captions: these need to be clearer in stating that the pictures are of other tanks, and not Linces. (This goes back to the first point, is there an actual Lince to have a photo of?)
• Second sentence: "received offers" for what?
• General issue throughout article: Try to reduce the alphabet soup wherever feasible. If the difference between an AMX-30E1 and AMX-30E2 isn't relevant to the context of the Lince, just refer to them all as, e.g. "upgraded AMX-30E". To a general audience it appears redundant to continually list minor variations of tank designs and makes the prose harder to follow.
• History section
  • First paragraph might be a little too detailed with the production numbers for previous tanks. I don't think there is a point that the number of existing tanks was a factor for the need to build the Lince, so production details for these other tanks are not necessary and distract from the main issues. It should suffice to say which tanks the army was using at the time and what their deficiencies were.
  • These sentences: By the end of production of the first batch of AMX-30Es in 1979, the Spanish Army were already aware of the mechanical deficiencies of the new tank. As early as 1979 the Spanish Army and the manufacturer, Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara (now Santa Bárbara Sistemas), began a research program to upgrade the AMX-30 in the areas of mechanical reliability, modernization of the fire control system and an increase in armor protection.[5]
    • can be rephrased as something like In 1979, nearing completion of the first batch of AMX-30Es, the Spanish Army and the tank's manufacturer, Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara (now Santa Bárbara Sistemas), had already begun a research program to address deficiencies in the new tank such as mechanical reliability, the fire control system and armor protection.[5]
  • I'm not sure what the word "realized" is supposed to mean in the last sentence of the first paragraph. It could be interpreted as "fulfilled" or "recognized".
• Third paragraph: Again perhaps a little too much detail with regard to production numbers of aircraft and the contract history between the countries. The paragraph teases at who gets the contract but doesn't explicitly say who.
• Missing chunk of time. The article jumps from "who is going to get the contract?" to "decline of the program", without describing pertinent events that happen in between, such as how the design of the Lince progressed, etc. Specifically, how did the tank arrive at the specifications listed in the comparison table?
• Decline of the program section
  • Again, a lot of seemingly needless detail regarding numbers of other tanks produced or upgraded.

I hope you'll find some of that helpful. Keep up the good work. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was very helpful! I will respond, as usual, point by point!

1. This is a tank program. If I move the article do I need to do anything to this peer review, in terms of renaming it? I added a few sentences to mention that no prototype was ever built, but perhaps I could find a way to integrate the sentences better.
2. There is no photograph of the Lince. I was going to lineart an image of what KMW's entry was supposed to look like, but it came out pretty badly. I tried to make sure the images were clearer on what the image is about.
3. Changed it to received bids for the tank program.
4. I tried to take the variant numbers where I thought it was proper. For example, I thought it was proper to keep M60A1/M60A3, because they need to be distinguished in order for the sentence after to make sense. Otherwise, I reverted M47EXX and M48EXXs back to just M47s and M48s where I saw them. The other second has been refrased as suggested. And 'realized' changed to 'recognized'.
5. Production numbers are taken out for those aircraft. The issue is that the Spanish government teased, as well! But, you're right, it should probably be clearer. Neither of the two really got the contract; it was just recognized that KMW had the greater chance at scoring the final production contract.
6. The specifications listed in the table are the same specifications that were given by Krauss Maffei/Santa Bárbara in 1984. They were theoritical specifications for the vehicle, as no vehicle was ever produced. But since this would have been the most likely contract scored, it seems the best to put under 'Lince'. The French offer later became the Leclerc.
7. I changed that section a bit.

I hope it looks better. Thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Izno

"VG editor who saw this posted on WT:VG" - I'm (only) going to "tear apart" the lead, as I don't really have the time to go over the entire article (nor indeed, do I feel it would be effective for one editor to attack the entire thing). I ended up doing most of this before Ham's comments, so if it's duplicated, I'd probably go with what he said. This is my first review, so bear with me (if it seems too harsh, it is not meant to be). =)After writing most of this up, it started sounding like a copyedit may be needed in general, but these specifics should give you an idea of how much improvement can/should be made in that direction:

The first sentence reads a little awkwardly; I suggest that you rephrase it thusly: "The Lince was a tank development program initiated by Spain during the late 1980s and early 1990s." I removed "main" and "battle": the former isn't really necessary in my opinion, and the latter is presumed from the link to tank.

The second sentence introduces a broken general rule my 6th grade teacher taught: "No two sentences in any one paragraph (should) start with the same word" - Keep it in mind for future writings. Obviously the second sentence starts with "the" also; this may be an unintended result of writing in the active voice, but I feel following the rule diversifies the text, even so. My suggestion in this case would be to remove the countries these companies are originating in (this may be unwanted eliminations, so take this into consideration), and to rephrase like so: "GIAT, Genderal Dynamics, Vickers, and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann submitted offers to the Spanish MoD to develop the line." A question which stems from this is "Who won the bid to develop the Lince?" if there was a winner; if there wasn't a winner, the article should state that.

And then you jump right into the reason to develop the tank line without a change in paragraph. Either this is a result of bad organization or simply that you forgot to indent. ;) I'm guessing the former, tbh, which may reflect on the article as a whole, so have a look at how the article is presented.

The next sentence ("During the 1980s...") in general reads haltingly. Another lesson learned: Read the text out loud to yourself. I would suggest these tweaks to the sentence: "In the 1980s the Spanish Army was equipped with a large number of M47 and M48 Patton tanks, and was manufacturing the French AMX-30E indigenously." Another comment I would make if I were certain on it is that the sentence seems to be mixing tenses... Might just be me, however. Should definitely wikilink "indigenous".

The next sentence, and the one after, again begin with "the", but I'm not sure how to replace it in the first without going into the passive voice. You can have a look at it. In the second, I'm not sure if it's the AMX that was in production?... It is a little confusing to say the least. Rephrasing that without the "the" as well as to clear up confusion would be a good idea.

I love the next two sentences, though you're definitely mixing tenses in the first case. Either the whole paragraph should be in the style of "was to put" or it should be "put"; not both. ;)

The next paragraph begins shakily. I would simply edit it to: "In the late 1980s, the Lince program was threatened by the decision to upgrade the Spanish AMX-30Es to the standard of the AMX-30EM1 and AMX-30EM2 models." I'm not quite sure if that endings how I like would like it... but I find it to flow better within the sentence. The next sentence is essentially a runon, however, but I'm not sure how to break it up.

Again, I can't speak for the rest of the article, but I'm guessing it is in the same vain as the Lead: Needs a copy edit, probably a little clarification here and there. Nice work for a rough draft. =) --Izno (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, to confirm the changes -

1. Apparently, someone reverted it tank back to 'main battle tank'. So, I am confused on which one is preferred.
2. I reworded the sentence (after the edits made for Ham) and changed the beginning of the second sentence to, To gain the contract for the development program the... and I added this, The program ended without a prototype being manufactured and without a clear choice in who would gain the contract...
3. Tbh, it seemed like the sentence was misplaced, so I moved it so that it seemed more relevant to an introduction to the Lince.
4. I just got rid of the sentence altogether!
5. Changed to - At the time the AMX-30E was being manufactured for the Spanish Army, and the Lince was planned to serve along with the AMX-30.
6. I'm not sure how 'was put' would make sense,
7. As per the previous edit, the sentence is changed to, In the late 1980s, the Lince program was threatened by the decision to upgrade Spanish AMX-30Es.

And yes, the rest of the article probably needs to be edited extensively as well. :( But, I will get on that! JonCatalan (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Krator

From WP:VG

• The lead image in the infobox is not about the actual tank itself, and doesn't allow for a lot of identification. It may be hard to provide a good image here, but as a suggestion, perhaps the Spanish government has released some images in the public domain during the development and procurement process.
• The first part of the lead concerning the goal of the program to replace tanks through a military assistance programme is much more informative than the first paragraph of the history section on the same topic. The history section itself starts very abruptly: some general introductory statements about tanks in Spain in that period, with appropriate links, would be very informative, instead of starting with an acronym and a patent in a sentence without context.
• The history section reads like proseline; four consecutive paragraphs start with "In (year), ...". This doesn't read really nicely, see the linked article.
• What is 120 bil pesetas in a current currency, at current value? How much is that compared to similar programmes of the time? Just the number doesn't really tell me much.
• the last paragraph of the history section doesn't flow well, use some linking words.
• The paragraph break between the first and the section paragraph of the Decline section would be more appropriate after "...upgraded to the equivalent of the M60." (one sentence later than the current break). Then, you also see that the proseline (see above) continues here, as the new paragraph would again start with a year.
• "While the Lince prioritized firepower..." - at the very end of the article. This would be something to also write much earlier on, when discussing the specifications of the tank.
• On the references, #25 needs additional information, such as author, date and accessdate. Also, the format of the References section could be more succinct if it used Harvard references, where you do not need to use the whole title of the book cited, but just the author, year and page.

User:Krator (t c) 10:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review! As per my style, I will respond point by point with confirmation/information -

1. Unfortunately, the only image I have of the Lince is a drawing. I haven't seen any official schematics published, and currently government archives are not online and are 'difficult' to access (I still have to get my 'historian liscence' to access the military achives at Ávila). As I said above, I tried to draw it and failed misreably! The only bid which was all-new (as in, different from existing tanks of today) was KMW's and this resembled the Leopard 2A4 the most. The information on the infobox also belongs to KMW's bid.
2. I added a bit to the first paragraph of the history section, which I hope makes it a bit more interesting.
3. I reworded and moved some dates around to make it seem less like proseline.
4. Currency converted. The Spanish peseta was pegged at 166.386€ and so, I will convert to € manually and then use a currency convertor to convert to $.
5. Reworded the last paragraph in the history section a tad.
6. Moved the sentence and took out the date.
7. I will expand on this!
8. Gave access date, which is the only thing I could give (no author stated).

JonCatalan (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

For the record, I'm a VG guy.

• It's weird to have an infobox image not of the Lince... you don't have a pic of it?
• Some cases in the lead where stuff other than "The Lince..." would work better... eg. at "To achieve these goals, the Lince adopted..." (...it adopted...)
• "However, the first M47 tanks were delivered in 1954 and their service life was already extended to thirty years" - maybe it's just me, but the meaning of this sentence felt slightly lost (especially the however)... I dunno, read it yourself and see if it's just me confused.
• "The French government proposed a cooperative tank design between the two countries, stating that the resulting tank would be completely new, while the German-Spanish proposition was based on technology developed during the 1970s. On the other hand, the French government admitted that there would be restrictions placed on Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara when it came to exporting the tank." - Not sure what the purpose of the "on the other hand" is here...
• What, for the unacquainted, is indigenous production?
• "As a consequence, by late 1985 only the German offer, French offer and a similar Italian offer for co-production of a future tank, known then as the MK3, were considered." - the commas here are rather confusing.
• "although this time also offered the more lucrative term of joint export." - reword... perhaps "this time offering the more lucrative term of joint export."
• The footnotes at the bottom of the Comparison to Leopard 2A4, Leclerc and M1 Abrams table are awkwardly placed... dunno, can put them somewhere else, they aren't pretty at the moment, if you get my drift.
• Ref 25 needs formatting (publisher, access date, etc... {{cite web}} is useful if you like)

Overall, though, it's pretty close to GA quality at least (I'd say). I hope these comments help! Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I edit conflicted with Krator, so I might have repeated some stuff he (or others) have said. If so, sorry about that. I wish I got 5 reviewers on some of my VG peer reviews... :) giggy _(:O) 10:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like above, point by point. :P

1. Unfortunately, no.
2. Took out some 'Linces'.
3. Reworded.
4. When the program is done inside the country and the production, as well [indigenous program/indigenous production]. It's normally a huge boost to the national industry and gives the country the expertise to design its own weapons of the same type at a later date. I changed some of those to 'local', instead of 'indigenous'.
5. Reworded the sentence to get rid of some of those commas.
6. Reworded!
7. Instead of at the bottom, they are after their respective tank - now.
8. Done!

Thank you for the comments. I'll put the article up for GA review, as the peer review continues (similar to what I did for the Verdeja article). JonCatalan (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looking a lot better now, good luck at GAN! (Obligatory WP:VG/PR spam goes here.) giggy _(:O) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

Based on this version, I think there should be clarifications on the following:

• Which event truly marked the death of the Lince, the acquisition of the M60s or the procurement of the Leopard 2s?
• Is "Lince" the name for the government programme or the name from the German-Spanish bid?
• Was the 120mm cannon and composite armor a requirement from the Spanish Army? If not, I presume they are from the German-Spanish bid. Why are these specs used as the standards even if the government did not award the project to them?
• Were the AMX-30Es built in the 1979s to address the concerns raised by the research program, or was the program still ongoing to analyze the defiencies of the AMX-30Es as well?

The Czech fansite ([4]) provides an image of the Lince. From what I can make out of Google's translation, it states that the picture is either of a prototype or a scaled model. Perhaps you can get in touch with the site's owner (contact address is on the site) and ask him for his sources. Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses one by one!

1. I don't know how to clarify the text any further; in the decline of the program it says, The Lince program was finally officially canceled in 1989. In the introduction it says, The arrival of M60 tanks, starting in 1992, marked the official end of the Lince program. If anything it's contradictory, but I can't find anything which suggests that the Leopard 2 might have been the end of the program. I edited the introduction's sentence.
2. The Lince was the name of the government program, as it's mentioned in the introduction. I use the specs of the German-Spanish bid because it was the most likely to win the contract, and the French bid was the Leclerc, while the Italian bid became the Ariete. It's also used because it was the only bid which had defined specs, at the time.
3. All the bids had a 120mm cannon and composite armor.
4. I edited that sentence to clarify it a bit.

Thanks for peer reviewing this article. It has truly gone through remarkable change. JonCatalan (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, that email no longer exists. :( It looks to be like a wooden mock-up, and it looks like the drawing I have. JonCatalan (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a shame but I think you can still use that image or your drawing instead of the Leopard 2. I hope you do not mind my copyedits. Feel free to revert them if you think I mistook the gist or caused the flow to be worse. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My major issue is that some of the facts got reworded and their meaning changed completely, making them untrue statements. For example, aid did not begin at the beginning of the Cold War and was specifically from the United States. Deficiencies in the AMX-30E were not corrected in the second batch, they were corrected in the modernization program of the late 1980s. I will go through the article and try to find these and fix these. JonCatalan (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh

I copyedited the article a bit and have two comments to make:

• The article has only two incoming links, meaning it's orphaned. More links should be made.
• MTU in the infobox needs to be disambiguated.

--Kariteh (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit. MTU has been disambiguated, and once I finish the Leopard 2E article (currently in my sandbox) it will link to the Lince, and then I'll edit the Leopard 2 article to upgrade its entry on the Leopard 2E. JonCatalan (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War

old peer review:here

I just wandering, what's really keeping this article from FA status?--Macarenses (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

That's a good question to ask about any detailed article. My comments are:

• The article is unduly focused on the US and USSR and tends to portray the western and Soviet blocks as single bodies, when it reality there were diverse experiences of the Cold War worldwide and important disagreements among national governments and within nations. For instance, France and the UK sought to further their own geopolitical goals wherever possible and by the 1980s there were considerable divisions within many western democracies about the seeming escalation of the Cold War (which lead to events such as large-scale anti-nuclear movement in Europe and New Zealand effectively breaking off its Alliance with the US)
• The coverage of the military balance seems rather limited. In particular, relatively little attention is given to how the prospect of nuclear war affected international relations.
• Stating that the opponent of the Soviet bloc was the 'Western world' is dubious - I fail to see how strongly anti-Communist countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Iran (to name just four) were in any meaningful sense 'western'. Done
• Stating that China's involvement in the Cold War was to launch "its own independent campaign against the US" is so massively over-simplified as to be outright wrong Done
• "Soviet relations with the West further deteriorated when, one week prior to the start of World War II, the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - alternatively, signing a de-facto alliance with leading western power which then went on to dominate most of Europe could be seen as greatly improving the USSR's relationship with 'the west'. I think the article means something like the 'western democracies'. Done
• The discussion of the relationship between the USSR and the US and UK from June 1941 to the end of World War II stresses points of disunity and ignores the fairly extensive cooperation during this period (which actually extended to government propaganda campaigns in the UK and US praising the Soviet Government!).  Done
• The discussion of the various conferences also presents the Western Allies as a single block, when in reality there were important areas of difference in the negotiations between Roosevelt and Churchill's views. Done
• "communists attempted to disrupt the elections of 1948 preceding large losses therein" - where were these elections held? This wording is also very formal and unclear. Done
• "That August, Stalin ordered the detonation of the first Soviet atomic device" - this implies that the Soviet atomic bomb effort was a reaction to the formation of NATO, which is wrong. It's also rather odd to emphasize that "Stalin ordered" the test - the test was essential to prove that the Soviets' bomb design worked.  Done
• Why is the British Attorney General's views of opponents to the Korean War emphasised? He was hardly an important figure in the war, and his views are presented without the reason for opposition to the war being articulated (which seems rather more important). Done
• The coverage of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution should discuss the important impact this had on Communist and Communist-aligned political parties in the west; in many cases their membership collapsed never to recover. The shocked public response to the repression also hardened attitudes against the USSR in many countries. Done
• The coverage of France's withdrawal from NATO is rather brief and simplistic Done
• File:Cold War Map 1980.svg seems highly dubious - most of the countries identified as being 'Other allies of the USA' weren't formally 'allied' with the US. Including South Africa in this category, for instance, is clearly wrong. Overall the map is hopelessly simplistic and should be removed.  Done
• The claim that "previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons, but the gap had been narrowed" is highly dubious and cited to something published by a Conservative think-tank (the Heritage Foundation) in 1983. This should probably be removed.  Done
• "Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up. Done
• Labeling Iraq a "longtime Soviet ally" is rather dubious given the extent of US and Western European support for Iraq during the 1980s. Done
• The statement that the US "had 1.5 million troops posted abroad in 117 countries" by 1989 is rather misleading as the only US military presence in a large number (most?) of those countries were small detachments of marines responsible for the security of the US embassy. Almost all these personnel were stationed in Europe, South Korea and Japan.  Done
• "The Cold War also institutionalized a global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-industrial complexes" - is also questionable, given that most countries had large permanent militaries by the 19th Century at the latest.  Done
• Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars.
• The paragraph which begins 'No separate campaign medal has been authorized for the Cold War' is focused on a minor issue in the US and should be removed  Done Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• 1c/2c issues: Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I used a combination of terse wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon. I reviewed source quality and citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Using Transaction Press for internal history of Soviet Union, Transaction is a known poisoned press; Christenson, Ron (1991). Political trials in history: from antiquity to the present. Transaction Publishers. - Replaced Citation, hopes this one is good enough--Macarenses (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• <ref name="denson">{{Cite book|last=Rico|first=Ralph|title=The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories|editor=Denson, John V.|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, N.J.|date=31 May 1997|edition=1st|page=258|chapter=Rethinking Churchill|isbn=1560003197|oclc=36011765|url=http://books.google.com/?id=WbJNNPgcrykC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=stalin+nickname+uncle+joe|accessdate=21 September 2008}}</ref> New transaction press source being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Transaction sources should not be used, except for the opinions of their authors, where their opinions are notable due to the application of the author's opinion to their own politics / work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Using Gorbachev (primary source) for fact.

• Gorbachev is a primary source when speaking about his own career. He cannot be used for fact as a result. The fact should be sought in another work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probable primary source: Hanhimaki, Jussi; Westad, Odd Arne (2003). And if it isn't a primary, then it is almost certainly an inappropriate use of top-and-tail not highly scholarly sections of a source book. Usually scholar source book scholarly introductions are good; less so body context which is pedagogically focused framing, rather than scholarly opinion.

• Hanhimaki and Westad is a source book, a compilation of primary sources. It shouldn't be used to cite fact, as it is a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probably tertiary aimed at non scholars: Jacobs, Dale (2002)

• Tertiary sources (dictionaries, encyclopaedia) shouldn't be used. Jacobs is a tertiary source. Replace with a reliable secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Publisher not in the business of scholarly publishing, HQRS failure: Kolb, Richard K. (2004). And it isn't cited Done
• Inappropriate use of primary: Kennan, George F.  Done
• Opinion piece used for fact: Muravchik, Joshua (1996). Done
• Trailing punctuation after some citations in body text

• Citations should look like this: "had a nice puppy.[40]" They shouldn't look like this "had a nice puppy.[40]." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Inappropriate tertiary: Smith, Joseph; Davis, Simon (2005).

• Tertiary sources should be used rarely with care. Smith and Davis is not an appropriate use. Seek the fact in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)  Done

• Known undergraduate textbook publisher: Taubman, William (2004). Tucker, Robert C. (1992). (WW Norton) My error Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Undergraduate textbooks (WW Norton is an undergraduate textbook publisher), are tertiary sources. Seek a secondary source for the fact. Fifelfoo

(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense: Norton is top of the line and Taubman won the Pulitzer prize for his biography. Holt is likewise a famous old mainstream publisher and the Walker book is a well-reviewed overview. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that its obviously reliable, in twelve years I have only encountered Norton as a textbook publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• How is H. Holt a scholarly press: Walker, Martin (1995). The Cold War: A History. H. Holt. Asked, answered and resolved fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe H. Holt to be an appropriate publisher. If you can demonstrate it publishes academic works, then it is fine. Normally personally named presses "H. Holt" "F. Fifelfoo" "J. Bloggs" indicate self publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

Henry Holt & Co was founded in 1866 and has published thousands of important books. People might want to look at the Wikipedia article before they make bad assumptions. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting that and indicating its a HQRS, I've not encountered this publisher previously and its name rang bells due to being a personal name with initial. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Full cite required in bibliography: Åslund, Anders (1990). (needs publisher) ; Gorbechev, Mikhail (1996). (Author misspelt) ; Hennessy, Peter. (incorrect date format) ; Halliday, Fred (2001). (subtitle) ; Shearman, Peter (1995). (publisher misspelt) ; Stone, Norman. (completely out of style, commentary in citation, no publisher) ; Done

• I hope the additional comments help with my wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone some tremendous work since about last December, thanks primarily to HC Berkowitz, whose commitment to it has been nothing short of incredible, and I'd like to see if people think it is ready for FA nomination, or how it could be improved. As I hope you will all see, this article has already been greatly reduced in size and a huge amount of information has been created in supporting and related articles. I realize it is still a large page, but it is a large topic, and given size and scope of the topic, I think this article, as it stands, as very nearly as small as we could get it.

Having said that, I think we all look forward to any constructive criticisms or opinions you may have.

Thanks, Morethan3words (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth

You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.

• Give ISBNs where possible.
• When citing a book, give a page number
• A large number of your web site citations lack publisher information. Author isn't enough, publisher is also needed.
• Some website citations lack last access dates.

These are pretty basic needs for GA or FAC. Drop me a note when the above issues are taken care of and I'll be happy to double check the reliablity of the sources in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

Interesting article, but needs a lot of work before FA in my opinion. I agree with Ealdgyth's reference comments. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Article is way too long - take more out and make separate articles per WP:Summary style. For example, Could the whole "Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases" section be a sub-article?
• At the same time, summary style says there should be a summary of the article removed left behind. "Linkages with former Nazi and Japanese War Criminals" with just a See U.S. Intelligence involvement with German and Japanese War Criminals after World War II. or several other examples - this would be a big problem at FAC
• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow and need to be combined or expanded. Also several very short sections.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I think that the article may need fewer sections / headers too. Please see WP:LEAD
• Article needs more references, for example the last paragraph of Organization and the first two paragraphs of Executive offices are unreferenced, as are four of six paragraphs in National Clandestine Service, including a direct quote. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Several bullet point lists should be converted into prose
• I think I might put History first, before Organization. Telll how they got there
• Per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in headers - so change "Early CIA, 1947-1952", "Abuses of CIA authority, 1970s-1990s" and "2004, DCI takes over CIA top-level functions".
• Article either has no images or too many in a given section.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I ran this tool on the article here. It says it has Readable prose: 75.5 KB which is a bit much Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

13th Airborne Division (United States)

I have just finished writing this article today, and I believe it to be up to the standards of at least a B-Class Article. Any comments or reviews of the article would be extremely welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

You are going to move the sourced list of units of the division back into the main article, aren't you? Also appropriate might be to pare down now the references so as list only the ones you've used.  Done

Also, looking at the 82 ABD page, the exact nature of the transfer of troops from the 13 ABD is unclear. Were any units transferred? Did the 13 ABD personnel simply bring 82 ABD units up to strength? You could expand on that and put a note in the 82 ABD article as well.

Buckshot06(prof) 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed - should they go under something like 'Divisional Order of Battle'? Skinny87 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added in, and did the same for the 17th Airborne Division to boot! Skinny87 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the transfer of personnel, there are two problems. The first, and foremost, is the fact that there is practically no information about the transfer of personnel other than the referenced texts saying in essence 'they were transferred'. I scraped together this article from half a dozen books, and the majority from about three, as an airborne division that does little fighting and makes no combat drops doesn't really merit a mention in what little literature there is on airborne warfare. So unfortunately I can't add anything else for the very reason that I can't find anything else :( The second reason is that the article on the 82nd is rather long and complex, and having been here less than a month I don't feel confident enough to begin editing such a large article - it's kinda daunting. Hope that answers your questions, and I hope it won't affect the article from going to B-Class and possibly even GA-Class Skinny87 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No of course not. I'm a real grognard on these sorts of questions, and it's a very minor point. With the 82nd, or any article, I'd say, judging from your contributions so far, referenced, sourced, well-balanced for potential controversies, I'd very much encourage WP:BOLD changes from you. One other point. FA-class articles have references & notes - nothing else. Any external links should be either one of those two, and see-alsos have all been moved into the text. Buckshot06(prof) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank-you kindly for the complement! Is this article upto B-Class, do you think? I'll place it for GA Nom later Skinny87 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

17th Airborne Division

I have been working on this article for the past two weeks or so, and I believe I have it at a stage where it can be peer-reviewed and possibly graded for B-Class status. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few things that could be improved:

• The lead ought to be lengthened to two/three full paragraphs.  Done
• There's no need for an "Activation" sub-section when there's nothing else in the "Formation" section.  Done Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think the pulled-out "See also" links add anything. Using {{details}} there might be defensible, but those articles aren't really see-also ones.  Done Thanks for that, I just thought they looked snazzy, but I'm still learning! Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Disactivation"? Not "Deactivation"?  Done Teach me to edit last thing at night :) Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dates should be linked as Month Day or Month Day Year, not as Month Day Year.  Done Skinny87 (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, though, quite a nice article. Kirill ^(prof) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Quick note: where is Camp Myles Standish? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea! Let me look around for the location and I'll add it in! Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Found it! It's in (or was) Taunton, Massachusetts. Added to the article  Done Skinny87 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

I have a very minor part in writing this article. The work was mainly done by EraNavigator (talk · contribs) who now wants some feedback through a review. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

llywrch

Some unorganized thoughts:

1. First, this is a very broad topic with a lot of traps for the unwary, but I think you've provided a satisfactory coverage of the material, & presented the mainstream opinions accurately. However...
2. Mention of one important source for this period has been omitted: Vegetius' De Re Militari, which is the closest thing we have to an army manual from the time of the Roman Empire. While this document has a lot of problems in itself, I think it's fair to include some mention of it under "Sources".
3. The lack of manpower under the Later Empire is more of a generally accepted hypothesis, rather than a proven fact. I'll admit that I'm somewhat skeptical about this claim, due to my own thoughts about the primary evidence, but I hope we would all agree that rephrasing the language about this theory, & providing some of the sources, would be an improvement.
4. One important detail that needs to be mentioned in the section about cavalry is that the Roman did not make much use of the stirrup -- assuming that they knew of this invention. Without stirrups -- & similar technological improvements -- a horseman will find it a challenge to stay on the back of his steed during hand-to-hand combat. This means a cavalry charge was a far less useful tactic then than it was centuries later, & that horsemen were used instead as scouts, to secure flanks (where a horse's speed would allow a few men to defend a wide fronting), & pursuing a defeated enemy.
5. Part of the debate over the "barbarization of the army" includes the significance of Germanic buckles found in graves that have been dated to the 4th & 5th centuries. While many archeologists/historians convincingly argue against this interpretation of these artifacts (a "Germanic" buckle does not mean it was worn by a Germanic warrior; fashions often cross ethnic & class lines), there are some who use them as evidence for this belief. (And it offers the possibility of some images that can help make the subject more tangible.)
6. The table "Roman Army numbers 24-337 AD" is disappointing because there is no breakdown of figures after Severus. Obviously the legionaries & auxilaries were replaced with different kinds of soldiers (comitatenses & limitanei), but omitting the later qualities of soldiers from the table makes it look, frankly odd.
7. The table "Renumeration of Roman Common foot soldiers" is interesting, but may I introduce my own idea to replace it? There are reliable sources that provide the pay in contemporary coinage, & reliable sources which provide the amount of silver in these coins -- why not create a graph to show how the buying power declined? (I'll admit that I created this exact graph some years ago, & it made quite clear the nature of the problem the Empire had with disgruntled troops.)

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I would respond as follows:

1. No comment (thanks for the praise)
2. I took a deliberate decision to ignore Vegetius as being "more trouble than he's worth". Vegetius is an unreliable and misleading source. Neither a soldier nor a historian, his work De Re Militari is a rag-bag of military doctrines/assertions dating (by his own account) all the way from the middle Republic to the time of Hadrian (early 2nd c.), all out of chronological context. Regarding the late army, examples of how misleading his comments can be are (1) his statement that the soldiers in the late army gave up wearing body armour and helmets because they were too heavy. This is clearly contradicted by the archaeological record (cf Elton (1996) 110-4); and (2) his complaint that young men in his day deliberately avoided service in the "legions", preferring the more lenient training and discipline of the "auxilia": at a time when such a distinction no longer existed and when the auxilia palatina were regarded as the best infantry units in the army.
3. I agree we need to state the opposite view on the manpower issue: Elton, for one, doubts there was a recruitment problem (Elton (1996) 152-4). But recruitment (and retention) difficulties within the empire do seem the inescapable conclusion of much heavier barbarian recruitment and coercive measures such as regular conscription, forcing veterans' sons to serve, branding recruits and restricting leave. This dovetails with the point about lower pay. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that soldiering was a much less attractive occupation in the 4th c. than during the Principate, when the army could rely largely on volunteers.
4. The belief that lack of stirrups made charging and melee fighting impracticable has of late been largely discredited. This is due to the recent successful reconstruction of the Roman four-horned saddle, and subsequent testing by re-enactors. This has shown that the saddle gave a very firm seat which compensated for the lack of stirrups. On this issue I would recommend a recent book, Philip Sidnell's Warhorse: Cavalry in ancient Warfare (2006). Written by a veteran mounted re-enactor, the book is described on the back cover by Adrian Goldsworthy as "laying to rest...the persistent myth about the central role of the stirrup in making effective shock cavalry possible".
5. I will add a mention of Germanic-style buckles to the text. But as you say, they prove little about barbarisation. The Roman army's great strength was its willingness to freely copy other peoples' tactics and equipment: most notably the gladius itself, a sword design taken from the Iberian people of pre-Roman Spain.
6. The difficulty with adding a breakdown for the late army's figures is that the comitatenses/limitanei distinction in no way corresponds to the legions/auxilia split. Another problem is that whereas the Principate figures up to 211 are well-documented and robust, the late army's breakdown is far more uncertain and speculative. But I shall endeavour to include the breakdown in the table in a way that is not misleading. The central aim of the table is to show that the late army is unlikely to have been larger than the Principate army.
7. Your graph on military purchasing power sounds very interesting. Would you care to reproduce it on my talk page so I can consider how to integrate it into the text? 86.85.44.73 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in EraNavigator (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

This is not really criticism, but in regards to points #3 and perhaps #5 I have a paper which may interest you on 'Raising New Units for the Late Roman Army'. I also have a number of papers on metallographic reports of Roman weaponry, most of which is from the late Empire. If you're interested, I could email them to you. JonCatalan (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

United States Special Operations Command

This article just passed its GAN last week. I just wanted opinions about any improvements that should be made before an A-class review. I'm definitely going to expand on the Unit sections and probably add a few pictures. Outdawg (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Regarding the lead;

• The part that says: "charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands (SOC or SOCOM) of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines of the U.S. military." To improve flow maybe drop the "of the U.S. military" part and add a "United States" in front of Army, so it looks something like this: "charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands (SOC or SOCOM) of the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines." Also you could probably drop the "Marines" (as they're part of the Navy, sort of) if you wanted, that's not to say you have to, it really is your own personal preference.
• Might wanna add how USSOCOM is pronounced.
• Also an explanation of how the acronym USSOCOM was formed (lol I do know, but others might not), perhaps by using BOLD letters.
• Need a space after ref number [2] and [3]
• Find alternative words for "overt" and "clandestine", I don't know what they mean (not in this context at least), I'm not ashamed to admit it LOL. Oh and don't link them to wikitionary instead, the light blue link apparently ruins flow by drawing the readers attention.

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

I think that this article needs a bit of work before it's ready for an A-class review. My specific comments are:

• The article needs a copyedit to remove the military jargon (eg, "The command's SOF are composed of highly trained, rapidly deployable Airmen, conducting global special operations missions ranging from precision application of firepower, to infiltration, exfiltration, resupply and refueling of SOF operational elements" and "The MSOSG specifically provides combined arms planning and coordination, K-9 support, special operations communications support, combat service support (including logistics) and all-source intelligence fusion capability"). I'd suggest that all the brief descriptions of the main units within SOC need to be re-written, as they're not likely to be understood by non-specialist readers

•  Done Purple prose like "USASOC includes such fabled units as Special Forces (SF) and Rangers, and such relatively obscure ones as those involved in Psychological Operations (PSYOP) and Civil Affairs (CA). But no matter how famous or obscure they are, they all have one thing in common. They are the one of the Army's main weapons for waging unconventional warfare in an age when conventional conflicts have become increasingly rare." should also be re-written.
•  Doing... The history section does not cover the period between 1987 and 2001 or discuss the evolution of SOC as an organisation (eg, the raising and disbandment of elements, changes to reporting arrangements, funding issues, issues with attracting, equipping and training suitable personnel, etc)
• The coverage of the post 2001 operations needs to be re-written so that it's a comprehensive history rather than the current series of incidents
• The USMC's reluctance to raise specialist SOF units and assign them to SOC needs to be mentioned - from memory, the USMC until recently held a view that all of its infantry units could perform special forces missions and that assigning marines to SOC was undesirable as they would lose control over these elite units.
• The article does not presently mention the criticisms, from without and outside of the military, of the need for this command (which continued after it was established) and of its performance
• Too many of the references are military websites - these are not independent of the Command
•  Done The formatting of the descriptions of the units is unusual - I'd suggest that you include the descriptions of the units in the bulleted text Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

First Peer Review Second Peer Review

By accidentall oversight its been more than two years since this article has seen any type of community attention, so I am submitting this article for Peer Review ahead of a needed FAR to address any issues that may need to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Alright, pretty good article. Couple of minor suggestions:

• In the introduction, US Navy and United States Navy are redundant. The first could be removed, and the second linked.

• In the "Service with the 3rd Fleet, Admiral Halsey" section, 2nd paragraph, the first link to Honshu is in a better position to be linked then the second one.

• In "Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender", the first link to Honshu could be linked.

• Redirect Navy Day in the Post-war section to the correct sub-section.

• In the same section, "both nations' independence.[4]" doesn't seem to refer to two nations at all. I'm guessing that it's referring to Greece and Turkey?

• In the Korean section the "Republic of Korea." is not previously mentioned, and could lead to confusion among readers

• "In an effort to dissuade U.N. forces from completely overrunning North Korea the People's Republic of China", comma after Korea.

• Same section, Link to Mark Wayne Clark ("sailed thence to Sasebo, Japan. General Mark W. Clark,")

Good job on this article, and good luck on the FAR. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Underground nuclear testing

This article has been under development since late '06, and I've recently added the material that was clearly needed for any approximation of completeness. I'm requesting review of this article (of which I'm the primary author) because I'm a little too familiar with the content and I'd like some input about how it could be improved. I'd be grateful for any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Jakew (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Leads needs expanding, feel free to ask if you need any ideas with this. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I must confess that I had completely forgotten about the lead! Now rewritten. Jakew (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

John_Emilius_Fauquier

I rescued this article from deletion (with considerable help from a few other users who are listed in the article history). I also feel that this article represents and interesting look at the RAF and the RCAF in WWII (See the talk page for discrepancies in other articles and sources I found while researching this article). I feel this article could be considerably improved by peer review, most notably by suggestions with regard to cleaning up references, offering new sources, and so forth. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Lead could do with expanding, might wanna drop the "exceptional", it's kind of an opinion. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

36th Engineer Brigade (United States)

This article seems to be the same quality as my other GAs, but it has failed two (questionable) GANs and I'm getting impaitent with it. Looking for ways to get the article to A-class quality. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few comments, in no particular order:

• Do we really need to leave redlinks in place for battalion-level engineering units? I very much doubt any of them will have the history needed to sustain a full article. A preemptive redirection to some sort of list—even a crude one—will make the article easier on the eyes. Done
• As before, rowspans on the campaign streamers table would be helpful.
• "Prior to its withdrawal from Korea, the unit did not participate in any notable campaigns until its inactivation on 30 May 1972 at Fort Lewis" - presumably this should be "After its withdrawal..."? Done
• Is there any detail available on the unit's activities in Korea?

Kirill ^(prof) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

15th Sustainment Brigade (United States)

This article seems to be the same quality as my other GAs, but it has failed two (questionable) GANs and I'm getting impaitent with it. Looking for ways to get the article to A-class quality. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad, overall, but a few areas that might be suitable for improvement:

• Is there any more detail available on what the unit did in Vietnam? Certainly, if they received a Presidential Unit Citation, I'd expect there to be some material covering their activities, if only on the level of the citation itself. (Or were the awards given to all of 1st Cavalry, with the support group receiving them indirectly? If so, that's not really clear from the text.)

 Done Info was copied from the 1st CAV DIV page. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• {{command structure}} might be a suitable replacement for or complement to the long in-text lists of subordinate units.

 Done added. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Legacy" is a poor name, given that the unit is still active. Perhaps that section could simply be merged into the OIF section?
• Using rowspan= in the campaign streamers table would help eliminate the repetition of "Vietnam War".

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that practice. How should I use it? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the table to use it; please feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Kirill ^(prof) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Kirill ^(prof) 03:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Leithp

1. It might benefit from trimming some of the more technical language, to assist readability for the layman: e.g. "most of the units of the 1st Cavalry Division that were not assigned to the major subordinate maneuver commands", "the Special Troops Headquarters was reorganized under the Pentomic concept of Headquarters, Division Trains. This designation immediately predates the DISCOM designation.", "task organized under their supported maneuver brigade" Concepts and terms like these are not widely understood or used by those outwith the US Army.

    Done reworded. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Are VC casualty figures taken from the US Army considered reliable?

    Done I changed it to "which, according to the US Army, saw 5,400 enemy killed and 2,000 captured." because there doesn't seem to be any source that contests that data. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3. An image from the Vietnam deployment would be good.
4. The abbreviation HHC isn't explained.

    Done in Organization section. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

5. "Southwest Asia"... wouldn't "the Middle East" be a more commonly used term?

    Done -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that helps. Leithp 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Verdeja (tank)

Greetings, I was looking forward to expanding this article for a while - since the T-26 article really. I have finally found the time and I have finished the 'rough draft'. I still have to look over my writing and make the prose better, but I would appreciate it if anybody could peer review it and offer specific aid. Thank you. JonCatalan (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

Hey Mac! I'll give it a look over now and see if I can give you a hand. I'm fairly new, but hopefuly I'll find something by tonight. Skinny87 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing comes to mind - the red-linked Captain in the Lead. Will he be notable enough to be given an article, or could it be replaced just by text? Skinny87 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Skinny, thank's for taking the time to look at the page! I stubbed that article to get rid of the red link; I may expand the article at a later date, when I can gather enough sources to make a decent article. Thanks! JonCatalan (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Looking over the lead, this : "The program was headed by Captain Félix Verdeja Bardales and led to the development of four prototype vehicles, including a self-propelled howitzer sporting a 75 mm cannon." might be a good candidate for a citation. I know there's one on the next sentence, but I think it warrants one. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I normally wouldn't hesitate to put a citation where someone asked me to put one, but do you think it's necessary? I was reading a number of comments on other article's talk pages to pass the good article review and there was one which said that a good lead had as many few citations as possible, as the citations were in the rest of the text. The text does cover all four prototypes in depth, so I don't want to add an unnecessary citation and be asked to remove it down the road.JonCatalan (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's only my first review and you make a good point, so don't add it in! Skinny87 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

This is well written and excellently cited. I'd say the best way to improve it is to summarise the text, particularly the lead paragraph. "The tank's proved superiority over the T-26 during testing conducted in Spain was not able to influence a large enough effort to put the tank into mass production", is particularly jarring. Although I hesitate to suggest it, consider trimming down the number of facts you present to get better flow, conciseness and notability - this is a barrage of information. Thanks for your citiation work on Tank. Dhatfield (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read the article and offering kind words! As per your suggestion, I reworded that specific sentence in the introduction - Although the Verdeja was considered a superior tank to the T-26, after a lengthy testing period, the vehicle was never put into mass production. Furthermore, I took some things out, but I wasn't sure on exactly what could be considered extraneous information (at least, relative to the rest of the information) - for example, I took out references to the angle of the sloping of the plates. In the meanwhile, I will try to improve the introduction by providing a better summary. JonCatalan (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

See also Simultaneous second peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, in the interest of demonstrating there can be a globalised article (i.e., insurgency) with one or more national doctrines implementing it. There has been some confusion as a result of an unconventional warfare article that is quite distinct from this one.

Thanks, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

Ruhrfisch comments: First off this article needs to follow the five pillars of WIkipedia, one of which is Neutral Point of View. As written, this seems to me to be an example of content forking. This is not to say that there could not be a very good and neutral article on this topic, but right now this ain't it. Still it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it and so here are some suggestions to make it better. These are broad as a lot of work to clean this up has to be done. I will also give examples, but usually there will be many more occurrences of the problem that need to be fixed in the article - the examples are not an exhaustive list. Here goes:

• The lead needs to be completely rewritten to be a summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD A more NPOV version of the current lead could perhaps be used as an overview after the lead.
• The title of the article needs to be mentioned as early as possible in the first sentence of the article - currently the US DOD does not appear until the second paragraph of the lead (and then is linked twice in two sentences - avoid overlinking).
• Bold fonts are way overused in this article - see WP:MOS and read it (and not just on use of bold)
• The article needs many more references - every section, every pararagraph, every quote and statistic needs a ref. Now for example whole sections such as History and World War II are unreferenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs that are given need to be consistent and provide more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if know, and date accessed. Use {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help.
• The MOS asks that an image be put in the top right corner - the skydivers over Afghanistan is visually striking and seems like a good possible lead image.
• Do not repeat the article name in headers (or its abbreviation), so "Evolution of the UW mission" could just be "Evolution of the mission"
• Much of this reads like a field manual for UW - talk about the topic and how others have analyzed it, not how to do it.
• Above all, please do not use this article to critique the Unconventional warfare article.

The article is generally well written and interesting, it just needs some work to more closely conform to Wikipedia's policies and guideline. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

See also Simultaneous second peer review

Ideally, read this after having read the globalised article, insurgency. This article is intended to address U.S.-specific doctrine. It has no relationship to the article unconventional warfare.

This should be part of a series for the U.S., and hopefully for other countries. Other U.S. special operations doctrine articles include special reconnaissance, which is in reasonable shape, and the evolving foreign internal defense.

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I have, at least for quite a while, given up on editing at Wikipedia. Please don't waste effort on this review if you don't want to do the changes yourself. Unless it fails, I'm finding Citizendium a much better working environment. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jon Catalán

I looked over the article and have a few questions:

I do appreciate the effort. In general, however, many are issues where the way I prefer to write is not the WP way, so I am reducing my WP involvement. That doesn't mean something isn't sourced, but not in a readily available reference -- and Wiki anonymity prevents my using direct expertise on the subject.

- Superficially, UW is the opposite of conventional warfare, which has so many potential meanings and overtones that an attempt to discuss "unconventional warfare" as defined in opposition to "conventional warfare" becomes virtually impossible. <- Is this phrase needed? It contradicts itself (intentionally, I presume), but I don't see how the contradiction is entirely necessary. It seems more of a statement on conventional warfare, as well. I think it should be more direct in how it defines unconventional warfare as compared to conventional warfare. I think my opinion is justified given the next sentence:

This article focuses on the United States Department of Defense terminology and its associated usages; discussion of the other aspects of the topic requires a settled definition of the term "conventional warfare," which has not yet been reached. If it has nothing to do with the overall definition of unconventional warfare, then I don't think that such a arguable sentence before it is necessary.

There had been a very adamant IP insisting that no matter how something was explicitly described as US doctrine, it had to be globalised. This was Wikiselfdefense.

- In the United States, "special forces" refers specifically to the United States Army Special Forces (SF), as opposed to the usage in most other countries, where "special forces" refers to the range of unit types that the U.S. calls "special operations forces" controlled by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). <- IIRC, 'special forces' when it comes to the US Army is spelt 'Special Forces', to denote that it applies to the US Army Special Forces, or Green Berets.

spelling error.

- The main strength of these movements came not from U.S., but local personnel. U.S. "behind the lines" units such as Merrill's Marauders, in modern doctrine, were not conducting UW but DA and SR. and then A variety of organizations, including United States personnel. conducted UW missions. <- These two sentences contradict each other. As to now create another point, I think the WWII section needs some sources, if they are available.

No, I don't see a contradiction, if one looks at the operations of the other units.

- After World War II, the original SF mission of UW, as shown in the first SF deployment of the 10th Special Forces Group to Europe, was in expectation of a Soviet attack on Western Europe. SF would help organize, train, and lead resistance movements to such an invasion. <- I think this needs a source, if one is available, because although it may seem 'common sense' to some, it might not be to others. In the sourced quote below, there is no mention of the Soviet Union, so I believe a source is necessary above, as well.

Again, this is where I come to a parting of the ways with Wikipedia.

- SF supported Kurdish resistance to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, SF worked with the Afghan mujahadeen against the Soviets, but in a role of supporting rather than leading the local personnel. They did not need to create an underground and an auxiliary, and often supported the guerillas from outside the area of operations. Parts of the Afghan resistance, supported by SF and CIA elements, later became hostile to the U.S. <- Those statement need sources. I know they're hard to come by, especially since a lot of this information is classified top secret, but if they are available they should be added. The 1990s and 2000s sections also need sources, IMO. In general, without quoting everything, the article needs sources if they're available.

Often, sources are not available, or not public ones. I've relied, to some expense

What about other groups in the United States, other than Special Forces? Specifically, Delta Force (well, they could be considered part of Special Forces, but ... then again),

Delta Force is a DA/SR force. They don't do UW.

Combat Control and SEALs? SEALs operated in Afghanistan in much the same way that is described by the article.

I am unaware of SEALs doing other than DA or SR. They aren't trained, or even have personalities selected, for a UW mission. In the special operations community, there is a bitter argument that Rumsfeld, in particular, were taking Special Forces away from UW and giving them "door kicking" missions for which Delta and (some) SEALs are optimized; DEVGRU is the SEAL equivalent of Delta force.

Unfortunately, my books are not with me and so I can't direct you to a good source, but information on these groups should possibly be added in. Right now, it seems more like an article on Special Forces than on unconventional warfare.

Since UW was the original mission for Special Forces, that is not surprising; it is the only U.S. Special Operations organization that is fully trained for the UW mission. FID is the mirror of UW, so that also fits.

I hope my comments are moderately helpful! JonCatalan (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MrPrada

A few quick comments from an ex-SOF guy.

• If this article is supposed to be about counterinsurgency doctrine, it needs to be named counterinsurgency. FID/UW is a totally different animal. Right now the article reads as though it is in fact about UW.
• In the tactics section, the article does not go into nearly enough detail on CA/PSYOP, which is a major component of UW.
• The article does not distinguish between low-intensity conflict, and high-intensity conflict. The major parts of the doctrine you've summarized are from the manual UW/Special Ops in Low Intensity Conflict, so it would certainly need to discuss what it is, what the differences are, etc.

02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Verrières Ridge

I've been working on this article since April 2007. It passed its GA Nomination several days ago (April 28, 2008). I've got several expansions planned for the article before I go for A-Class Nomination. However, I would love to have some opinions and/or ideas from some of the other members of the project. Any and all suggestions & comments are welcome and highly appreciated. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Just a minor thought, in regards to the lead, instead of; "and elements of three SS panzer divisions", maybe "against elements of three SS panzer divisions". It just at first glance it appeared as though the canadians were allied with the SS lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. That's a good point, don't know why I didn't catch it before. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall, but a few areas that could use some improvement:

• Numerical strength is more useful instead of (or in addition to) numbers of divisions in the infobox; it's not very easy to get an immediate sense of the scale from a list of units.

when I can find an exact statistic for it, I shall. Terry Copp has a new book coming out on the entire battle within the next few months, so I figure that will probably have a numerical strength figure in it. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "Allied Forces" and "German Defences & Forces" sections are quite short, so it may be worth merging them into a single "Dispositions" or "Forces involved" section. Done
• "Canadian Controversy" might be better as "Historiography", as it touches on matters other than the purely Canadian perspective. Done

More generally, I'm not convinced that it's worthwhile to retain Operation Atlantic and Operation Spring as separate articles, given that the bulk of them is merely repeating what we have here. You may want to consider simply merging those two into the corresponding sections in this article, and having essentially a single narrative of the entire Canadian operation against Verrieres from July 19 to July 27 as a single article.

Keep up the good work! Kirill ^(prof) 01:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Operation Atlantic and Operation Spring had areas of attack other than Verrieres Ridge itself (Atlantic had the banks of the Orne & the suburbs of Caen, Spring had Bourguebus & Tilly-la-Campagne). I'm fully aware that I need to do some major expansion & revision of Operation Spring in order to better incorporate those aspects of the battle. Thanks for the suggestions. They are all greatly appreciated! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle for the Hague

Another lesser known battle of WWII. I have done most of the work on this one as well. I am curious to see what my peers think of my work. I believe it is very good, any suggestions will be appreciated. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Roger Davies

Promising start but perhaps needs more focus on the basics. The lead, for instance, needn't say that this was a battle (the title tells us that) but should mention who the combatants were (ie Royal Dutch army and German army]]; the date/s when it took place; and what the outcome was. Other things?

It would probably benefit from an overview section. What part of the war this slots into; what the overall plan was; what each side stood to gain or lose.

Battle articles are usually enormously improved by some blood and guts description. That is focusing on individual actions and what those people did.

It needs a copy edit. The use of capital letters is not Wikipedia-standard (eg "force the Queen to Surrender"); it has a few typos ("immediatly" > "immediately"); and some sentences are unclear ("The Germans were slowly reinforced by burning transport aircraft who were crash-landing anywhere they could find"). Easiest is to find a word-nerd as a collaborator (and we have plenty here who can help: try posting a request in the Logistics dept at WP:MHL#COPYEDIT).

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Agree with Roger in regards to the lead.

"The Battle for the Hague was a battle that took place as part of the Battle of the Netherlands ("Battle" said 3 times in one sentence, might want to mention it was part of WW2 too). German paratroopers (you could add a link to them, and put their German name too) dropped in (where? the Hague? the Netherlands?) and were assigned to take ("capture" or something like that would sound sexier lol, but seriously it'll avoid you having to use "take" again in the next sentence) Dutch airfields and the city. After taking the city, the plan was to force the Queen to surrender and defeat the Dutch in a single day."

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but I recommend copying a lead section from an FA class battle article, then swapping it's information for yours. Also try to imagine you've just stumbled across this article per "random page", and ask yourself does the lead summarise this clearly now? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of The Afsluitdijk

This is about a little known battle in WWII in which the Germans suffered one of their rare defeats in the opening stages of the war. I did probably 95% of it myself so I am curious to see what is thought of this article about a little known battle. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Looks good for a minor battle and is in depth. A few comments though:

• Inline citations please
• The references and notes section should be one with all references shown will help of a {{reflist}}
• Many more internal links needed
• Any external links would be helpful
• Make the number of people/planes in the main text words instead of numbers to give a more professional feel.

If it wasn't for not having enough citations this would be a very stable B-class article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

In regards to the first sentence of the lead; un-bold the "The" at the very start, move the Afsluitdijk link out of the "Battle of the Afsluitdijk" to the "control of the Afsluitdijk dike" later on (we're meant to avoid bold wikilinks), you'll wanna change the "[[May 1940]]" to look like this "[[May]] [[1940]]" (although personally I'd not link it all, you only need to link if you have the exact day as well) and also mention it was part of WW2 as well (I know 1940 makes it pretty clear, but some people are thick and don't know the dates of WW2).

"The Battle of the Afsluitdijk was an attempt by the German Army to seize control of the Afsluitdijk dike in May 1940. (Say they lost before this sentence) If the Germans had successfully taken the dike, it is very likely that they could have taken North Holland from its north. The amount of ("Northern-Holland from the North and the amount of)" civilian casualties could have been devastating. The Dutch troops were lead by Captain Boers and the Germans by General Feldt. (This looks a bit odd here maybe merge/shuffle it around)"

Basically the lead is meant to be a summary for anybody who accidentally stumbles across this page (i.e. the "random page" feature), as you edit it, try to imagine you're one of these people. Also it couldn't hurt to beef it up a little. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity

I've chosen to submit this article for peer-review because I'm a new user, and would really like some peer feedback for the article from more experienced users. Skinny87 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

I've left my comments on the talk-page of the article itself. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Varsity#Peer Review Request. (Link for reference). Woody (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Woody

I notice you are getting lots of help on the talkpage so I will make it brief. It is a very well-written article, and it is developing well. Couple of suggestions:

• WP:DASH Make sure you have – between numbers and dates so 1943–44 and in p. 1–4
• WP:MOSNUM Some of the dates had "the" in front of them which is unneccessary e.g. " on the 23 March 1943" should be on 23 March 1943"
• An image or two would be useful, though I know it is hard to acquire them.
• Citations. It needs to be more thoroughly cited when summing up eg."Although the result of this drop aided the British troops landing against German troops, and the 513th quickly rallied, it was still a fundamental error, and one that should have been solved after so many operations. The failure to correct this flaw again shows that the Allies did not completely learn from the errors made during their previous operations, despite the flaw existing for several years and being crucial to the success of any successful airborne operation." is entirely uncited. Without a citation it is WP:OR
• Existing citations. The links being used in the "Notes" section need to be formatted and attributed correctly. Wikipedia:Citation templates are helpful in achieving this. See Victoria Cross for an example of how they can be used.

So, an excellent start, but still needs some rigorous citations and little MOS fixes. Well done. Woody (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Great lead, two very minor comments though;

• "Operation Varsity was a World War II (maybe stick in a "joint American-British" here) airborne operation that took place (and maybe a "towards the end of the war" here) on 24 March 1945.

• In regards to the ref for "as well as being the largest in history", you might want to read this; Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations. I'm not saying you should change it, just thought you'd be interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

HMS Liverpool (C11)

I've chosen to submit this article for review to address whatever issues are identified as further expansion is unlikely right now. Per SoLando tradition, prose is choppy in parts and the post-war section is especially disjointed (there's a paucity of information on Liverpool's activities in the Med'). That lack of sources has really impeded the development of the post-war section. Woody kindly searched the Times Archive earlier this month without much joy. But I believe the article is proportionate to the availability of reliable sources and comprehensive. Apologies if I'm not prompt in my response; April has been a month of distraction ;-). SoLando (Talk) 08:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is a pretty good article. My comments are:

• As a general comment, much of the article is written in a passive voice, and the article would be more engaging if this was switched to an active voice.
• As another general comment, the article only deals with the highlights and notable incidents during the ship's career. Were there any lowlights? (eg, accidents, bad captains, groundings, crew discontent at long deployments, war damage due to missjudgements, etc)
• "Liverpool began to operate in September [1938] monitoring the Persian Gulf for potential Axis activity" this was before the Axis was formed (Sept 1940 according to Axis powers).
• The bit on the boarding of Asama Maru is confusing - I suggest that you replace 'certain passengers' with '21 of the ship's passengers believed to be survivors of the scuttled German liner Columbus' in the first instance.
• "escorted a convoy transporting ANZAC forces" - replace 'ANZAC force' with 'Australia and New Zealand forces': the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps of WW2 only existed for a few weeks during the Greek Campaign in 1941, and the Australian and NZ Armies were totally seperate apart from this.
• The date was she torpedoed during Operation Harpoon should be added.
• What happened to her during 1943 and 1944? Was she repaired and then laid up, laid up without being repaired or very slowly repaired? Also, why was she assigned a low priority for crewing? - did the RN have more cruisers than it needed by this stage of the war, or was there some flaw in her design that made her less effective than other ships?
• On that topic, can you add an assessment of how this ship's design performed during the war? - did it prove successful? (I believe that it did, and from having toured HMS Belfast in London, it was certainly an impressive class of ships). --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've copyedited the article to try to address and reduce the passive. Has the prose been improved? It hasn't been entirely eliminated - some I've decided to retain as the alternatives caused repetition or just didn't sufficiently flow. Writing an article on a ship is always a challenge when consciously trying to minimise gender nouns (to no avail from the beginning) and diversify sentences. Not that I'm being defensive ;-).
• Google hasn't yielded much more information than that present in the article right now. Certain tactics Liverpool employed during her operation in Japanese waters appear to have been "irregular" and potentially controversial. The first torpedo attack certainly was; however, these accounts are only supported by one website which doesn't attribute its material to any source.
• Ugh, that is a fundamental error. Moving swiftly onto the next issue.
• Revised for clarity
• Addressed
• Addressed
• Information on the process of her repairs at Rosyth is almost non-existent. If I recall correctly, the newest construction usually had priority over damaged ships and assets whose value was in question (such as the battleship Rodney). That and the scarcity of available manpower for a crew-intensive cruiser like Liverpool appear to have been the reason. I'll add it later.
• There's little information directly pertinent to the article. Certainly, the Towns were a highly regarded class although if I recall correctly it was the final batch (Edinburgh and Belfast) that was considered to be the RN's definitive wartime cruiser design.

Nick, thank you for reviewing the article. Are the revisions satisfactory? SoLando (Talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I agree that it can be hard to find detailed information on ships like this which weren't particularly remarkable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Ok mate, I gave it a quick read through (only fair, you did it for me after all).

• In the 2nd paragraph of the lead there's seems to be an almost comical amount of "twos" and "fours" (almost to the music of the 12 days of Christmas lol)
• Can you put the link for Torpedo bombers earlier in the article, maybe by the first torpedo attack Ryan4314 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Haha, I hadn't noticed that. I assure you there was no ulterior numerical bias - just a cynical attempt to flesh out the intro' ;-). Both issues have been addressed. SoLando (Talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Powhatan Beaty

I've been working on this article for a while now and am looking for feedback. I'm hoping to get this to FA status, what do you think? jwillbur 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be posting a more detailed review of this later, but great job so far. I came across this article last month and added it to the featured bio list of Portal:ACW, I really like it. MrPrada (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall; a few suggestions, though:

• The MoH citation might be better off integrated into the ACW section (perhaps as a pullquote or something of that sort).
• It'd be nice if the see also links could be worked into the text somehow.
• The lead should be expanded if possible.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Two minor minor suggestions regarding the lead;

• Just a thought, what do you think about moving the "During the American Civil War" bit up? So it looks something like this;

Powhatan Beaty (October 8, 1837–December 6, 1916) was an African American soldier during the American Civil War and actor. He served in the Union Army's 5th United States Colored Infantry Regiment throughout the Richmond–Petersburg Campaign.

• Can we have the name of the play and his role please, so it may look something like this;

"His most well-known stage performance was an 1884 appearance as Tybalt in Romeo & Juliet at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C., opposite Henrietta Vinton Davis."

Ryan4314 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann

I would like to bring this article up the quality scale. Please let me know where it requires improvement. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Overall, a good article with a large amount of content.

• given that, however, I feel that the number of citations is inadequate for an article of this size. Of particular note, there is a section of 3 or 4 paragraphs under "Career in the Luftwaffe" that have almost no citations. Done
• I feel that the entire article could benefit from a copyedit, as there are some places where the phrasing is quite disjointed, particularly in the "after the war" section. Done
• I feel that the article may go into a bit too much detail at times, especially in the sections describing individual kills. It tends to read too much like a historical novel or textbook, and not enough like an encyclopedia.

That said, you've done a great job on this article. Good luck in taking it forward. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

A very interesting article.

Could do with:

• More details about personal life, it is a biography after all. Done (partly)
• Could do with more subheadings to split up the larger sections. Done
• Needs rewriting to make it the correct order of events and to link up thing (eg the Russians dropping the charges of war crimes and him getting charged with them) perhaps in there own sections. Done

Other than that it is a very good biography and i personally believe it is better than B-class. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^T | _C 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

Concerning the lead;

• ref [1] needs to be after the full stop.
• What's the rule on 1st and 2nd when it's 352nd, anyone?
• Maybe have "JG 52" acronym in brackets after first mention of "Jagdgeschwader 52" in lead.
• add "false" before "War Crimes", at the moment the lead section makes him sound like an actual nazi war criminal.
• What did he do after he retired? and lengthen the sentence about his death. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN (1834)

Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN: "Twenty years in the Navy. Never drunk on duty - never sober on liberty." Portrait painted c.1834

I love this painting. Dick Libby would have made a fine Rembrandt common man model. The worn face, the rumpled uniform -- this artist knew his stuff. Compare to Image:Der Mann mit dem Goldhelm.jpg.

Image is from the Naval Historical Center. [5] links to full picture data, including the quote in the caption. WP Image links to Uniforms of the United States Navy and Old salt.

Nominated by

Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Size doesn't meet FP criteria and I suspect some people will have problems with the text on painting, although that's easily fixed. My other concern would be encyclopedic value. I don't know how well it really illustrates Old salt. I think with a bigger scan and better article placement this could gather some support though. Tomdobb (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment -- I didn't realize there was a 1000px minimum, but "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired." Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. The only real way to get a better photo would be to rephotograph the original painting(which is, or was, at the United States Naval Academy), not very practical since I live in Arizona.

Perhaps this image could also illustrate a historical naval uniform article, but no such article seems to exist. Hmm.... Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image now linked to Uniforms of the United States Navy, which has some historical info. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The historical policy is more for if the original itself is historical on its own right but fails the technical requirements. Here is a painting 2.5 feet tall; the problem is not in the historical origninal but in the modern digital reprodiction. Thegreenj 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-- and that's an insoluble problem, without rephotographing the painting. Oh, well. Something to do on my next trip to Annapolis (or yours??).

Too bad, as it's an exceptionally fine painting. Better reproduction than the Rembrandt (above) too <GG>.Thanks for your comment, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, do you know about Wikimedia Commons? If you upload free media there, rather than to Wikipedia, it can then be accessed from foreign language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Thegreenj 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Portal:British Army

Hi. I'm after possible improvements and ideas before I nominate this portal for featured status. Jhfireboy Talk 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hossen27

Very sound portal

Not much wrong here.

I made a few mostly minor changes to the layout and removed some redlinks.

just a few more things.

• make all the images in the selected articles the same size (around 200px), just for consistency. Done to 350px
• try to make the selected articles similar lengths, keeps the portal looking more uniform even though it automatically refreshes the content.
• Its not a necessity (in my opinion) but adding the source of the selected photo is always a nice touch. see Portal:Military of Australia/Selected picture for examples.  Done

Go ahead and put it up for feature review if you think its ready. They will find the other little things that need a change that I missed in my 10 minute check.

Well done Hossen27 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A very nice portal, as Hossen27 says. There are a few things that may need some fiddling, though:

• The background color seems a bit dark for me; it's difficult to read the blue links on it, at least on my screen. You might consider using a lighter shade of khaki instead. Done
• Selected pictures do, generally speaking, need sources.  Done
• The "Things you can do" box shouldn't contain anything that's already been done.  Done
• I'd avoid using thumbnail markup inside the boxes, for consistency; the captions can be positioned under the image via a table instead.  Done
• The main portal navbar ("Culture · Geography ...") appears twice; I'd suggest removing the one at the top, to avoid needing the horizontal line there.  Done
• A list of major topics would be good (and is likely to be requested during the featured portal review).

Keep up the good work! Kirill 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Well, as mentioned by Kirill & Hossen27, really good portal. However, there are a few minor things that I think could use some improvement.

• Kirill, you're not alone. it's difficult to see the blue links on my screen too (despite the fact that I have brightness turned to absolute max). Might I suggest a lighter colour.  Done
• The "Related portals" seems a bit out of place. I'd argue that it is taking the place of something more important, such as Featured Article or Featured Event or something along those lines  Done (incidentally, I notice you don't have a "featured event", perhaps you should add that).
• I think the whole page could benefit from a re-arranging of the boxes. Generally, Featured Article is the first one on the portal in most cases, rather than the featured picture.  Done

Other than that, however, I think this thing's pretty much ready for Featured Portal nomination. Excellent work. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Good work so far. The portal is looking good, I just a few comments:

• As mentiond above I would standardize the size of the images, I personally think that 150 px is a good size.  Done to 350px.
• As stated by Kirill, a major topics section would be great as looking through several of the MILHIST Featured Portals they all have one.
• You might like to get rid of the thumb on the images.  Done
• I would be good if you added images for every article when possible. In the selected units, Royal Horse Artillery and Scots Guards don't have images, when their symbols could possibly be used.

Otherwise, the portal looks very good. Kyriakos (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Very good portal. Only one problem and that is with the colouring. It is not very easy to read the first section. Can i suggest that you use something other than blue on green as the background. Great content though. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^T | _C 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)  Done

BusterD

Some good work here. Building a new portal is a lonely task. Much of what I'll suggest is intended to invite the casual reader to participate. I personally think that there's way too much background color showing (Selected picture, for example), but that's an artistic choice, and not by any means a deal killer. There are several issues that will come up during any promotion process and must be resolved in some way, if my recent experience at P:ACW is indicative. I'll also suggest you look at Portal:Norway (a newly featured portal maintained by User:Cirt, a frequent FP commenter) for examples of what is expected in that process.

• Current style is that instructions appear on each content page. See how I've adapted this for Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event (in Kirill's new portal effort).
• A page layout is also a good idea (same examples), in order to make it very easy for a new portal contributor to make finished, correctly styled entries all by themselves.
• A redundant link to each subsection entry (look at the page code for Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event to see what I mean) is another handy handle a new editor can use to see exactly where to click.
• Your "Things to do" subsection references things to do on the portal itself, and strangely, that's not the task the section normally performs in a featured portal. Look at similarly intended (but very different from each other) subsections in Portal:Comedy and Portal:American Civil War. I'd use a {{todo}} template on subpages to tell the new editor what tasks need doing. On the main page subsection, I believe the accepted style should be pointing the editor toward helping content-area articles. If there was a British Army task force, you could simply transclude their to do list. Since you have a Britsh military history task force, you can pull from that. Keep the red-links to high-priority requests.
• IMHO, you're going to need way more selected sub-articles and pictures. Six of each is a very small number. Size of each entry should be roughly similar; right now when one cycles the selection, page composition varies widely, when it should be fairly stable. Read current FP process to see what metrics are currently being applied to such issues. It's a good idea to start reading FP process anyway. Done - now have ten sub-articles and pictures.
• Maybe it's my browsers or platform, but the "Show new selections" link is partially hidden behind the two top subsection boxes.  Done - I have tried three browsers that do not show this mistake.
• Intro box needs a footer: (More about the British Army)

I suspect there's more to do, but since you need many more sub-articles and pictures, remind me to look again after you've built those quantities up a bit. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks better. I'm not sure what the ideal number of entries will be, but keep adding a few a week, and then you're ready. Expect some sharp critique at featured portal (you'll be busy for a week or two); the accepted practice is to self-nominate your own work, so you can choose your moment. Congratulations on important work done well. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexf

Very nicely done. My only complaint, one already noted by other editors, is the dark green background at the top provides low contrast and makes it hard to read. -- Alexf⁴² 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)  Done

Kenneth Dewar

I have just had this article promoted to GA standard, and I'm interested in where to proceed from here. The article is getting a bit long, but I feel that whatever detail I've included is relevant to the subject. Dewar is perhaps a little out of the way as far as naval history goes, but after I elaborate a bit more on his intellectual leanings I reckon he'll stand as an example of a unique sort of RN officer - controversial, cocksure and very intelligent. It would be nice to get the article up to FA-class standard, but anything which improves the article will do. Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz

Interesting article. Minor note: some of the sentence construction and word choice is British rather than American English. I happen to find phrasings such as "promoted (rank)" to be more pleasant than the American "promoted to (rank)", and I'm not sure of the rule here -- should an article on a British topic use British English, or is the general American English rule applicable.

The mark of a good article often is that it makes me want to know more about the subject. For example, was he too junior, or was he affected by the Fisher-Beresford feud? Given the impact of failing to force the Dardanelles, I'd have liked to see more about his critique of Naval training and what should be fixed. As an aside, did he have any comment on the WWII sinking of Royal Oak?

This article may indicate a need for some additional background articles, or linking to ones that exist. Alternatively, some of the issues may not have been the practice at the time. As I understand, a RN officer now elects Navigating, Gunnery, Engineering, Supply, etc. early in his career, and command of a warship is an option only for navigating officer. Here, however, Davies is described as a gunnery officer yet received command.

Note B is a bit redundant. Unless one serves in a navy with Voudoun chaplains, being killed is definitely incapacitating, but one can be incapacitated by wounds, or being perfectly healthy but without communications.

I enjoyed reading it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The guideline on British v. American English is, as far as I know, editor's choice, as long as you are consistent. Carom (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards promotion, when Dewar joined one basically had the Executive Branch and the none-Executive Branch, the latter including Engineering, Medical, Accountant, and all the rest. Before Dewar had joined, the Navigation Branch, formerly separate had become part of the Executive. One either didn't specialise, but off the top of my head I can't think there were that many who didn't, or you specialised in Gunnery, Navigation or Torpedoes (which also included the electrical branch). All naval cadets were given a formal and rigorous training in sciences and basic engineering, so specialising didn't detract too much to anything they had learned about seamanship and the like. Before the Selborne Scheme came into effect, which requires alot of explanation, only the Executive branch could command warships, whatever their specialisation, provided that Their Lordships at the Admiralty felt that the officer in question was capable. At any rate they would have been expected to be capable of commanding a ship. I'm re-reading a very good book on the education of naval cadets, if and when I feel confident I will try and impart some of it into Wikipedia and this article.

As to background, he would have watched the Beresford-Fisher Feud I am sure, however, until I can find a copy of his memoirs I am stumped. I haven't come across anything in The Naval Review on it yet but I'm sure something will turn up. Ditto with the sinking of Royal Oak. I need to obtain a copy of the books on the "Mutiny" or grill User:BillC at some point.

You have a point about Note B, I will reword as there is a little something more to impart on tactics and chain-of-command there I think. Anyway, thanks for the comments, very stimulating! Harlsbottom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

This is pretty well done, I think. I would recommend expanding the lead a little; it does it's job, but it's perhaps a little short based on the length of the article. There're also a few places where a few more refs wouldn't be amiss - the end of the "post-war commands section" doesn't let us know where the information comes from, for example. Overall, nice work! Carom (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Will sort some more refs out - it would seem I missed a few out for some reason when I first drafted it! Cheers for constructive comments! Harlsbottom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahamat Nouri

This is the biography of the leading Chad rebel commander. I want to ask a review of this article so to see how far it is from a potential A-class category, and what is most necessary to be done. The great lack, as all may notice, is the lack of images; there's little I can do, unfortunately, as free images of prominent Chadians are in general extremely rare (there's only one in wikipedia, and it's that of the current President of the country).--Aldux (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few minor suggestions:

• There's a lot of redlinks in the article; any chance of getting some of the more prominent ones stubbed out?
• Are there images available of any of the events, particularly in the civil war? Maps could potentially work here, if nothing else can be found.
• Should there be succession boxes for his political posts, or are they all single-holder things?

Keep up the good work! Kirill 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Javascript review

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Single years without accompanying dates, decades, and centuries should only be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• Please consider adding {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Autoformatting of dates, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article—please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • was considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical intelligence

Before I started "improving", this article had the reasonably limited scope of US-oriented technical intelligence (TECHINT) at the tactical level. I then started working on Farewell Dossier, which dealt with Soviet/Russian strategic scientific & technical intelligence (STINFO). The damage done by the Farewell Dossier, in turn, pertained to both economic intelligence (no article yet) and the stub economic warfare.

In other words, this article probably is several articles crying to go in their own directions. To confuse things further, financial intelligence is in reasonable shape, but certainly will tie into economic intelligence, when and if someone creates it.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Yes, I think there's definitely potential for several articles here. Aside from the topical distinction, I wonder if the "Allegations of intelligence collection at the national level: charges and countercharges" section might not be better off as a stand-alone list of some sort; the single-sentence sub-sections there, in particular, don't really work as pure prose.

Beyond that, there's still a focus on US matters in certain portions (e.g. "Tactical agencies", etc.); I'm not sure if this is merely due to a lack of information—but if it is, those sections could also form separate articles if/when they're fully expanded to cover all the relevant states. Kirill 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You surmise correctly that a lack of information is the concern for non-US tactical agencies. IIRC, there is a NATO agency, but, as with SIGINT, there may be a US unit supporting it. Any sources on non-US agencies and doctrine would be gratefully appreciated.

While I'm not sure where to split the article, there's probably the most information, besides the US, on Soviet STINFO, and then possibly on France (and a lot of speculation). Have you any idea how much Soviet work in this area may have continued into the Russian Federation? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea; I've never really focused on Soviet/Russian operations. Someone like Buckshot06 may be in a better position to provide an answer. Kirill 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Montana class battleship

This rewrite is roughly six months in the making, its still not done entirely, but at this point the major overhaul is as complete as I think I am going to get without getting a second opinion (or third, or fourth, or...well you get the idea :-). I'm offering a spelling star to the first person whose brave enough to take on the article, otherwise I'm all ears as to what I can do further improve the article. The goal, as always, is FA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I am struggling with school, and as a result won't be responding during the work week, however I will read this and I will work to address the concerns brought up (if any) whenever the opportunity to do so appears. Trust me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Updates

• I have added a subsection to create an independent fate section. Does this work, or should I try to get rid of both sections?
• The 1944 in the secondary battery section was a typo, it has been corrected.
• I addressed both hidden notes.

Feedback on these new improvements would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes to Myself (TomStar81)

• Need to address the two hidden notes left in the article namespace. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Need to switch out the deprecated infobox currently in the article for the new one. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall (as usual!); but a few minor points that ought to be cleaned up:

• The "References" section doesn't actually list all the sources used in the footnotes. If it's intended to only be general references, the section titles/structure should be adjusted to indicate this; but I'd just make it comprehensive.
• The entire article needs a thorough copyedit for MoS compliance, particularly as regards spaces/unspaced/dashed units; you have all sorts of variations here ("20 mm", "40mm", etc.) at the moment.
• The single "Design" subsection looks a bit peculiar; is there any way to eliminate it or to split it into multiple sections, so as to avoid the single nested sub-heading?
• The "Secondary battery" section refers to "the cancellation of the Montana-class battleships in 1944", but the article earlier states that the ships were canceled in 1943; is this just a typo, or are there actually two different dates (for different phases of cancellation?) involved?

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The updates look good to me. Kirill 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Excellent article. Just a few comments

• I'm of the mindset that the "design" section needs to be eliminated (primarily for continuity), and the content shifted into the various other sections (armor, armament, propulsion, etc). Although a lot of this would normally go under "construction". This page is unique because the Montana-Class ships were never actually built.
• Your "notes" and "citations" are interspersed. I'd suggest separating these into two separate sections. Carom once told me how to do it, but I never did quite figure out how to properly do so. Separating the two, however, allows for slightly more continuity.
• I'd go into slightly more detail concerning the cancellation of the class. I know you mention it quite a bit in the opening, but I'd create a separate section going into more specifics on it.

That's all I can catch off the top of my head. All the best with taking the article forward! Cam (Chat) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From SG

Hey, Tom! Sorry for the delay. I only had time for a quick glance, but I found a number of things that would indicate a rough go at FAC. There's actually quite a lot of MoS cleanup needed; I suggest you ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through (after you've cleaned up the citations), as he's prompt and thorough. Are terms like Montana-class and Essex-class hyphenated or not? The article is inconsistent. See my one edit for the issues I found only in the lead. There are missing conversions on many units also, and inconsistent date formatting in your citations, missing publishers, WP:MOSNUM issues, mix ups in hyphens, MOS:CAPS#All caps issues, WP:DASH issues (no unspaced emdashes), punctuation problems on WP:MOS#Captions and I found a long sentence in the lead which may indicate you should get someone fresh to run through the prose. I wouldn't recommend coming to FAC until someone else has gone through the prose, all citations are complete and consistent, and Epbr123 has run through on MoS issues. I wish I had time to just dig in and do some of this for you, but alas, my time is more constained these days. Good luck, and hope to see you at FAC soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I believe that Tom's plan for this article is GA and A-Class before going to FAC, but I'm sure the heads-up is appreciated. I can answer about the hyphenation on Montana-class and Essex-class, see {{Sclass}} for details of those links. If you think the usage needs to be changed between adjectival and noun forms, it is an easy change, it just requires a copyedit for tone and grammar. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Naissus

I would like to see this article being assessed for A-class but perhaps it is too small and more concentrated on the events around the battle (because there is too few information for the battle itself in the primary sources). Anyway, User:Roger Davies suggested me to ask first for a peer-review. I liked the idea of getting help in order to improve the article. Some problems I could benefit of some help are the following :

• Greuthungi and Tervingi : while some primary sources are mentioning them, I don't think those names fit to the history of 260s. My secondary sources don't bother with this problem. What do you think?
• Map : this is a self-made map. Possible quality problems could be corrected relatively easily, since the prototype is a layered digital image.
• The balance between the sections : as I mentioned above, the balance would inevitably lean away of the battle itself. Perhaps the article should be called The Gothic Invasions of 267-270 (or might include the entire 3rd century) but I think it would draw more attention with the current title. Besides, in a more generic subject, most of the current details would seem out of place.
• Zonaras : I don't have a version of the Greek text with proper column indicators so I can't use citations to him at the moment.

Dipa1965 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Pretty nice, overall; but a few areas that could use some attention:

• The coin image in the infobox breaks the layout; I'd suggest removing it.
• The lead should be somewhat longer; two or three paragraphs is ideal.
• Given that the footnotes are not heavily repeated, I'd suggest doing away with the naming and using combined footnotes at each point in the text, to avoid long strings of successive note numbers.
• Footnotes should be placed consistently relative the closing punctuation; placing them after punctuation is preferred.
• I'd pull all the footnotes to the ends of sentences; the material is not so controversial as to require individual phrases to be cited, in my opinion.
• All images should have captions.
• The primary and secondary sources should be in a single "References" section; if splitting is desired—and I don't think it adds anything, personally—this can be done within that.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for everything! I tried to follow all suggestions with minor exceptions here and there (mostly for combined footnotes). I made the introduction longer (two paragraphs), is this what you meant by saying "The lead should be somewhat longer"? I removed the coin image but I think it would be nice to have it anyway, perhaps in a single row of the box (what do you think about the position and size of the coin image on Battle of Abrittus?). Dipa1965 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Geuiwogbil

Good work! I'll make comments as I go through the article:

• I don't think the image is showing up correctly: the caption reads "'Scythian' invasions of 250–251 AD". It's the same as on Battle of Abrittus, I believe, though it has the correct filename. Perhaps you should re-upload it? The March 12 version looks like the correct one. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Geuiwogbil and thank you for the constructive comments! I fixed the image. I 'll respond one by one to the rest of your comments Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the troubled 3rd century". Would a link to Crisis of the Third Century be helpful? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be indeed. Originally, I thought of including it but I hesitated due to the rather mediocre quality of that article. But you are right, it is so strongly related to this one (Besides, I intend to work on the Crisis of the Third Century in the future). So I am now mentioning it in the lead. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some tweaks in the "About the confusion of the primary sources" section, which I've renamed to "Sources" (hope you don't mind). I've added some details from Potter. "Each of these works provides an almost radically different interpretation." Does this sentence refer to the histories that make use of Dexippus (Zosimus, Zonaras, George, HA) or the works in which direct citations to him survive (HA, "ninth-century Byzantine collections of excerpts from earlier writers")? Are they making radically different interpretations of the "text" or of the "events"? Do you have a citation for the statement? I've made some assumptions and written up the sentence as "To make matters worse, the works making use of Dexippus provide an almost radically different interpretation of events." Do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry if I introduced this confusion myself. :( Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with all modifications you made. The shorter title is better and the text is now much clearer. Now I will try to explain "Each of these works provides an almost radically different interpretation". It refers to the histories of Zosimus, Zonaras, Syngellus et al. We don't have the original Dexippan text (except for a few fragments) but, since each of the later historians and chronographers offered his own course of events (different dating, different sequence of invasions, different number of invasions, different targets, different results), scholars assume that either Dexippus' text was confusing or that they were not able to use it properly (or probably both). Even Gibbon understood the problem, blaming the historians. So I think that your modification was correct. The confusion is exposed indirectly in the next paragraph but I now added one more citation to D.S.Potter and John Bray about it. Bray also suspects (rather rightfully so) that they all also used a second (unknown) source which added to confusion, so I mentioned it. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Who translated Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths? It should be noted in the "References" section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only a minor question left. Why putting "ndash" instead of a simple "-"? Ndash is neither shown as an option when one edits a page while the simple "-" and the larger "—" are. Dipa1965 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's there, right before the mdash ("—") after "Insert:". I express it as "ndash" for the same reason I express the mdash as "mdash": because my keyboard doesn't have a key for it. Its use is mandated by Wikipedia's 'Manual of Style' at WP:MOSDASH. The ndash is required for "disjunction" (where it is used in "ranges" (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November) and "As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus ((Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic)), "negative signs and subtraction", and in "lists". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Heruli leader Naulobatus came in terms with the Romans." Do we have details for the terms? Favorable? Unfavorable? Any characterization would be good.

There is now a WP Article on Naulobatus. The ancient sources (mostly from the Fourth Century and later) say very little about the terms of his treaty with the Emperor Gallienus. However, the granting of ornamenta consularia suggests that Naulobatus may have agreed to supply troops to fight in the Roman army. Gallienus tried this trick with the Franks and the Marcomanni as well. The army that Aurelian took to the East is known to have included large numbers of barbarians.Pjbjas2.101.200.104 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In the past, this battle was identified with that of Naissus, but modern scholarship has rejected this view." This could use some detail, I feel. Why (on what evidence) has modern scholarship rejected this view? Who propounded the old view? Who supports the new view?

• "On the contrary, there is a theory that the victory at Nessos was so decisive that Claudius' efforts against Goths (including battle of Naissus) were no more than a mopping-up operation." How does this contrast with the previous sentence? (This should be elucidated in the text, since it seems like a jump from the preceding sentence at present.) Who supports this view and why? Does Potter provide an (positive, negative) evaluation of this theory?

The main proponent of the "One-Invasion" interpretation (Naissus only a mopping-up op) was Prof A. Alfoldi ('The invasions of peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea': CAH XII, 1965). I think that Forgiari agrees with him, but it is not easy to follow his arguments. Those who incline to the two invasions theory (Naissus and the operations in Mons Haemus afterwards fairly decisive, but not an end to the "Gothic" menace) include Bray ('Gallienus: A study in reformist and sexual politics' - an unusually good read for a work of Roman History in my humble O!), Alaric Watson ('Aurelian and the Third Century' - ditto) and R.T. Saunders ('A biography of the Emperor Aurelian' - sound). The modern heavy-hitting classicist, Potter, does not deal with the issue directly, but seems to feel that Claudius won a significant victory against the 'Goths' (who he prefers to call "Skythae") in the eastern Balkans, but did not settle the issue. Perhaps the most interesting analysis in recent years is to be found in R. Batty ('Rome and the nomads: the Pontic-Danubian realm in antiquity').Pjbjas.2.101.200.104 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "After his victory, Gallienus left Marcianus in place and hastily left for Italy, intending to suppress the revolt of his cavalry officer Aureolus." Marcianus who? What's he doing here? The reader hasn't been introduced to him at this point. Where's Aureolus revolting, and where's Gallienus going off to?

• "Gallienus was assassinated outside Milan in the summer of 268, in a plot led by high officers in his army." I've been tweaking this sentence because it sounds off, but prose is one of my weaknesses, so I'm probably worsening the issue. Some concerns, though: Why is he being assassinated? What led his high officers to be so dissatisfied with him to try to off him or usurp his title?

• "Claudius was proclaimed emperor and headed to Rome to establish his rule." Was Claudius there, in Milan? Was he an accomplice in the murder? Where was he?

• "After he defeated them in the Battle of Lake Benacus, he was finally able to take care of the invasions in the Balkan provinces."¶"In the meantime, the second and larger sea-borne invasion had started." The second sentence follows the first, but isn't the first referring to the events of the second? If it is, then it should be clarified as such: Claudius "turned his attention to new disturbances in the Balkan provinces". If not, then it should be made clear earlier on that the Balkans remained unstable in spite of Gallienus' campaign, and that Claudius is returning to clean up continuing instabilities.

• "The battle most likely took place in 269." Are there competing chronologies? (There are always competing chronologies in ancient history, aren't there? ;)) This could be an interesting point of dispute, even if the discussion was confined to a footnote.

• "an epidemic affected the entrapped Goths." Do we have scholarly speculation on what sort of epidemic it was? Does Zosimus say?

• "the battle did not entirely break the Gothic tribes' military strength." Can you cite instances of continued Gothic military strength in the text to demonstrate this point to the reader? A bit of the political history of the Goths following the battle (continuing effects, immediate effects, a change in foreign policy, no effect at all) would be interesting.

That the Romans of the day certainly felt that the Battle of Naissus and the subsequent campaign in Mons Haemus marked the point when they finally avenged Abrittus and the devastating raids into the Balkans and Asia Minor of the 250s-60s is evidenced by their giving Claudius the title Gothicus and voting him a gold shield to be hung in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome - this was long before Constantine adopted Claudius as a suitable illustrious ancestor in @ 312 AD. However, Claudius had to initiate campaigns against "Gothic" pirates in 270 AD - see Tenagino Probus and send an army to clear them from Pisidia/Pamphylia under Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. Aurelian conducted a successful campaign north of the Danube, but his decision to give the "Goths" free reign in Dacia was probably as important in keeping them quiet for a few years. Nevertheless, another "Gothic " horde from the Kuban steppe had to be dealt with in Cappadocia-Cilicia by Tacitus in 275-6. Despite the successes of Roman arms in the late-Second and Third Centuries the Gothic problem was never really resolved. Pjbjas. 2.101.200.104 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The psychological impact of this victory was so strong that Claudius became known to history afterwards as Claudius II Gothicus" Is this the only evidence of psychological impact? If there was a profound psychological impact, perhaps a more detailed account of that impact could be written?

• Some more background on why the invasions have taken place at all would be beneficial. What were the Goths' objectives? Plunder? Lebensraum? Specific land claims? Seasonal migration? A brief overview of the Goths' prior relationship with the Romans could help here.

• I feel that "The Gothic Invasions of 267–270" would work better as a subject for the article: so much content in the article is already on material surrounding the battle, and it looks like there's not much to be written about the battle itself. Your concerns about drawing attention are understandable, but, personally, I think that the proposed title (minus the "The", which I think is against our naming policy) would attract more eyes than a "Battle" article, which anyways misrepresents what this article contains. A "campaign" article would also provide a good opportunity to clarify the origins, background, and long-term effects of the campaign, which are a bit obscure in this version.

• Since there isn't much content as it stands, more discussion of the source material and related historiographic concerns would be a good supplement to the narrative. More detail would be useful in the second paragraph of the "Sources" section, for example. At the moment it isn't clear why these individuals hold such contrasting views. Provide the reader with some understanding of what the key points in the dispute are: what evidence is being used, what positions have been discredited, where have they been discredited, who is doing the argumentation? Since there's enough space for it, the specific primary sources used behind the narrative in the article could be cited and discussed. Are there competing claims made for the evidence at a particular point? Has a secondary source made any specific criticisms of the primary sources at a point where it might help in the analysis of the historical narrative? That sort of information is appealing to me, at least. :)

• Still, very good work. I feel like it could use a copy-edit, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing. Have you considered calling up a MilHist Copyeditor to give it a look-over? I think they could help. :) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An impressive review! Since you also noticed it, it seems good to re-think the material on the basis of a campaign article. It will need a lot of work (e.g. addressing all the issues you mentioned) which I initially wanted to avoid in a battle article. The latter should be concise and narrative, the former would permit more analysis on the problematic nature of our sources. I will return on it later, when I will have available the entire books of John Bray and Alaric Watson. I have recently purchased the Barrington Atlas which will also help a little on the geography of the campaigns. Dipa1965 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi

It's been more than two years since I tried to really develop a biography article, so, I could really use another set of eyes to ensure I'm doing this correctly. I discovered this story recently while doing Pacific War research and thought that it was a very interesting story. Any comments and critiques are greatly appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

• You can probably drop the "(US)" after the United States.

Otherwise, sweet lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very good, overall, but a couple of minor things that need fixing:

• In quotes, editorial comments (e.g. "sic") are normally given in square brackets, not parentheses. Is there some reason for the different usage here?
• Extended quotes are sometimes cited at the end of the introductory statement and other times at the end of the quote itself; I'd suggest using a single style.

Other than that, this looks ready to go. Kirill ^(prof) 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrections made. Thank you both for taking the time to review the article and leave comments. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

World War II

Previous review here.

The article has just undergone a huge reworking (thanks primarily to Oberiko). We'd like to see what everyone thinks of the new version, what improvements should be made, etc. Thanks for all input. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A preliminary question: there are many sections with no inline citations whatsoever. Why is this the case? I'm assuming it's not simply an oversight, and I'm curious as to the rationale. Carom (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue there (and I could be wrong), is that the current version was created on a temp page, and when it was substituted, the references in the previous versions were lost. The task of working through the old version and transplanting the references into the current version still lies ahead of us. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Some other thoughts, then:

• The "see also" section should be removed. Links here should be incorporated into the larger body of the article.

• The "bombings" and "war trials" sections might warrant a little bit of expansion.

• There should be a link to World War II material on Wikimedia Commons.

• The prose is generally good, but could use a thorough copyedit.

Other than the lack of citation, I have no major complaints at this point. This is an excellent job so far; everyone involved is to be commended. Carom (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation issue is my doing. As I was writing, I really didn't see any facts that needed to be cited, considering that it's mostly a collection of links. If you see any disputable facts, let me know and I'll add a source. Oberiko (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I've always interpreted the citation guideline a little more strictly than that. It's not really just a collection of links; it still provides a narrative of the war. It seems to me that it should really be cited like any other article with regards to consistency and density. I also imagine that this might become a fairly large stumbling block if you intend to run this up to FA. Carom (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem to add them if required then, the page is (by necessity) such a generic overview that finding hard-copy confirmation shouldn't be an issue. Oberiko (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc

Am curious about the caption under the image in the info box. I know it doesnt mean to, but to me that key code is implying that all countires in light green joined because of the Japanese attack on the USA.

(on a slightly related note, wasn't Persia carved up between the Soviets and British before the American entry into the war?)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are working on the map issue at the moment. Another installment of the infobox montage discussion (which would replace the map) has been started here, all input there would of course be welcome. At the moment, Oberiko is working on a new version of an animated map that will address the concerns expressed here and elsewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, i look forward to seeing it--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the new montage: Image:WW2Montage.PNG. Take a look and see what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

I have to agree with Carom on the citation issue, I would like to see at least one citation perparagraph for the article because at the moment much of it is to me uncited. I will grant that this is largely a narrative history on the war, but the same could be said of the Iowa class battleships and those articles all have citations on a per paragraph basis. I will take a closer look at the article when I have the chance to (at the moment I have a book report to work on thats due Thursday) and will have further comments then. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This article is vastly improved and I'd congratulate everyone involved. The process in which the improvements were made (by proposing text on the talk page before adding it) is an excellent example of a consensus approach to editing and is a model for other difficult to manage articles. My comments are:

• I agree with the need for citations as the article does make some assertions and they act to deter vandals. Using brief histories of the war should make this managable (I recomend John Keegan's excellent book).
• The article's prose is rather breathless and hard to read at times. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but the article could be longer.
• The common use of 'British' and 'United Kingdom' when describing actions of Commonwealth forces is inappropriate and inaccurate. For instance, Australian, and not 'British', troops made but the majority of the force which invaded Syria in 1941. Use either 'Commonwealth' or 'Allied'.
• I'm suprised to see that China didn't declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour (4th para in the 'The war becomes global' section).
• The article doesn't always describe the impact of the events it described. For instance, there's no mention that the Soviet offensive at the Battle of Moscow inflicted devastating losses on the German Army and that this was a key turning point in the war. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth bullet is correct; neither side formally declared war in the SSJW until after the US was attacked, because neither side wanted to alienate the US (which was trading with both China and Japan), which had been pushing for peace at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth issue I'll try to get taken care of today. I'd rather not have any analysis of battles/events here, a large number of them (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, France (1940), El Alamein, Overlord, Bulge, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Okinawa etc.) can be described as pivotal; I'd rather leave explaining their significance to the daughter articles which cover the major theatres. Oberiko (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105

Despite the amount of editing done, and the significant improvement achieved, there is an entire concept, and at least a large section simply missing from the article!

• For Germany SWW was predicated on the economic fallout of the previous war, and the Nazi rhetoric. What followed was a territorial expansion by any means, with the goal being an expansion of German economic power. Germany lost the economic war a few months after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. Ultimately combined Allied economies secured victory on the battlefields. None of this s evident from the article. The economic dimension needs its own section at last, which will hopefully mention the role of women in wartime economies, and the effect this had on the post-war societies of the World.

• If the economic issue was implicit in the Nazi Germany policy, then in Imperial Japanese policy this was an explicit cause for expansion of the Japanese Empire and its Economic Sphere. Where is this in the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't have it yet. If you check World War II/temp, you can see that we have a blank section called "Home front". This is where production figures and such will be located.

I don't really want to get to in-depth to the reasons for German or Soviet actions. I briefly mention Japan's motive (to create a defensive perimeter while exploiting the resources of SE Asia), and Italy's motives (to create a new Roman Empire) but Hitler's motives were at least as much about ethnic eradication and world domination (indeed, he was making plans for the eventual war against the United States after conquering Europe) as they were about economic gain. I feel that the European Theatre of World War II would be a better place to talk more about it. If you can summarize it briefly though (a sentance or two), then by all means give it a shot. Oberiko (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I kept looking in temp to see what's new. Sadly I can not devote time to this. This is a huge subject which comes trough in other articles where production and logistics are concerned, so of course the Eastern Front. It needs a category revamp, and not just a section here. The reason I'm concerned is because the Soviet wartime economy in Wikipedia is covered by two short paragraphs!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The wartime economy and production for each of the major belligerents (U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., China, Japan, Germany, Italy and France) each merit full articles. The most one could do in the WWII article itself is give a very brief comparison. Oberiko (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

I'm throwing this up for Peer Review as I finalise the summaries of the three tribunals (satisfied with Tribunal #1 as of last night's efforts, working on #2 today, #3 next week) - I'd appreciate critique of the article and suggestions for improvement since the article has been pretty much 100% my creation at this point - so I'm worried that I may be blind to some of my own errors.

I recognise that the tribunal #2 and #3 sections need reworking, but other than that, what could I do to improve this article?

Thanks, Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

I appreciate that this cannot have been an easy article to write and you have done good work. From a quick read through, the biggest gap is a comprehensive setting out of the evidence against him. I think it needs a sourced timeline of exactly what he supposed to have been getting up to in Afghanistan. The absence of this also impacts on the article's neutrality. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, you mean between 1996 (when he was 10 years old, and his family moved to Afghanistan) and the July 2002 firefight (when he was 15)? He's not really accused of doing anything prior to the Firefight is the crux of the problem, but I assume you're not referring to the firefight. Are you thinking that the videotape (showing him planting landmines and talking to the men in the hut) of the ~week's events prior to the firefight should have their own heading? The single reference to "weapons training" allege it occured a month before the firefight, though it's not clear how long Omar was working alongside al-Libi or the three men killed alongside him - I can try to clear that up with the family this week, though it'll obviously breach OR guidelines. So, your thoughts on a seperate heading for the week/month prior to the firefight?Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was after a timeline of the stuff the charges are framed from, based, I suppose, on US-released documents. There has been plenty of commentary so this should be possible.

I've been thinking through the rest of the article and wonder why it doesn't mention the close involvement of the family with Al-Qaeda. It really needs a separate section.

The ambivalence of the Canadian govt/press is another unexplored area.

If you have amicable links to the family, you must disassociate yourself from the article. This area is sensitive enough without adding WP:COI to the cocktail.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, unless it can be shown that my writing is not neutral, there's no reason to "disassociate" myself from a topic simply because I have some familiarity with it. By that reasoning we would ban scientists from writing about science-related articles because they'd studied it themselves.

Back to the review, the parts that mention Canada (Gould's interrogation, etc) originally had their own section, but were re-worked into the chronology so that Canadian enquiries when he was at Bagram are under the Bagram heading, Canadian interrogations while he was at Guantanamo are under the Guantanamo heading. Do you think it would be better to re-separate them, or leave them combined with their current topics?

I'm a little confused still by the phrase "a timeline of the stuff the charges are framed from", not trying to be snarky, just trying to figure out what exactly you want. The charges are framed on the actions inside the compound, primarily the throwing of the grenade that killed Speer - they already have an exhausive timeline with ~40 references under the "Firefight and Capture" heading. Do you mean you want a point-form div-box in the side that just summarises in five-word sentences the bare minimum of information? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think your writing is entirely neutral: that's the point I initially made after scanning it briefly. It fails to give as much prominence to the US position as to Khadr's. It needs a section clearly setting out of the US position: why they are holding him; why they are according him such prominence; the conclusions they reached after apprehending him following a four-hour firefight; their belief that, brought up as he was in an Al-Qaeda family, he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection. The family details are also glossed over: Khadr's father was apparently killed in a firefight on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with Pakistani security forces; Khadr's brother was allegedly a suicide bomber. These allegations have been widely reported in the press so they ought really to be included. I will not pursue this further here and will be interested to see what other reviewers think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)In an article already struggling with size, I imagine details about the firefight that killed his father belong in Ahmed Said Khadr, not Omar's article. See also Khadr family for the details that deal with the family as a whole. Omar's article should deal strictly with the facts that are relevant to Omar - I don't think that's a POV assertion. His brother was not a suicide bomber, so obviously I don't think that should be included (although the false assertion is mentioned in the article Abdullah Khadr about his brother. So leaving out the fact that I don't deal with his entire family in the article about a single member of the family - your complaints which I'm still anxious to help resolve are;

• "clearly setting out of the US position: why they are holding him;" I would say this has been exhaustively dealt-with in the article, again, there are ~40 citations about exactly why he's being held, including quotes from both the prosecution and defence attorneys.
• "why they are according him such prominence;" to be honest, I haven't seen any references suggesting he's been accorded prominence or why. Unfortunately, I don't think they exist. if you have such sources though, I'd be happy to include them.
• "the conclusions they reached after apprehending him following a four-hour firefight" ummm, there are 28 paragraphs about the their conclusions following the firefight, and I've put all of the documentation, his ARB/CSRT findings, his trials and the motions on Wikisource, and are linked in the article. I'm not sure what kind of "conclusions" you still want. "Conclusion, he is a bad guy" is kinda POV, I'm dealing strictly with the facts - are there any facts I'm missing in the article?
• "their belief that, brought up as he was in an Al-Qaeda family", this isn't really a "belief", it's a fact, and it's outlined in the section "Early Life", specific details about the family members can be found in *their articles*. Let's not give way to "We should mention how EVIL Hitler was, in the article about Goerring"-speak, this article is about Omar, we should carefully weigh family-facts whether they relate specifically to Omar.
• "he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection." I've never seen that listed on the charge sheets the US has brought against him, probably because "being unlikely to renounce" something isn't a crime...am I missing something? Nobody significant to the case has ever complained that "he won't renounce X", yet *you* believe it should be one of the accusations against him? Again, if you provide evidence that a prosecutor, a guard, a military policeman, a judge, an attorney, a soldier...*anyone relevant to the case* has ever suggested that "he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection" is a damning fact against him, I'd be *overjoyed* to include it in the article...but I'm not adding it just because you personally think that makes him a bad Canadian.

But since most of your complaints seem to be about the content, not the structure of the article, can you perhaps take this to the Talk Page of the article, rather than Peer Review? Thanks! :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

You shouldn't link the dates. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the dates like August 1, or years? I understand August 1 is typically linked because it allows readers to choose whether it displays as "1 August" or "August 1", or is this no longer the accepted style? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks

This is an article I've been working on for a while (3 years or so, which should give you an idea of my work-rate) and I'm looking for suggestions for improvement. I'm aware of the fact that the North Africa and Europe sections need in-line citations and I also intend to do a fair amount of copy-editing/re-writing/expansion, particularly on those sections, and would appreciate other opinions on where I should direct my efforts. Leithp 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: As part of the recent review for GA status, citations have been added to the N Africa and Europe sections and those parts have been slightly expanded. I'd appreciate comments on further improvements that could be made (I'm still aware of the combining refs issue that Kirill mentioned, and will eventually get round to finishing that) or opinions on whether the article is ready to be taken on to A-class review yet. Leithp 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few other areas that might need looking at:

• The lead seems too short for an article of this size. Done
• Given that you're not repeating footnotes too much, I would suggest avoiding named ones at all, and instead combining the notes for each sentence into a single one. Certain areas of the article seem a bit too densely footnoted; the material isn't really controversial enough to warrant citing individual clauses, In my opinion.

Overall, though, this is a very good article. Kirill 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've combined the references on a couple of the worst offenders. I'm not sure the rest of the multiple-footnotes affect the readability. Let me know what you think, please. Leithp 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

In the lead;

• Which Olympics?  Done
• I know who Montgomery is, but you might wanna mention he was the North Africa allies commander. Done

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Kalka River

I recently rewrote the article and I am planning of taking it to GA and beyond. Any constructive critism or comments are most welcome. Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Just a few comments:

• The lead doesn't have any citations. I realize that a majority of the article already has significant citation #'s, but it would be nice to have some in the lead as well(especially since the lead contains info that isn't referenced to elsewhere).
• In the Aftermath section, "To stop the Mongols from the western side of the Dnieper, Mstislav destroyed all the boats he could find." stands to be reworded. I'd change it to "To stop the Mongols from crossing to the western side of the Dnieper, Mstislav destroyed all the boats he could find", simply for slightly more clarity.
• The last two paragraphs of "aftermath" could do with a minor copyedit and some fleshing out. The wording simply seems too choppy.
• I would replace the satellite image of the Dnieper with a map of the battle around the Dnieper, as this seems to have slightly more relevance to the article itself.

You've done well with this article. Great work. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, a very nice article; but a few points that might be worth looking at:

• There's some slightly confusing wording regarding the two Mstislavs (e.g. "...the Mongols slaughtered them and executed Mstislav. Mstislav the Bold escaped..."); I think it may be better to use the epithets everywhere, to eliminate any ambiguity of this sort.
• The "Background" and "Caucasus raid" sections seem like they ought to be combined somehow; both are really background material. Or perhaps "Caucasus raid" and "Prelude" could be made sub-sections of "Background"?
• "Rus fall" is a very strange construction, as "Rus" here doesn't refer to a permanent grouping, and "fall" doesn't really take an adjective in any case; it should be "Rus defeat", or perhaps "Fall of the Rus".
• There's some inconsistency regarding whether the name is rendered as Rus or Rus'.
• As long as you're using short-form notes, I'd suggest using short-form titles as well.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kirill. I have added the Mstislavs epiphets and have made "Caucasus raid" a sub-section of background. I have also changed the "Rus fall" to "Rus' defeat" and I have also made the change from Rus to Rus'. Kyriakos (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Misleading intro: The Battle of the Kalka River (Russian: Битва на реке Калке) took place on May 31, 1223, between the Mongol Empire (led by Jebe and Subutai and Kiev, Galich, and several other Rus' principalities) and the Cumans, under the command of Mstislav the Bold and Mstislav III of Kiev. The battle was fought on the banks of the Kalka River and ended in a Mongol victory.

On which side did Kiev fight? It is presented as part of the Mongol Empire in this intro. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

James Graham (soldier)

I am interested in gaining comments from interested persons about this article on the "Hero of Waterloo", with a view to improving the article and nominating for GA. It is not long, but covers the relevant information about Graham. I am aware it lacks pictures; some paintings exist but I do not know copyright issues. Any help or advice appreciated. Many thanks, Gwinva (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update I have provided a section on Graham's early life and service, and a summary background into the Bergen op Zoom and Waterloo campaigns, and supplemented the information of Graham's laetr career, as well as worked on the stylistic points mentioned by Cam and Gaia Octavia Agrippa below. I would appreciate comments or review of the article as it now stands. Thanks, Gwinva (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam

On the whole, a very good article. However, there are several things that stand out as needing some tweaking and/or improvement.

• On a format note, The Quotebox on the right side of the main section is messing up the flow of the entire article. Is there some way for you to work that directly into the text? Although quoteboxes work for smaller blocks of text work, I think that the quotation for the box is way too long for usage in the quotebox, as it disrupts the format of the entire article.
• I think that the lead needs to be expanded. Although it gives a brief outline of James Graham, I think it could go into more detail.
• There is absolutely nothing dealing with James Graham's earlier life (i.e. Before the Battle). I think that, before you nominate it for GA, you need to find some information about his earlier life & training. This will substantially improve the quality of the article.

I see very little issue with the content already there, it's mainly the content that should probably be added within the near future. All the best with taking the article forward. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those helpful comments; they give me a good idea of where to go next. I will sort the formatting out, as you suggested, and expand the lead. And you are quite right, the article does just leap straight into the battle at Waterloo. There is little information available about Graham's earlier life, but since I have his years of service I will be able to describe his military experience a little, from the more general Coldstream Guards information. Again, thanks for the pointers. Gwinva (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

It is a good biography but there is a lot still to be done in my view.

• It needs more details of his career before and after the battle.
• It needs details about his personal life.
• It needs reformatting to improve the layout of the page.
• It needs more relative links.
• It definitely needs a picture of him.
• It should have more information in the info-box.

Overall it is a B-class article but has a long way to go to become A-class or even GA . Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^T | _C 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. As I mentioned to Cam above, there is little information or details about his personal life available, but I will follow up regimental histories to get an overview of campaign experience. I presume the formatting isssues are similar to those mentioned by Cam above? But what do you mean by "relative links"? And what other information needs to go in infobox? (I've added allegiance and service branch). As to the pictures of him, there are some around: portrait (held at National Gallery of Ireland) and Robert Gibb's famous painting of the closing of the gates at Hougoumont but I don't know how to discover the copyright status of these. Are they held by the museums? Or has copyright expired on all paintings of that age? Many thanks for the comments and help so far. Gwinva (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Noetica

I have nothing much to add to the suggestions above. I do think it needs more detail of his life beyond the military: his early circumstances, his family, and the like. Yes, a portrait would be good too. I'd be reluctant to spend time on formatting right now, until any new images or other elements are in place. I have just done a copyedit of the whole article. I think it was already quite orderly, and I can't immediately find any way to improve it with the current content. I have left a couple of questions in my edit summaries (marked in capitals: "QUESTION:"), which may be worth following up. A good article, modest in scope. Does its job well!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Noetica. I have followed up on those questions in the edit summaries. I have failed to find any verifiable information about Graham's early circumstances, so will have to leave it there. As far as pictures, there seems to be copyright issues with paintings held in Britain (copies are subject to copyright, regardless of whether the original is in the public domain or not). I have queried this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (see [6], which seems to confirm this. In addition, I've emailed various sites which use the paintings, without success. At this stage, it will have to remain a "good article, modest in scope". Thanks for all the help! Gwinva (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

USS Comfort (AH-3)

I have recently expanded and improved this article and would like to get some feedback on what else is necessary. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Excellent article I have to say. I have done a little copyedit, but there wasn't much to copyedit to be honest. Seems to meet the MOS. I have a couple of questions though.

• You say she faced the "prospect of" quarantine. Was that realised?
• Can you rephrase They were in the first group of the first American troop convoy the repitition is annoying me, but I can't seem to find a way around it.
• After consideration of re-outfitting the ship for dependent transport was rejected, What is dependent transport? Could this sentence be rephrased slightly; consideration of re-outfitting just doesn't flow for me.

Otherwise, as I say, looks very good to me. Go for A-Class. Woody (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Prospect of quarantine": The news coverage from The New York Times was not necessarily complete. If I recall correctly, it was announced that the ship was going to be in quarantine but there was no follow up on whether or not it actually did.
• "first group of the first convoy": I changed it to "lead group" which avoid the repetition but also conveys that it was first.
• 'Dependent transport' was bringing home war brides and children from overseas. I've rephrased it and combined that sentence with the next short one, too.

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your fixes look good. I would remove the "prospect of quarantine" or rephrase it unless you can find a source discussing whether it did go into quarantine. It is a bit of a loose end at the moment. Woody (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I looked back at the original source, then searched the next day's paper and got it resolved. The ship would have been detained in Havana (not New York) and was released after 1 day. Text and additional reference now reflect this. Thanks again for you suggestions. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to start the FA nom process but give editors one more look at it before I do. I think this article has solid bones, with some great citations. I am working on removing the last few unauthoritiative sources and will do so before I pass it up for FA nom, so please don't comment on those. Part of my request involved editors examining citation format, prose, spelling, and other style issues which may be of concern. I would appreciate anything you can give me on this. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Hey Daysleeper, certainly not an area of my expertise but I'm happy to provide general comments where I think the article could be tweaked...

• "that fought with the Union Army" - could be ambiguous to fight with someone could read as in "to have a fight with someone..." - "fought on the side of the Union Army" perhaps?

Adjusted with "a regiment of the Union Army"

• "Zouaves" - what does this mean?

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Link "Commonwealth " accordingly.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep citations in numerical order - you have a [4][3] at the moment, there may be others..

Question: If the citations are the same, I thought I could use the same citation name, thus only creating one entry. See citatin 11 as an example. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

'Response: Yeah, reusing them is fine, but reuse them in such an order that the citations appear numerically... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rechecked and it looks fine now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• "flashy Zouave uniforms " "fashioned in flashy uniforms" POV unless you can cite "flashy". Even then, it's probably worth a reword.
• "fezzes " - link this to Fez.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• You've redlinked "Henry Willard" - do you expect him to have an article, i.e. is he sufficiently notable to warrant one?

He was a notable Washingtonian, who yes, I expect should or one day will have his own article. The hotel in question still exists and is one of Washington, D.C. finest. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Early action has several short paragraphs, consider merging a couple of them.
• " First Battle of Bull Run" needs linking in the "First Bull Run" section.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• " double-quick" - why italics?

My own added emphasis from several months ago. Removed to maintain nuetrality. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• "their foul conduct in camp" expand and explicitly cite I think!
• You have a section heading "Draft Riots.." is Riot a proper noun here? If not then it should be lower case, as you have it in the main prose.

Draft Riots is generally assumed to be the name of the event, and the article maintains capitilization for both words. The only instance in the article in which I use the two words together is in the header, which I believe to be an acceptable usage. If another editor can find a described use to contrary, I will certainly change it. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• There has been a slow move towards having a combined references section with subsections General (your References) and Specific (your Notes), possibly worth considering.

I will have to look at how other articles have done that; I'm not familiar with that style but will certainly give it a look. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have right now, I enjoyed the article a lot, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Daysleeper47 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more comment - ensure you use the en-dash for separating page ranges in the citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff (D108)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm going to nominate this article for FA, i would just like a quick peer review before hand. There are two main things I am interested in; 1. Is this article understandable to people who don't know about the Falklands & Gulf wars or warships? 2. Would you all mind taking a look at the gallery on commons and suggesting what images (and how many) you think should be in the article please.

Cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/HMS Cardiff (D108)/archive2.

Pakistan Air Force Academy

I do like to promote this article from the current B ranking, so want a review to make further improvements. --SMS ^Talk 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few comments:

• The lead should be expanded. It should really provide both an overview of, and an introduction to, the rest of the article.

• The section "Qaid's address" seems superfluous. Overly long block quotes like this are usually unnecessary, and in this case, it doesn't really seem to add anything.

Should it be shortened or completely removed? SMS ^Talk 09:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would remove it entirely. Carom (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done SMS ^Talk 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are a number of very short sections. These should be expanded, not only to give the reader a more complete understanding of the topic, but also to enhance the visual appeal of the article.

• The "see also" section is unwarranted, and should be removed.

 Done SMS ^Talk 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The entire article really needs copyediting. We now have a dedicated request center for copyedits; you can ask one of the editors listed there to help you with this.

Hopefully these are helpful for you to be going on with at the moment. Carom (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Good article on a neglected topic. Quick note - the 'Story of Pakistan Air Force' and 'History of Pakistan Air Force' need publisher and date information. Could you also explain the use of 'Royal Pakistan Air Force'? Is that correct? Agree with all Carom's comments as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will surely add the publisher information. And about 'Royal Pakistan Air Force', which was the name of the force when it was established 60 years ago and that is only used in the quote of the Quaid-e-Azam, as I think i can't change the quote.--SMS ^Talk 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no worries. I looked up the main article and I understand why it was used. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Brice

I'd like to start transposing some of Eicher & Eicher and flesh out the info on staff officers, departments, etc., that is currently MIA from the ACW TF. I'd count this as a template article, there is innumerable detail on the staff officers in the OR, it could take an entire year just to write one really good FA on each, however in the mean time I would at least like to get a reasonably sized bio up there. I'm interested in hearing what you think of what's already there, and what you think needs to be added, removed, etc. MrPrada (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, this brings to mind a related MILHIST thought. The finance corps is missing from Category:Branches of the United States Army. MrPrada (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockfall

Nicely done, though I have a few points on reading the article:

• The first section is called Early Life and Background and yet has a paragraph of his life 'after' the war, which is covered in the final section.
• Main section is referenced (but seemingly from only one or two sources), though could do with some more wikilinks on some of the locations and names, for example Kansas and Paymaster.
  • The writing style of this section is very percussive - all short sentences will one piece of information in each. I feel this slows down the flow of the article.
• Final section is good, though I am curious what Brice's role was, if any, in Reconstruction, which obviously was very important historically.

Overall I think the article is a good start which could perhaps do with a little more detail - it is hard to write that they have been unfairly neglected by historians and then not detail some specific examples of his actions in the war, or even personal details like family etc. Rockfall (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)\

Carom

Well done so far, although a few comments:

• The lead probably warrants a brief expansion. Although the article is short, the lead should always give the reader a fairly complete overview of the topic.
• There's some oddly placed information - for example, the last sentence regarding his brother-in-law. A slight reorganization of some information would, I think, be beneficial.
• I would change the organization to Notes-References-External links (I believe this is slightly more conventional).

With regards to the missing category you mentioned, it's no problem to create one - I'm guessing it should be Category:United States Army Finance Corps? Carom (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

53rd Pennsylvania Infantry

When this article was initially created, it appeared to be just a copy-and-paste job from another webiste. I've tried to bring it more in line with other similar Wikipedia articles (adding an infobox, links to other articles, etc.) and have also extensively edited and rewrote it. Any further suggestions for improvement (and corrections of errors) would be greatly appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

I'm sorry if this turns out to be a damper but this article has several very substantial problems.

• It still contains significant amounts of text that remain cuts and pastes from the source webpage. These need re-writing in your own words.
• The webpage itself is probably not a reliable source. You should look for other sources to support what the article says. The upside is that will give you more information.
• The article isn't properly cited or sourced. See WP:V for what to cite and WP:CITE for how to cite it.
• It needs breaking up into sections for readability. A lead section to set the scene, followed by three or four sections, dealing with the regiment's formation, battle honours, and so forth.

The way forward is probably to ask for assistance on the talk page of the American Civil War task force. It has many experienced, knowledgeable and helpful editors. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Harvest

I agree with the above.

• Many of the web pages on the topic reference Samuel Bates' History of the Pennsylvania Volunteers, 1861-65 published in 1868. This would be public domain if you can be certain that passages are taken from the original.
• Dyer's Compendium contains lists of dates and actions for the regiment. Fox's losses and the Official records should also be cited where appropriate to confirm the material gathered from other web pages, etc.
• The history section definitely should be broken up into headings or subheadings. Red Harvest (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few supplementary comments:

• You may actually find it more productive to start from scratch. Locate some reliable sources (the ACW task force may be a good place to start), identify a useful structure (3rd Battalion 3rd Marines might serve as a model of sorts), and produce some prose of your own - you may find it easier than attempting to rework someone else's.
• You will also want to keep in mind things like proper citation format, etc. as you move forward.
• I don't know if images are available, but they are always a bonus.

Best of luck. Carom (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leobold1

I'm more of a detail and link expansion person.

• I did make 2 very minor edits to fix the link for William H. French and Israel B. Richardson. It was written as William. H. French with a period after William, and missing the middle initial for Richardson. These were quick and easy fixes and would have been stupid to write it out telling you rather than make the edit.
• More info on the "Grapevine Bridge" could be helpful (what kind of bridge, distance, etc). Also a link through to the Chickahominy River could help show where the bridge was built.
• Links for:
  • the First Battle of Bull Run instead of just telling about it.
  • City, location, and unit links are varied. Some have a link, some don't. Even a red link, at times, is better than none.
  • Make another pass through the names to make sure all the people involved don't have articles on them.
  • Parts of the Union Army the regiment was attached to (II Corps, AOP, etc)
• The first few paragraphs under "Fredericksburg and Gettysburg" need to be rewritten. The regiment is at the battle before the battle is mentioned.
• A Google search for images (along with other references) would be extremely helpful.
• Prose is uneven. The article reads like it was written by at least 3 people, the originator (Copy & Paste), you, and you trying to fix the copy & paste. This makes it read very uneven.
• Check out these links. You don't need a library or a large booksshelf for these. Google Books search for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry
• Little more on the reenactors would be helpful.

I realize I'm nitpicky, but these are the things that jumped at me.

Leobold1 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Daysleeper47

I created and did 99% of the work on 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment which can serve as a model for your work. Please feel free to take a look at it and use its style to mirror this article. It is currently a GA (which the previously mentioned 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines is an FA) but is a more relevant comparison as a Union regiments. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War troop surge of 2007

I am filing a peer review for this article to invite comments on how the article may better be improved. I do not have any vested interest in the article, but will take any suggestions placed here to improve the article and try to implament them. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

It seems to me that the biggest problem at the moment is an overly intricate and detailed structure. I know that, like many recent events that receive extensive news coverage, we have a lot of information and a lot of sources available, but I feel that the level of detail here is overkill. A lot of work has gone into the article as it currently stands, I'm sure, but I feel that the main road to improvement is to cut back. Additionally, the intermixing of prose and timelines is difficult to follow. Everything really needs to be converted to prose and then trimmed down to a reasonable level of detail.

Less importantly, some images would be nice, and the "see also" section should ultimately be removed.

Let me know if you want further suggestions on trimming down the article - it's a big job, and I'm sure it's also likely to be controversial. Carom (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would be grateful for any further suggestions on trimming down the article, and I will look into adding images and subtracting the see also section. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some things that jump out: short sections, sometimes only two sentences. "Problems with readiness," "Bush's reaction" and "Plan B" are all quite short, and there are a few others as well. This proliferation of short sections indicates to me that the article is being broken down to too fine a level of detail. It might be most productive to lay out a new structure (in userspace, perhaps) that attempts to be more of an encyclopedic summary than a fine-grained reporting of events. To me, something like "Demand for change," "Development of the policy," "Presentation of the policy," "Reaction," "Implementation," and "Aftermath" might be better. Also, the timelines are really disruptive - they could perhaps be split out into "Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007, and then linked to. Carom (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrencema

First time I've commented in a peer review, so be nice to the newbie :)

• My biggest problem is that it concentrates too much on the political aspects of the surge i.e. American political discussions (particularly the pre speech expectations section. That should definitely be moved/renamed). A greater focus should be on which units were deployed as part of the surge, how this fitted in with the Baghdad Security Plan (Fardh al Qanoon), preparatory operations in Diyala in advance of Arrowhead Ripper (I guess in the southern Baghdad belts as well). Any change in military strategy on the ground should be included (e.g. moving off FOBs into JSSs), how the Awakening Councils fitted in to the security situation, etc.

• I agree with Carom - the timeline is very intrusive and should probably be cut out and linked to.

• Plan B needs to updated or removed.

• Maybe an image of the brigade disposition before/after the surge would be illustrative of the troop increase

• Photos of Petraeus, Crocker. They are probably the face of the surge.

Just a few items off the top of my head. Lawrencema (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

This article has passed over two unsuccessfull A-Class reviews and I would like to know what else does it need to be finally promoted to A-class status. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Prior peer review here

Carom

A few comments and observations:

• Many of the sections are very short, which detracts from the overall visual appeal of the article.

• The article is, I think, a little undercited. There are places where factual claims are uncited (for example, the second paragraph under "manpower"), and this needs to be remedied.

• The "current structure" section might be better as a table.

• The "see also" section is probably best removed, and the links incorporated into the main body of the article.

• In places, the images seem to clutter the article a little - you might be able to find a better layout for them.

• You might consider Russian Ground Forces as a potential model, although I don't know what its' condition is relative to its' condition at the time it was featured.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

I still have to say that this is not ready for A-class. The 'Beginnings' section needs much more content and context, and so does the Second World War section on the Eastern Front. There's masses of information about the Cold War orientation and tasking of the Army, particularly after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, from the US Country Study that is not included (apart from the small section that was). There is masses of order of battle information, provided by W.B. Wilson and I, plus links and other data, that has not been inserted. There has been no attempt to insert Cold War International History Project data into the article either. One cannot trace histories of formations through the Soviet period to today from this article. Also, of course, echo Carom's comments on lack of references and removal of a See Also section. (On the RGF, the lead has changed slightly and the equipment section also, but otherwise it's still a reasonably good FA model as it was when it was promoted.) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to become an A-class article, and I need to see what to work on.

Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few comments:

• You may find it useful to break up the "background" section. At the moment, it is a little difficult to parse, and might benefit from subheadings such as "tactical situation," "political situation," etc.
• Make sure you follow the citation guidelines throughout. The "first day of battle" section is very sparse.
• In the "aftermath" section, it may be useful to discuss the larger consequences of the battle, if any.
• In many places, a slightly more encyclopedic tone is necessary.
• A copyedit would be useful, as the prose is occasionally choppy and difficult to read.

Hopefully these thoughts are helpful. Carom (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko

• I'd take the pictures out of the infobox, it's not something I've seen anywhere else.
• I don't think you need the header on the "Outcome" sub-section
• The Chronology, having three points, really isn't all the useful and is basically summarized in the introduction
• There are to many infoboxes on the bottom, most of which are barely related to this event. I'd recommend scrapping them and putting a campaign box under the main info box. Oberiko (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Automated

Here's some automated suggestions I got using User:AndyZ's script. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 16 km, use 16 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 16&nbsp;km.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cam

• The "Territorial Changes" part in the infobox needs some fleshing out. "Southwest Virginia" is a fairly general term. Personally, I would simply add more detail to that one element of the infobox, without making it overly long.
• Considering the size of the article, there are very few citations. When I have more time, I'll add the "Citation Needed" clips to the article. Density of citations is also very low in some of the sections
• I'm going to have to agree with Carom. the "Aftermath" Section needs a lot of fleshing out.
• In the infobox, you need to find a statistic for "strength". The casualty figures tell me that this was a relatively small battle. however, I would prefer to have an actual figure for the strength of the opposing armies.
• There are places, especially in the "first day of the battle section", that are very difficult to fluently read.
• There are other places, mainly the opening of the "Second day of the battle" that read too much like a historical novel. I would suggest reformatting this to fit the prose of an encyclopedia, rather than a historical novel.
• I checked the history of the page, and it was once 20,000 bytes in size. Now, it's only 16,000. I would investigate why this is, and consider adding back in some of the stuff which was cut from earlier versions, so as to flesh out many aspects of the article.
• Lastly, the "outcome" section is almost contradictory at times. The Union forces achieved a tactical victory, and yet the rebels had inflicted heavy casualties against the Union Army. This is further contradicted by the casualty figure in the infobox. A tactical victory usually means that one side inflicted more casualties on the other. I, personally, would qualify this as a Tactical Confederate Victory, Strategic Union Victory.

Good luck carrying the article forward. All the best

• Cam (complaints) 04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Villers-Bocage

The article has been dramatically altered over the past two months, although some are unhappy with the current changes, the article has been expanded considerably and I would like a 3rd Party to give it a look over to see if it is heading the direction it should be. Thank you for your time and help. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few comments:

• The lead needs considerable expansion. In general, the lead should provide both an overview of, and an introduction to, the rest of the article. The relevant guideline may be helpful here.

• The prose is quite choppy in places, and makes some sections very difficult to parse. The entire article really requires a thorough copyedit from an experienced copyeditor.

• The extensive use of direct quotations does not seem to really enhance the article. Some of them are just tacked on at the end of sections and not contextualized, which is particularly problematic.

• On the positive side, the article is well cited, and the structure seems passable.

There is certainly potential here, but substantial improvements are necessary. Carom (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus

Carom, thanks for your comments; they echo some I've been making. Unfortunately this article has been the subject of many disputed edits over the past two months. I think that's one of the reasons for the poor writing. I have sought to improve it but there's a combination of copyedit needs and content disputs that makes any edit difficult. I welcome additional comments on what has become a very weak article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not start this again Morpheus, i have attempted to work with you however you would rather have an article full of historical errors, which is one sided, doesnt cover the entire battle and in some cases dishonouring the men on both sides who fought there.

Carom, i thank you for your comments. I will look over the article you have linked to and attempt to improve the introduction.

Two questions on your comments:

• Regarding the layout and grammar, is there an area you highlighted as being particular weak which should be worked upon immeditaley? And also so i have a better idea on what i should do for the others.
• The quotations, i have repositioned the one which as you say was just tacked on at the end. I should have fixed that allot sooner. Was there any other quotes you were paticularly referring to?

Again thank you for your time and i do look forward to hearing from others as well on how to improve this article even more.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as grammar is concerned, virtually the entire article needs attention. Some things to consider include: incorrect comma usage and awkward constructions, in addition to a need to diversify language (i.e., not beginning several consecutive sentences or paragraphs with the same phrase.).

As far as quotes are concerned, single-sentence quotes probably don't need to be blocked off, but can instead be incorporated into the natural flow of the text. In the case of long quotes, you should really ask "what does this add to the article?" In many cases (not just in this article) long quotes add very little, and the information contained within them could be incorporated into the body of the article proper. While they can be useful, large block quotes, or the excessive use of block quotes, can break up the article in disconcerting ways and detract from it's visual appeal.

Hopefully this provides some clarification. Carom (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon = the rat in all your woodwork <waves paw playfully>

• Thoughts:

I'd like to echo Carom's point about the lead. At only three sentences, it seems more like a 'preview' or a 'teaser' to the main article rather than a concise introduction. It does not discuss the larger context of the battle at all, nor the background before the events, nor the aftermath of the battle.

The lead also displays the same kind of sentence structure problems that the rest of the article faces. For example, I think that Early on June 13, elements of the 4th County of London Yeomanry and the 1st Rifle Brigade entered the town. In the following 15 minutes SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann and a small force of Tiger I tanks ambushed and destroyed 13 tanks and a dozen or more half-tracks and Universal carriers[11], which lead to a day long battle between the 7th Armoured Division and German forces.[10][12] should be rewritten to Elements of the 4th County of London Yeomanry and the 1st Rifle Brigade entered the town early that day. In the following 15 minutes, SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann and a small force of Tiger I tanks ambushed and destroyed 13 tanks and a dozen or more half-tracks and Universal carriers. The day long battle then ensued between the 7th Armoured Division and German forces.[10][12]

I also agree that the small, single quotes seperated out should really be put into the rest of the article. One sticks out in particular: Although Dyas himself, when commenting on the engagement had something else to say: “….bloody Moore!”[sic] The tone of this seems odd, and I personally think that that whole sentence should be removed. When it comes to the block quotes in the "Late morning and the afternoon fighting" section, I think that the first one interrupts the natural flow of the article and I would actually remove it altogether. I don't really know about the second one. I lean twoards incorporating most of its content into its above prose sentence.

The aftermath section in particular needs expansion and seems one-sided as is. What did the allies do in the area following the battle? How did they eventually retake the area? Support for the British was available from several sources. An accompanying US artillery forward observer called in very heavy and accurate artillery fire to break up one German attack.[75] Several uncommitted infantry brigades were available[76] and could have been used to reinforce Villers-Bocage,[77] but Hinde, the British commander, did not request help.[citation needed]. The term "several sources" is weasely: What forces exactly? Where were they? What were the situation that they were in? That final citation is also really needed along with context; readers naturally wonder-- why didn't he request the help?

Some historians state the withdrawal from Villers-Bocage ended British hopes of unhinging the German front south of Caen.[79] This necessitated repeated operations to capture the city and the open terrain beyond it, following Operation Perch. They also believe that a great opportunity had been lost through poor execution of the plan. Dempsey later remarked that "This attack by 7th AD should have succeeded. My feeling that Bucknall and Erskine would have to go started with that failure. ...the whole handling of that battle was a disgrace.".[80] "Some historians" and "they" is weasely. Who said that?

• Comment:

Overall, I agree that this article has potential and that it's well cited. Thanks for expanding it and for bringing it to other users' attention. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, the aftermath section i have not really touched so far but was planning on making it allot less one sided when i did get around to it. As for the other tips (when they retook the area etc) i had not thought of adding them in when it came to editing this section so will do.

Cheers for the other comments to :)

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction to the article was highlighted a particular weak spot and in need of expansion. After reading the article linked to I have came up with the below draft (needs some bits of information checking and there are a few ‘X’ or ‘insert comments here’ remarks made were information needs to be added etc). Before adding it into the article, do people feel that this is a much better version and what everyone is looking for?

---

The Battle of Villers-Bocage was a battle fought on June 13 1944, during the Battle of Normandy, between the British 7th Armoured Division and German forces made up of the Panzer Lehr Division, 2nd Panzer Division and the Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 at the town of Villers-Bocage in Normandy, France.

The battle was part of Operation Perch; an operation launched by XXX Corps, to push south of the city of Caen and envelope it from the west while other British troops from I Corps would attempt to envelope it from the east. The city, a D-Day objective, had not been captured and was considered a vital objective to be under allied control. The battle was a result of improvisation due to a successful push south by American troops to the west of XXX Corps, which created a gap in the German lines several miles long. Due to this gap the 7th Armoured Division was ordered to push through the gap around the main defences of the Panzer Lehr Division, which was holding up the rest of XXX Corps and delaying the operation to capture Caen. With the town and high ground named Point 213, to the east of town, under British control it was hoped this would force the Panzer Lehr Division to retreat and allow the operation to capture the city to get back on track.

The lead elements of the 7th Armoured Division, the 4th County of London Yeomanry and the 1st Rifle Brigade, entered the town during the morning of June 13. A Squadron of the 4th County of London Yeomanry pushed on from the town up the main road, Route Nationale 175, and captured Point 213 XX miles to the east. Following the capture of the high ground, three Tiger tanks under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann, the commander of the 2nd Company, Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101, whom had been encamped to the south of the main road attacked the British tanks. Wittmann and his crew pushed down the main road towards Villers-Bocage and in the following fifteen minutes destroyed thirteen tanks, two anti tank guns and a dozen or more half-tracks and Universal carriers. The 7th Armoured Division reinforced the town with the 1/7 Battalion of the Queens Regiment and the Germans now aware of the danger posed to the rear of the Panzer Lehr Division dispatched more tanks and men. At 1300 hours fighting resumed and for the next six hours the men on both sides battled it out in the streets of Villers-Bocage, which resulted in the destruction of several Tiger tanks.

At XXXX hours Brigadier Hinde, the commanding officer of the British forces fighting within Villers-Bocage, reluctantly ordered his men to fall back due to the increased pressure from the German forces. They pulled back XX miles to the west of Villers-Bocage to the village of insert name here, here with other elements of the division they formed an all round defensive “brigade box” and continued battling with German forces on the following day. This following action became known within the 7th Armoured Division as the Battle of the Brigade Box. Historians have declared the Battle of Villers-Bocage to be a German strategic victory as it halted any British hopes of unhinging the German defences southwest of Caen and capturing the city during first half of June. The British Second Army would continue its Battle for Caen finally capturing the city on insert date here. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my rewrite:

---

The Battle of Villers-Bocage was a battle fought during the Battle of Normandy on June 13, 1944 between the British 7th Armoured Division and German forces made up of the Panzer Lehr Division, the 2nd Panzer Division, and the Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 at the town of Villers-Bocage in Normandy, France.

The city of Caen was a vital allied objective and had not been captured as planned during D-Day. XXX Corps launched Operation Perch to push south of the city and envelope it from the west while other British troops from I Corps would attempt to envelope it from the east. The improvised battle resulted from a successful push south by American troops to the west of XXX Corps, which created a several mile long gap within the German lines. The 7th Armoured Division attempted to push through the gap around the main defences of the Panzer Lehr Division, which was holding up the rest of the XXX Corps. The British believed that control over Villers-Bocage and the higher ground to the east of the town, called Point 213, would force the Panzer Lehr Division to retreat and allow the operation to get back on track.

The lead elements of the 7th Armoured Division, the 4th County of London Yeomanry, and the 1st Rifle Brigade entered the town during the morning of June 13. A Squadron of the 4th County of London Yeomanry pushed on from the town up the main road, Route Nationale 175, and captured Point 213 XX miles to the east of town. Three Tiger tanks encamped to the south of the main road under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann, the commander of the 2nd Company, Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101, then attacked the British tanks. Wittmann and his crew pushed down the main road towards Villers-Bocage and, in the following fifteen minutes, destroyed thirteen tanks, two anti-tank guns, and a dozen or more half-tracks and Universal carriers. The 7th Armoured Division reinforced the town with the 1/7 Battalion of the Queens Regiment and the Germans, now aware of the danger posed to the rear of the Panzer Lehr Division, dispatched more tanks and more men. At 1300 hours, fighting resumed and went on throughout the streets of Villers-Bocage for the next six hours.

At XXXX hours Brigadier Hinde, the commanding officer of the British forces fighting within the town, reluctantly ordered his men to fall back due to the increased pressure from the German forces. They pulled back XX miles west into the village of insert name here and formed an defensive “brigade box” alongside other elements of their division. The fighting continued the following day in the Battle of the Brigade Box. Historians x name and y name have called the Battle of Villers-Bocage a German strategic victory and stated that it halted any British hopes of capturing Caen during first half of June. The British Second Army continued the Battle for Caen and finally captured the city on insert date here.

---

Ideally, I think that it should be a bit tighter with the first two paragraphs made into one and the same for the next two. Nonetheless, this is a big improvement over the article right now. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the input and ideas. However on looking at the way other articles have been written, is stating that "Historian A and B consider XYZ" the correct way of doing things, should it not be a statement and just footnoted like the rest of the article? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not that familar with the larger Battle of Normandy, I'm assuming that the assessment of "german strategic victory" is something that's arguable. If it's not and if it's not disputed, than I don't think there's any problem with rewriting that sentence into a simple statement. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of a side note but it's still related: Will you be listing Operation Perch for peer review as well? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"German strategic victory" is a widely-held view; in at least three of the cited references you will find that view. That's not to say people don't debate it ;) but in this article that is one of the few items that haven't been particularly contentious. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the input on the intro, ill make final ammends and get into the article sometime this week. At the momment Perch to me at least is a heavy work in progress, there was nothing there for it so its started from stratch so currently there is no citations, needs allot of rewording, expandings etc but am happy to discuss it, prehaps over on its dicussion area so not to distract further from this conversation?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A good example of how a misplaced comma can mess up the meaning of a sentence. "7th Armoured Division, the 4th County of London Yeomanry, and the 1st Rifle Brigade" is wrong; the comma has to come after "Brigade" because these units were the lead elements; the rewrite mistakenly uses the list form and makes them not part of the 7th Armoured Division. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input there guys, i have now added it into the article. Over the next few days i will try and get around to the other issues we have discussed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko

A few comments:

• I think the infobox is a bit to packed. Right now, the "strength" portion doesn't tell me anything, as brigades and divisions can be different sizes. I'd recommend changing it to "X infantry, Y tanks" and putting the organizational information in the article or in an order-of-battle page.
• I wouldn't do external links to individuals. Keep it as an internal link (red link if need be) so that it doesn't have to be changed later.
• No need for titles in the commanders section, just list the individuals in order by rank. Also, the little icons should be taken out
• Casualties don't need to be broken down by unit. Again, something for an OoB page or the article itself
• Within each section, pictures should start right-aligned and then alternate.

Oberiko (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Messines

Specific comments welcome of course, but really looking for more general feedback at this point. Carom (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

I think that the article is off to a good start. My comments are:

• I like how the article is structured
• The background section should cover the tactical situation in the area prior to the attack in greater detail - eg, why did the British choose to directly attack a German strong point?
• The bit on the conversion of one of the mine craters to a "pool of peace" should go in the aftermath section
• The opposing forces section should include the numbers of troops involved and their quality/combat readiness
• The description of the battle is nice and clear, but could be longer. The structure is great and should support an expansion.
• the phrase "only 16,000 total casualties" is awkward. While less than what the Germans suffered, these were still very heavy losses for a 216,000 strong force to suffer in half a day.
• The aftermath section is good, but could be longer. Why did Haig think that this carefully planned operation which took over a year to prepare mean that the general offensive would suffer a similar casualty rate?
• Have you considered using the Australian official history of the war as a reference? The full text of it is available online, and volume V has two chapters on the battle while the summary publication has a single chapter. The Australian official history is still considered a highly reliable source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the comments. I will look into addressing your concerns, and I will also see what the Australian official history has to offer. Carom (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• In addition to the chapters that Nick mentions, Bean also has a gripping account of the underground warfare in Appendix No. 1 (pp. 949-959)
• Here's another good source: Messines and Third Ypres NB: On p. 115 there is a full breakdown of casualties, by branch

I'd like to see:

• more on the elaborate preparations for Magnum Opus, especially the engineering, signals and artillery plans;
• more on the opposing troops, listing the divisions involved on both sides;
• a description of the infantry tactics, especially those of assaulting ferro-concrete pillboxes, and the controversial technique of "leapfrogging" at the operational level;
• the artillery probably deserves at a least a paragraph of their own, describing the barrages and the CB effort;
• a paragraph on the logistical support of the battle;
• a paragraph on the weapons and technology used, including tanks, gas, machine guns, and trench mortars

Do you need any pictures?

10:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments also. I'll see what I can do to add detail to the sections you mention. As far as pictures are concerned, I have not got as far as looking for them, so I'm not sure what is freely available. Carom (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Australian War Memorial's online database at [7] might be useful. A simple search of 'Messines' returns over 500 photos and 60 artworks, all of which should be out of copyright. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliaries (Roman military)

I want to submit this article in its yet finished form to see what needs to be improved before submitting it for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Let's see:

• I don't see any benefit to having the "X redirects here" note at the top unless there's a disambiguation page that needs to be linked. None of those terms have any other meaning that needs to be disambiguated, as far as I can tell.
• The text is very heavy with parenthetical dates and numbers; while some of these are unavoidable, I think copyediting could reduce the density somewhat.
• Circa is generally only used for dates, not for numbers; "identify c.40 of these units" should be "identify about 40 of these units", for example.
• There's a lot of inconsistency with date abbreviations; there are examples of "cX", "c.X", and "c. X". According to the manual of style, the last form is the preferred one.
• I'd try and cluster footnotes at the end of sentences, or at least clauses; footnoting individual words doesn't seem necessary for a topic of this sort.
• References to other sections should be linked.
• The sub-sections of "Relationship with legions", "Unit types and structure", and "Everyday life of auxiliaries" should have proper section headers.
• The use of "we" should be avoided.

Overall, though, great work. Kirill 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The credit goes to EraNavigator. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rockfall

• I'd definitely agree with the above on the footnote front. Footnote marks should always been after a piece of punctuation, and preferably at the end of a sentence.
• The unresolved issues section - is this necessary for the main article? It represents a historiographical debate rather than facts about the article subject. Perhaps consider putting this in a separate article referenced here.
• Much of the body of the article is very text heavy. While this is all very good detail, the text sometimes strays off into a narrative of Roman history. Some editing work to tighten this up could help to reduce the weight of these sections.

Other than that, a very comprehensive article. Rockfall (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor is using British English and the British way to put footnotes. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Indian Air Force Bases

I just added this list to MILHIST. I'd like to know how it can be improved, in any and all respects. Specifically, I'd like an opinion on what information can be added, and any way to improve the page itself, in terms of syntax. Thanks. ^T/_@ Sniperz11 _edits^sign 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

First and most important thing you could do is add some sources. Is this from official data? Spotters? Bloggers? Be good to make that clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Very promising indeed though I agree entirely with Buckshot about sources as the first step.

Other thoughts? Some pictures would be good. Perhaps as a gallery? I think a wikilinked paragraph describing each of the air commands would be good. The states should be wikilinked.

The list would probably be more useful as one single sortable list. This has many advantages over the current lists. You can sort by base name, command, state etc. It's much easier to find a base in sorting a single 60-base list alphabetically than by going through five separate lists. If you wanted to sort by Lat/Lon, you could do that too. I've dummied this up quickly with a couple of bases from each of your sub-lists with background colours for each command: the colour choice could be improved considerably (a comprehensive colour list is here). There's also a neat template {{coord}} which links to maps: I've done the first couple as examples.

All this, by the way, is far less work than it seems :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Base	Command	ICAO	Runway	Elevation	Lat/Lon	State
Adampur AFS	WAC	VIAX	13/31	775 ft. / 236 mts	39°25′59.35″N 75°45′38.85″E	Punjab
Ambala AFS	WAC	VIAM	12L/30R 12R/30L	900 ft. / 274 mts.	30°22′07.16″N 76°48′54.21″E	Haryana
Amritsar AFS	WAC	VIAR	16/34	755 ft. / 230 mts.	31° 42' 27.95" N 74° 47' 57.25" E	Punjab
Agartala AFS	EAC	VEAT	18/36	48 ft. / 14 mts.	23° 53' 20.90" N 91° 14' 27.90" E	Tripura
Baghdogra AFS	EAC	VEBD	18/36	412 ft. / 125 mts.	26° 40' 53.26" N 88° 19' 41.21" E	West Bengal
Barapani AFS Shillong	EAC	VEBI	04/22	2910 ft. / 886 mts.	25° 42' 06.10" N 91° 58' 41.45" E	Meghalaya
Agra AFS	CAC	VIAG	05/23 12/30	551 ft. 167 mts.	27° 09' 20.99" N 077° 57' 39.21" E	Uttar Pradesh
Bakshi Ka Talab AFS near Lucknow	CAC	VIBL	09/27	385 ft./ 117 mts.	26° 59' 18.40" N 80° 53' 35.10" E	Uttar Pradesh
Bamrauli AFS Allahabad	CAC	VIAL	06/24 12/30	322 ft./ 98 mts.	25° 26' 20.99" N 81° 44' 03.00" E	Uttar Pradesh
Begumpet AFS Hyderabad	SAC	VOHY	09/27 14/32	1,741 ft. /531 mts.	17° 27' 08.70" N 78° 27' 40.00" E	Andhra Pradesh
Bidar AFS	SAC	VOBR	02/20 08/26	2,178 ft. /663 mts.	17° 54' 28.41" N 77° 29' 09.03" E	Karnataka
Car Nicobar AFS	SAC	VOCX	02/20	42 ft.s / 13 mts.	09° 09' 11.51" N 92° 49' 09.81" E	Nicobar Islands
Bhuj AFS	SWAC	VABJ	05/23	268 ft./82 mts.	23° 17' 16.18" N 69° 40' 12.53" E	Gujarat
Gandhinagar AFS Ahmedabad	SWAC	VAAH	10/28 14/32	189 ft. 58 mts.	23° 04' 29.05" N 72° 37' 54.30" E	Gujarat
Jaisalmer AFS	SWAC	VIJR	04/22	887 ft. / 270 mts.	26° 53' 21.83" N 70° 51' 52.87" E	Rajasthan

Askari Mark

Some additional comments to those points already made:

I like Roger’s suggestion of a sortable list. Although a list, it would seriously benefit from a graphic (map) for each Air Command. Intro should start with a statement about the subject of the list, which is airbases, not commands. The Intl. Air Command would actually be an eighth command – on top of the five listed and the other two which are implied to not have an airbase of their own (which fact should be made explicit). Since lists are more for navigational purposes, it might be a good idea to expand the tables to include the flying units currently based there.

Considering the small number of IN airbases, it might be a good idea to refocus this list on Indian military airbases, thereby capturing all of them in one list. Consideration should also be given to a section including no longer active airbases. (I would not necessarily encourage including former units for these, since the squadrons have often moved around.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

South Atlantic Medal

I've recently made some big edits to the article and would like to know what people think. Due to a lack of "Style Guide" from the "WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals", I instead took inspiration from the Victoria Cross article. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start, but there are still some areas that could use further work:

• The lead is quite short, and could probably be expanded a bit.
• There's no material about the creation and adoption of the medal.
• I'd suggest moving both obverse and reverse images into the infobox.
• In general, any additional information would be beneficial for an article this short.

Hope that helps! Kirill 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Heuschrecke 10

Previous peer review

It is currently on a real peer review, but I have gotten no good answers and it has changed a lot, see this diff which shows the difference from the old peer review to this one. Dreamy ^§ 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Megapixie

A promising start. Suggestions:

• The lead is a little confused - i.e. there are single sentences like "The manufacturers were based in Magdeburg.", which spoil the flow of prose a little. Try and break it into maybe three paragraphs, which each paragraph about a specific area.

•  Done

• When I write these articles I try and split it clearly into a Lead, Development, Description, Operational history, Variants. The description should include a front to back description of the vehicle. Example: "The tank has a welded steel hull varying in thickness between 10 and 25 millimeters. The driver sits at the front left of the hull, with the engine to his right. The engine is a The driving controls are lever based, with four forward gears and two reverse gears connected to the Acme hydrotransmission system by a series of rods. Behind the driver, in the center of the turret is the two man turret..." This is important, as the article should be able to stand alone to a certain extent.

•  Done

Megapixie (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

• MoS stuff for a start. I've fixed some of it.

• Could you please explain what must be done?

• Introductory paragraphs are confusing - the intro should be a clear overview of it.

•  Done

• The relationship between the two designs is confusing. Were there 2 designs of which one was selected and one not, or were both selected?

•  Done See the Cancellation section.

• The comparison of the two is over-complex - especially since they both have the same crew and engine and other details. The specification comparison should be summarised for those who can't follow the spec table.

• How would I do that? And if you notice there are differences. Doing...

• Where does the 165/1 fit in - another design, a derivative?

• Yes... It doesn't need to be there, it is just another weapon-carrier that came before the Heuschrecke. I'll remove it. Done

GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kleidion

I would like someone to check the article for structural, grammatical, punctuation and other mistakes. Also as you can see many of the sources are Bulgarian and/or in Bulgarian language and I need an opinion whether they should be written in Cyrillic as they are in original or I should write them with Latin letters. My purpose is to nominate it for FA or GA so any comments and suggestions for further improvement would be welcome or whether that aim is possible at all. --Gligan (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Is it possible to find some sources in English perhaps, so it is easier to check for national POV issues (the article doesn't read like there is a problem, but as Lenin said, controll is better than trust). Wandalstouring (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try to search for sources in English in the Internet. --Gligan (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check Sir Steven Runciman here [8] Lantonov (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you know German, so the following may also be useful:

• Jireček, K. J. (1876). Geschichte der Bulgaren (in German). Nachdr. d. Ausg. Prag 1876, Hildesheim, New York : Olms 1977. ISBN 3-487-06408-1., pp. 195-200 (pp. 195-197, 200 can be seen inside the link) Lantonov (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And this [9] is in French. Lantonov (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another book in English exactly about this battle (which I haven't access to, however) is:

• Stevenson, Paul (2003). The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. Cambridge University Press (September 15, 2003). ISBN 0521815304. Lantonov (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sources found by Lantonov, one found by me and two more footnotes from English historians. --Gligan (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job. The article is far better than the new sources :). What else needs to be done is writing the date when each onlinesource was retrieved behind it. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is done. --Gligan (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you missed some. When you are done, submit it for A class review. Cheers Wandalstouring (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "place on July 29, 1014", "29 July ". Inconsistencies with the dates. Further MoS issues: "The next phase of the war began in 1000, when Basil". Do not wikilink single years per MoS.
• "In the ensuing battle the Byzantines were completely defeated". Shouldn't be better like that: "In the ensuing battle the Byzantines were completely defeated".
• "Skylitzes records that Basil completely routed the Bulgarian army and, according to John Skylitzes's account of the battle, took 15,000 prisoners". I don't like the repetitive and a bit "clumsy" IMO phrasing.
• "According to Skylitzes, Samuil died of a heart attack as he saw his forces march past on July 31, although other sources indicate that Samuil lived until 6 October." Yes, but you cite only Skylitzes. The other sources?
• It is peculiar the way in which you present your sources without using the WP templates for this purpose. Nevertheless, it seems consistent.
• I would like the photo of the infobox to be a bit more informative. Where is the picture from?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

United States Army

Content-wise, I believe that this article is suitable for promotion. However it has few sources and thus recently failed an A-class review. I am looking for comments on any other ways that the article can be improved. -Ed! (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is a reasonable quality article, but needs a lot of work to meet A class, especially as there are lots of excellent sources which are available. The United States Marine Corps article is a FA and provides a useful model. My suggestions are:

• More citations are needed - as a rule of thumb, provide a citation for everything. The sources should also be independent from the Army wherever possible - most of the current references are to the Army's website.
• Some of the article is confusing - for instance, why are the figures for numbers of personnel in the lead for different dates? - is a common date available. "The U.S. Army is led by a civilian Secretary of the Army" is confusing as the same sentence says that this official's role is to provide "oversight" for the Army's Chief of Staff and it's later said that the "Chief of Staff of each service only has the responsibility to organize, train and equip their respective service component" which suggests that it's they who are in charge of the Army as an institution while other people command its deployable elements during operations.
• Given that the article states that the Army traces its history back to the 18th century, why does the history of the Army's organisation in the poorly named "Army components" section start at 1917? The 2.5 para discussion of mass civilian mobilisation in the event of an attack on the US in this section also seems excessive given the very low likelihood of this ever happening - one sentance would probably be enough given that it's now an antiquated concept which has little relevance to the US Army's actual organisation and doctrine.
• More generally, some bits of the article provide a brief history of the topic while others don't. I'd suggest that the article be restricted to the Army as it currently stands, with histories being spun off into History of the United States Army and appropriate sub-articles.
• The history section presents a very simplistic and triumphalist history of the Army which focuses on its combat performance and says almost nothing about the history of the Army as an institution. Claims like the victory in the 1991 Gulf War "proving the effectiveness of the new untried all-volunteer force" are troublesome as they don't demonstrate a relationship between cause and effect - if the victory over Iraq in 1991 was a particularly significant achievement why did the US Army call one of the official histories of the war 'Certain Victory' and does the bungled occupation of Iraq after 2003 mean that the all-volunteer Army is now a failure? Other bits of the section seem outright wrong (eg, "the Army had a small participation in the successful invasions of Panama" - the article on this topic indicates that more than a division's worth of troops were involved and the Army made up the majority of the invasion force) and the process of integrating African Americans and women into the Army needs to be mentioned as these are key parts of the Army's history.
• The weapons and training sections are pretty good.
• Get rid of the 'Values' section - mission statements and the like add nothing to the value of encyclopaedia articles as they're inevitably noble statements developed my marketeers. A section on 'military discipline' or similar might be worth including and would cover similar ground in an encyclopaedic manner.
• The 'Famous former soldiers' section should also go as this is basically a trivial list of famous people who happened to have once been in the Army (which was a very common experience in the days of mass conscription). What rationale is there for listing people who are famous only because of their military service such as Douglas MacArthur and Stonewall Jackson listed alongside people who achieved fame through totally unrelated fields such as Mickey Rooney and Jimi Hendrix?
• The major commands section should be integrated with the Combat maneuver organizations section. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Leobold1

Couple things jump out at me

• There should be a direct link to the court case that places the Army under Federal jurisdiction over the complaints from the Governor. Findlaw and Lexis would be good ones, and one with this type of controversary would be listed elsewhere on the internet.
• Each of the Unified Combat Commands, as well as units listed under "Combat maneuver organizations", should have a link at least to their homepages.
• The wikilink for "Battalion/Squadron Commander", "Headquarters and Headquarters Company/Battery", and "Company/Battery/Troop Commander" should be changed to "Battalion Commander", "Headquarters and Headquarters Company", and "Company Commander" which gives the information for both and is a good link.
• A list of the brigades under the divisions under "Combat maneuver organizations" can be listed, just as the "Army Special Operations Command" has.
• The title of "History" should be changed to "Battle History" or "War History" as that's all it has. There was much more that happened during the life of the Army than just wars. Should have more info added or the name changed.
• Couple more details on the Indian Wars under "1800s" as well as links can be added.
• The Boxer Rebellion actually happened mostly in the 1900s, not the 1800s (only the last 2 months of 1899) as listed. May want to change to 1900s.
• The links for Futuresoldiers.com is a bad one. The webpage linked doesn't have the quoted listed on it anywhere. The links should go directly to the webpage that the information comes from, not a general site where you have to search for the information. None of the links from the webpage shout out where the quotes come from.
• "Uniforms" should list more than just the current uniform. A couple of paragraphs on uniforms since the American Revolution can be added (with pictures if you so choose).
• The Future Force Warrior system isn't part of the Uniform. Placed in a separate section either in Equipment or a new part for Future of the Army (which there are a few articles that can be referenced) would be much better. Category:Future American weapons
• The "Equipment" section is very well detailed and written well. Only minor additions as to the funtion of the equipment can be added.
• More information on the different training schools and different MOS's are needed.

Overall, a well written article, with some minor (yet somehow time consuming :) ) changes including links and addition of information here and there. Really, aside from the links, these are minor tweaks and don't take much away from the article. Just reading it gives a small feeling of incompleteness.

Leobold1 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

I'd like to get some feedback on this article to see what it lacks and what it needs for improvement — Bellhalla (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

Very well done. I have only a few comments.

• The "World War II" section appears to be completely uncited. This is perhaps the only major problem, but should absolutely be corrected.

• There are a few places with some clunky wording and awkward phrasing; a copyedit is probably warranted (we have a new request department for dedicated MilHist copyedits, you may get a fast-ish response there).

Once these two things are taken care of, I would say that this article is ready for A-Class. Carom (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan

Small note: when viewed with Internet Explorer there is a big white gap between the section title of "Brazilian Navy service" and it's text, perhaps caused by a combination of the infobox and the 1950's pic being on the right. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Just a few comments:

• In the lead, it mentions "second fastest turnaround time in port", or somehting like that. I would add a citation for this one.
• The WWII section has almost no direct inline citations. This should probably be addressed quite quickly.

Those are the only things I can find immediately. The citation issue encompasses a large majority of the article, and should be addressed AQAP (as Quickly as possible) Best of luck in taking the article forward! Cam (Chat) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "second fastest" bit is discussed in detail in the body of the article and cited there. I try to avoid citing in the lead if possible. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to all who took the time to review the article. I will be addressing have addressed the referencing that all mentioned. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine navy

I have just finished a major overhaul and expansion of this article, and think it is now quite comprehensive and factually correct. I would like some input from other editors prior to considering nominating it for GA. Any improvements or suggestions on stylistic issues or content would be greatly appreciated. Cplakidas (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A good article. A few comments:

• I would perhaps expand the lead. While it seems comprehensive, it is also fairly short. I think at least two paragraphs are warranted here. Done

• Although the article seems well cited, there are places where it is not clear what information comes from what source. I would personally consider end-or-sentence as opposed to end-of-paragraph notes, but that is admittedly a personal preference.

• I'm not sold on your "notes" section - it seems like this information would be better incorporated into the main body of the article. If it's important enough to say, it's too important for a note, I think. Done

Hopefully these are helpful comments; well done so far. Carom (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall. Some suggestions:

• {{Infobox Military Unit}} might work here; there's no particular need to have the Byzantine navigation box in the top right, I think. Done
• The lead could stand to be a little longer; two or three paragraphs would be about right. Done
• Personally, I find {{details}} to produce neater output than {{main}}. Done
• The citations seem a bit sparse; there are paragraphs (and entire sections—e.g. "Decline") with nary a footnote in sight. You might pass GA like that, but it's certainly something that'll be complained about in any of the higher reviews. Done
• "Notable events"—which is really a timeline—might be better off in a format other than a bulleted list. The best option, in my view, would be to integrate the whole thing into the prose of the "History" section; but that'll take quite a bit of work. Done
• I'd avoid splitting the list in "References", particularly as some of the works in the top (e.g. Treadgold) aren't specifically naval histories. Done
• The "See also" section should be eliminated as much as possible; these links shouldn't be too difficult to integrate into the text and/or an infobox. Done

Keep up the good work! Kirill 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to address most of your and Carom's points, but as for the {{Infobox Military Unit}}, I really don't know what to put in there. Only the title, the nation, and perhaps some notable commanders would come to mind. I don't think the standard infobox is suitable to cover an entire naval force that spanned 1000 years and evolved continuously... I'll try to come up with something though, most likely a dedicated template, because I too feel the upper right corner is a bit empty... Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

• please add information how many of the rowers and sailors participated in the fighting (were in the top row)
• provide footnotes for all Greek terms that can't be linked with articles of their own. Done
• More citations are needed. Done
• A information about the influence of Byzantine shipconstruction on the European seapowers could be expanded. Very good is the section about the arab navy.
• How the Byzantine Navy adopted firearms could be expanded. Done
• A section about the changes of equipment of the marines and armed rowers would be good. Done

All in all, good work. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good comments regarding the content. I want to point out two things: 1) I intend that the stuff about Byzantine ship construction, manning etc to be added in the "dromon" article, as the article on the navy is already too big, and, either way, that's where it belongs (cf. the trireme article). I intend to deal with it, (hopefully) soon. More stuff about the Arab ships will go there too. 2) I don't really understand what you mean about the footnotes on all Greek names - they are covered by the references at the end of the sentences or paragraphs where they occur. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockfall

Very comprehensive article, and well laid out. Few quick points.

• The "Struggle against the Arabs" section is perhaps a little long. While there is nothing there that I would get rid of, perhaps some subheadings would break up what is otherwise a screen-long block of text. Done
• For the existing subheadings, eg. "Early period", some dates would make the overall structure clearer, even if they are approximate. Done
• The "Ships" section: perhaps arrange the list of ship types into bullet points? This is purely a personal preference for lists of non-English words. Also, in the final paragraph, "chelandia" is neither translated or referenced. Done
• References: you rely heavily on John Julius Norwich and Treadgold. I appreciate that these are the two leading experts on Byzantium, but my inner historian doesn't like seeing footnote blocks full of one or two authors.

Otherwise a very good article, with excellent written style. Rockfall (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your remarks and will try to address them. Regarding the sources, I agree with you, however there is one big problem: the Byzantine navy is, if anything, under-researched. Norwich was used not so much by me as by an anonymous user who had written most of the "Notable events" list. I merely incorporated the events into the main history section following the suggestion of other users above. Either way, as a reference for events, he can be relied upon. My primary source for the navy per se is the "Age of the Galley" book, which is very comprehensive, and written by several authors who are experts on ancient and medieval ships. I used Treadgold and, to a lesser degree, Haldon and Bartusis, where they have something new or more concrete to add, since their works deal with the Empire and its institutions as a whole, and only mention the navy in passing. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the "Age of the Dromon", the premier source on the subject, however I am confident that the article doesn't miss anything essential. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless any more comments are forthcoming, I am going to close the review in the next few days, and go on to GAR. Thanks to all who have reviewed the article! Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregory R. Ball

I noticed this stub about a fairly notable and colorful State Legislator and had serious concerns about NPOV and UNDUE regarding the controversy section. In researching him, I found a great deal of information and I've tried to include as much as is notable and covered by two or more publications. I would like to get the article to a point where it can be featured as a GA. Obviously it must be vetted for accuracy, POV, and to some extent, the prose. I look forward to hearing your comments and implementing them. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

Well done so far. A few comments:

• If you're aiming for featured status, I would expand the lead. It should provide an overview of the entire article.
  •  Done I expanded it to the requisite 3 paragraphs for a 40k article
• There's an image tacked on at the very bottom, it should really be incorporated into the body of the text somewhere.
  •  Done The wikiquote was supposed to go there, and the image in the se ealso section.
• The links in the "see also" section should be incorporated into the main body of the text and the section should be removed.
  • Question. Is this in the MoS? I've seen other articles (especially ones on the State Assembly) that have "list of members of the State Assembly" in a See Also section. I was assuming this was the standard for all of them, so I'll leave it for now unless I hear otherwise.

• No, it's not MOS. It's a convention that's arisen amongst the editors working on military history articles, so it's more of a preference than anything else. However, there is one MOS issue - articles linked in the main body of the article should not be re-linked in the "see also" section, so make sure not to duplicate any of them. Carom (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• A copy edit is needed, both to clean up some grammar, and to check for typos (like "chicken suite").
  • Partially done. I'll submit it to the league of copywriters to double check my work.
• There's a few places where I would use different wording - "Ball did not dispute that he ran hard for his seat" is an example of the kind of phrasing that should really be cleaned up.
  •  Done

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Definitely. Thanks a lot! MrPrada (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AndyZ

• LA script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometry guy (talk • contribs)
  •  Done

Rockfall

• The "First term" section is enormous and hard to navigate. I notice that much of it is his position on various issues. Perhaps this could be moved to a separate section for better reference? Regardless, I feel that this needs breaking up into some sort of subdivision.
  •  Done I split it up into four sections. I had originally planned on doing so, I guess I forgot, heh. :)
• Very well referenced, definitely up to scratch on that score.
  • Thanks!
• Given that he is notable for his political career, I am curious as to how he comes under the military history project, but that is another matter...
  • He was an Air Force Captain who worked in the White House. So far I haven't found too much data on that, but when I do I will expand the section. Its under MILHIST primarily for that reason.
• In the Courage Cup section, there is no description of what the Courage Cup actually 'is'. That entire section could perhaps be expanded.
  •  Done
• The media file after the 2006 election section: would it not be more appropriate to place this at the end of the article, as seems to be the norm with such audio quotes?
  • Hmm, I wanted to place it as close as possible to the "Most dysfunctional legislature" section of the article. Is there an MoS for audio quotes?

Hope that is helpful. Rockfall (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very. Thank you! MrPrada (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

USS Siboney (ID-2999)

I've been working on this a while and would like to get some feedback on what improvements could be made. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few thoughts:

• The "World War I navy service" section needs more rigorous citation.
  • The "World War I" section is mostly public domain text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, but I will include citations to better convey that.
• Some copyediting is needed, mainly to check for typos.
  • I corrected misspellings of "camouflage" (in an image tag) and of "Gibraltar" in the main article. I'll see if I can get some outside eyes to take a look for others.
• It may or may not be useful to recombine some of the paragraphs so that there are not so many single-sentence, one-line paragraphs. In some places, this detracts from the visual appeal of the article.
  • Sentence length comment noted. Perhaps a copy-editor could make some suggestions for changes.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and, yes, they are indeed helpful. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Comments
  • I think the fate tab should say "Scrapped in 1957" since that was the ship's ultimate fate.
    •  Done
  • Make absolutely sure that the article adheres to an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format.
    • Will do.  Done
  • Lose the "History" header, since the whole article is history it would be best to make your sub headers the primary headers.
    • Good point.  Done
  • Just curious, but would you happen to know if the ship was unique or part of a class? I won;t hold this question against you, I just want to know if you know. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • DANFS entries don't show a class for either, but Siboney and USS Orizaba (ID-1536) were both built by Wm. Cramp, both have basically the same dimensions and displacement, both were originally laid down for the Ward Line at essentially the same time, and both taken over by the Navy in WW I. Where in the article would be an appropriate place to say that they were, if not a class, sister ships (in a non-OR-ish way, of course)?

Thanks Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were me I put it in the intro, something like "USS Siboney (ID-2999) was a transport ship for the United States Navy during World War I. She was the sister ship of USS Orizaba (ID-1536), although the two were not part of a ship class." Otherwise, it looks good. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Bellhalla (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne (R21)

I've just finished a massive expansion of this article. I want to start the ball rolling towards Featured Article status. So tell me people, what's screaming for a fixing? -- saberwyn 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATES by saberwyn:

Tweaks of grammar and phrasing have been made per the points below: I hope I'm getting the right stuff fixed. Any assistance from other editors would be aprreciated, because I wrote almost all of the text that is present and may have a blindspot covering some of the more glaring errors. The section on the Evans collision is being worked through in my userspace (User:Saberwyn/HMAS Melbourne (R21)/Evans collision‎), and Maralia will perform a progress review of this in the near future. Are there any other parts of the article that need looking at?? -- saberwyn 10:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An automated peer review has been run. See below

An updated collision section has been inserted into the article, because its better than what was there, but it still needs a lot of work. Are there any other parts of the article that need working on, or should this peer review be wrapped up a new one opened when the collision section is comepletely fixed? -- saberwyn 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maralia and I have sorted out our concerns regarding the Evans collision section, by trimming down the material on the investigation to a single paragraph, and leaving the detailed accusations of bias for the subarticle. Aside from the comment on the need for a prose tense copyedit (which will be a continual work in progress), I believe I have answered all of TomStar's concerns to the best of my ability. Unless there are any other points than need fixing, I intend to archive this peer review at the end of the week and begin an A-class review for the article. -- saberwyn 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

I didn't take the time to do a thurough read threw (that will come later today), but two things got my attention right quick:

• Decide on a tense. I spotted two instances of past-to-present tense in the same section, it needs to be all present or all past
  • Attempting to fix any parts I find. Can you give an example of one of the more glaring occurances of the problem so I know I'm working on the right thing? -- saberwyn 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Do not start a sentence with a number. Case in point:"82 of Voyager's crew were killed, and two Royal Commissions were held to investigate the events."
  • Do you mean, do not start with a numeral (which will be easy to fix), or do not start with a number (at the mo I can see no other way to restructure that sentance). -- saberwyn 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) DONE

Sorry for my extremely long delay in getting back to you, school work has proven more difficult now that I am an official upper classman, and keeping pace with demand has required some absence from here on my part. First off let me say that you have done an outstanding job with this article, it reads well and it is well sourced. You are to be commended for your efforts to bring the article this far, but I have a few additional suggestions/clarifications for you below:

• You have a tendancy to switch tense in the article, which is bad; an article should be written all in the present tense or all in the past tense. In this case in particular I would recommend siding with the past tense becuase the ship herself no longer exists. A case in point: First paragraph, second sentence: "Launched in 1945 and operating until 1982, she was the third and final conventional aircraft carrier[I] to serve in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)."
  • I will be honest, I don't know the first thing about what tenses are and how to properly use them. I just write the way I've learned/taught myself to. To use your example, "Launched in 1945 and operating until 1982" just feels right to me compared to "Launched in 1945 and operated until 1982". Given my lack of knowledge, I think the best I can do is hand the article over to the League of Copyeditors or somebody else, and hope they can make sense of and fix my mess. In progress/requires further comment
    • Fair enough, the Leauge of Copyediters would probably be better suited to deal with that issue. As one who can't spell I can relate to writing the way one learns/teaches oneself to. I'll leave it to you to find a good copyediter.
• The lead sentence in the third paragraph reads "During her career, Melbourne never fired a shot in anger, only having peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War.", but I think it might flow better if it read "Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career, having only peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War."
  • Done
• We have articles for ship naming and launching and other related ship cermonies that you may want to link to from this article for the sake of allowing unfamilar readers a chance to discover the answers to their question without having to ask someone for the answer. If you do decide to link to the articles I would recommend linking from the Construction and acquisition section.
  • Could you slap that link in where you feel it is most appropriate? Requires further comment
    • Will do. I see about getting to it tomarrow.
• As noted below, make sure to use non-breaking spaces with regards to numerical values.
  • I've used non-breaking spaces in every spot I can find that needs one. Done
• We wouldn't happen to articles for the radar sets on site, would we? If we did it would be a good idea to link to them.
  • I've anchor-linked to List of World War II British naval radar for the 277Q and 293Q radars in the Weapons and Systems section, but not the infobox as yet. None of the other radars have articles, or articles I can find. Requires further comment
    • To be fair, I have been trying to locate enough information to create a radar page for the Iowas, and so far have found little if anything of substantive value. The explination I got from a former USN Fire Control Technition is that alot of the technical stuff from back in the day remains classified becuase the same basic principles apply to modern radar.
• Based on what I have seen in the article your information and the sorcing are good enough to lay the groundwork for a rebuilding of the class page. It maight be a good idea to try that so you can break out some of the information from the Construction and acquisition, Design, and Armament section and there subsections to help reduce the length of the Melborne page; at present your Melborne page weighs in at 85 kbs, which is almost the length of my Iowa class battleship page in its current form (presently at 87 kbs). Long pages are harder for our dialup user to get to, so I strongly recommend going with this option.
  • I could farm some of the material out to Majestic class aircraft carrier, Colossus class aircraft carrier, and Aircraft carriers of the Royal Australian Navy. However, the problem I see is that (to my eye), most, if not all, of the material present falls into one of two categories
    1. The material is specific to Melbourne. This is mainly for the technical material, as although the six ships of the Majestic class were identical in design during the early phases in construction, the fact that construction was suspended completely after the war, then restarted at different times and completed with different end-goals and for different navies mean that (in my opinion), the Majestic class consists of five unique ships and one pile of scrap metal (Leviathan was never completed). Just by looking throught the Wikipedia articles here, I cannot see a consistent post-launching configuration for any of the ships for any of the normally common components - radar sets, weapons outfits, etc. Only half the class had angled flight decks. There appears to be a lot more variation between the configuration of the Majestics than the Iowas, and without going into a detailed study of each of the other five carriers, I wouldn't know what are the common elements to list in the class article.
    2. I believe the material is important to understand the history of Melbourne. The exaple that comes to my mind is the acquisition of the two Australian carriers. I've tried to trim down some of the material, but this is a key component of the ship's history, and should be dealt with as completely as possible here.
  • On the matter of being oversized, I will try to trim the article down, but I don't know how much smaller I can get it without ommitting any more information. I've trimmed one or two kb off the article by tightening up the wording and removing some of the more excessive details (i.e the latter section of the article contained a lot of lists of accompanying ships while the earlier sections had none, and a lot of these lists have been removed). If a blanket revert is required or desired, this is the version of the article prior to the cutting down. Requires further comment
    • Fair enough. Very long articles are permitted provided there be a good reason to keep them instead of carving them up, and it sounds like you have a good reason to keep yours big. On the issue of trimming: all articles could do with a little trimming (even FAs), but don't trim so much that you create a train wreck. If there is a good reason for having info in the article then so be it.
• Are any of the exercise names metioned in the history part annual? If so we may have an article on them, and if not could you try and find out what the exercise was for?
  • By my understanding, most of the were multi-naval training exercises. I will try to find names and wikilinks for as many as possible. In progress None of the exercise names currently in the article or in Gillett's HMAS Melbourne - 25 Years have an accompanying article, and there are no details as to what the specific activities of these training exercises were. Requires further comment
    • Thats ok. I was just curious, so I won't hold this one against you. I know sometimes exercises have a specific thrust, like the one we have at Fort Bliss by annually, and was curious if any of those were perhaps similar in nature.
• Consider adding a commons link if any additional images of the carrier can be found there.
  • Link to a commons category of images is located in the Footnotes section. If you feel it would be better elsewhere, feel free. Done

Otherwise, as noted a bove, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maralia

I've given it a cursory copyedit, tweaked the reflist to columns, removed a redundant category, alphabetized the books list, and moved the last image up to avoid large whitespace. Overall, this is well written and thorough. A few issues:

• It needs a more comprehensive copyedit. Particular issues include semicolons vs colons, slight overuse of passive verbs, and overcapitalization of officialese like 'government' and 'squadron'.
  • Copyedit is a work in progress, due to my proximity to the text as it was written all assistance to get what I miss is appreciated. -- saberwyn 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Is the construction "HMA Ships x and y" actually used by/for/about RAN ships? The capitalization of 'Ships' in it makes sense, but it looks wrong.
  • I have seen the form used several times before (see this search for "HMA Ships" at the RAN's official website [10]). -- saberwyn 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Noted. You learn something every day :) Maralia (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm really not satisfied with the Evans collision section. The primary source is a book written by the spouse of the accused. Criticism of the USN's participation in the joint board may be wholly warranted here, but the sources and presentation are questionable. If criticism is rampant, plenty of non-COI sources (and US rebuttals) should be available; if not, then this section suffers from undue weight.

I agree. I knew that this was going to be the weakest section going in to this. The text in question is used as a resource by other Australian naval historians (Tom Frame in Pacific Partners and David Stevens in The Royal Australian Navy) I will attempt to reacquire these books from the library and see how many sources I can change. I will admit that I have not looked too hard for other sources (this was one of the first sections finished, and I was too concerned with filling out the rest of the ships history to ensure that this and the other collision section did not unbalance the article), and the ones I did find focused only on the events of the collision and how the Americans were punished, the latter being more appropriate to the Melbourne-Evans collision article. I'll try to find some time to put it on the slab and tinker with it, but I cannot promise much at this moment in time. -- saberwyn 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not surprising that 'Australian naval historians' use her book ;) I haven't been able to come up with any US-perspective books about the collision. I did, however, find vast quantities of evidence and documentation from the joint board inquiry, at [11]. Of particular interest are the final two pages ("Responsibility for Collision") of [12], which places the majority of blame on USN personnel. Indeed, 3 USN staff were court-martialed, with at least 2 found guilty of dereliction of duty, while Stevenson was the only RAN staff court-martialed, and he was "acquitted with honor". [13] Also note [14] which gives some USN commentary on the proceedings, including "King [...] is to be complimented for the outstanding investigation conducted under his direction. It is thorough and complete in all respects." Maralia (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of things, the second weblink is an exerpt from the Board's findings, while the third and fourth weblinks are identical reports sent up the chain of command. The first weblink does not want to work for me. First up, I dislike using primary sources unpublished sources, wouldn't have a clue how to cite them properly if used, and trying to make sense of them smacks a little of original research to me.

In other news, I've started a rewrite of the section in my userspace I've already substituted in references for Frame's Pacific Partners, Bastock's Australia's Ships of War and Gillett's HMAS Melbourne - 25 Years. Unsubstituted material is underlined, and I'll be working to clear this away as I get hold of more texts. -- saberwyn 10:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As an update on the whole Evans issue, the main problem is that there are only two published sources I have been able to identify that deal specifically with the subject of the collision and the Board of Inquiry: the book by Jo Stevenson (or its previous version) and an article by Anthony Vincent in Quadrant magazine (which I have been unable to acquire a copy of as yet). Both would be considered conflict-of-interest sources: the former is written by the wife of Melbourne's captain at the time, and the latter by the RAN lawyer kicked out of the Inquiry by Admiral King. Tom Frame has a chapter on the incident which is more or less reproduced across three of his books, and is manipulated or shoehorned in to meet the point of the book (general history of the RAN, the Voyager collision, or RAN-USN relations). All other Australian sources are short paragraphs or sections in general histories, or are reproduced or sourced from one or a combination of these three main writings. The few American-authored sources I can find are short journal articles or book paragraphs that deal almost exclusively with the collision. Yes, the BOI happened, but there is no detail as to the events of the BOI... it just happened. -- saberwyn 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a good read. The Evans section is the only reason I didn't immediately bump the article to B class, and A class is only that plus a copyedit away, in my opinion. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Automated

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

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;yards.^[?]
  • Done - the only remaining occurances are in the wikilink [[Bofors 40 mm gun]] (which would break the wikilink) and in the Evans collision section (and has been fixed in the rewrite)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
  • Not done - At the moment, the only way I can see to shorten the TOC is to have events from 1969 to 1982 lumped into one awfully massive section. I am not willing to do that.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
  • Kinda done - Summary-style subarticles (actually just cuts and pastes of the appropriate section standing by and ready for detailed expansion) have been created for the Melbourne-Voyager collision and Melbourne-Evans collision. I do not believe any other section would be appropriate for a subarticle at this time.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armour (B) (American: armor), harbour (B) (American: harbor), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization), signalling (B) (American: signaling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Done - Pearl Harbor always gets me in these articles. Australian/British is Harbour, but the proper name for the Hawaii base drops the u per American spelling and triggers this comment. Apart from this, the spelling is 100% Australian English
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, -- saberwyn 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

• I'm hardly an expert at what is required to upgrade an article but from current appearance, I'm not sure why this article wasn't given B class; it should be there now, imo. If Ship's cat is at B then certainly this one should be. Anyway, I think you have a good shot at FA as it stands. --Brad (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was not given B because the majortiy of the section on the Evans collision was written by Melbourne's captain's wife, and is therefore a conflict of interest. Rewriting of this section is in progress in my userspace, and after the completed rewrite is put into the article, it will likely be promoted to B class.

5th Army (Soviet Union)

Another article on a Soviet field army that's nearly ready to be upgraded. Appreciate comments on what needs to be done for this to reach A-class status. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom

A few comments:

• The lead needs to be expanded, I think. It should really provide both an overview of, and an introduction to, the rest of the article.

• Unless you have strong philosophical objections, there should really be an infobox.

Something I realised just after I set the peer review request up - I'll put one in. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would perhaps either incorporate the order of battle directly into the text, or move it so that is less visually disruptive.

• You might want to adopt a more conventional Notes-References-External links format, but that's somewhat of a personal preference.

• Any images available? They would certainly be nice additions.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

I think I've gotten this article into pretty good shape but would like some feedback on what could stand to be improved, expanded, etc. Bellhalla (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maralia

I've made some minor changes, mostly in the lead where I tried to clarify her various names over the years. A couple other things I wanted to point out:

• In the 'Post war period' section, there's a bit of redundancy in the first sentence: "Toward the end of 1918 [. . .] on December 13, 1918".
• MARAD gives more info about her final disposal: she was sold for scrap on 6 Feb 1948 to H. H. Buncher Company ( [15], see Disposal Card, Front of Card 1).
• It might be worth splitting the 'Careers' section of the infobox to distinguish her Army service from her Navy service. With so many 'Characteristics' sections, though, I'm of mixed feelings about whether this would be an improvement.

All in all, it's quite comprehensive and well written. Well done! Maralia (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the first item and expanded on the ship’s demise per your link. I had toyed with the idea of a separate section for U.S. Navy and U.S. Army before, so I went ahead and implemented that as well. And I changed the "Characteristics" section so that there is only one heading, with some "subheadings" indicating differences in the various incarnations. I think the box flows better now. Thanks for your input. Bellhalla (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

• I'm not sure about bold so many times in the lead. I would have thought that id no. 3009 would have sufficed as the name stays the same, and just italic the other names? Just a suggestion though.
• If the dates are mentioned in the prose, they can be cited there and you don't need so many cites in the infobox.
• You need to move the image USS Bridgeport (far left) is among the ships greeting the arrival of President Woodrow Wilson in Brest. about 4 paragraphs down to avoid that massive gap between Post War period and the text.
• If you put the book names under References then you can change the cites to just Charles, p. 342. so the differecne between the whole title cites and the "charles p. 11" aren't so obvious. Have a look at Operation Camargue above or Mozambican War of Independence or Siege of Malakand to see what I mean. Again, up to you though, just a suggestion.
• You need to make re-directs from all her alternate names to this article.

All I can think of, good stuff! SGGH ^speak! 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue

Article on one of the largest operations of the First Indochina War, which validated French concerns that they couldn't operate well in the jungle (i.e. they needed, in thier opinion, to try a fixed position like Dien Bien Phu I think it is well written and well referenced, if a little dominated by Fall. Some tweaks will be needed and the last sections may be debated, hoping to make FA eventually. Thanks. SGGH ^speak! 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? I don't want to have to go into FAC with zero comments on two peer reviews.... SGGH ^speak! 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall; but a few (mostly stylistic) matters that need fixing:

• The ranks of commanding officers are generally not indicated in the infobox. Done
• The "Territorial changes" field doesn't really make sense here, I think; it was intended for formal changes of control following wars, rather than interim gains or losses of tactical control over an area. Done
• I would avoid placing footnotes inside sentences unless the material is truly controversial. In all other cases, it should be sufficient to collect things at the end of a sentence. Done where appropriate
• The lead doesn't need footnotes for anything already cited in the body. Done
• Any chance of getting a tactical map of the operation? Not one that can be used on wikipedia unless I draw it, will give it a go
• I don't think the pulled-out link to the war at the beginning of the "Background" section is needed; there are already two links to it before then, and another link can be added in-text in the first sentence. Done

Hope that helps! Kirill 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, very helpful. I have worked on the points you gave and commented where appropriate. SGGH ^speak! 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

I have noted what you say about FA and this review is almost entirely focused on that. I read somewhere that you are considering expanding the background. This, I think, is the best way forward as Operation Camargue seems to me one of those battles that gets infinitely more interesting in context than in isolation. Apologies if I am trying to get my grandmother to suck eggs, as you already touch on some of the issues so they're clearly not far from your thoughts, but I'd be tempted to explore the following:

• The weather-change in Viet Minh fortunes provided by the Chinese Communist victory in '49. Done I have mentioned 1949 as the turning point in the development of the Viet-Minh
• The failure of French Colnial efforts to keep a lid on events; the politicisation of young Indochinese militants in the French penal colonies; the role of Indochina as a Cold War proxy conflict; events in Korea. I wonder if the last two are two broad-scope to be in this ariticle, and more suited to First Indochina War, I have expanded the background section to include role of Vichy France now
• The progress of war and the growing Free Zone north of Annam. I feel the background has enough
• Comparison of differences in Viet Minh tactics in the Free Zone (nascent conventional standing army) and in the French-held areas (irregular guerrilla cells). Done
• Discussion of French tactical choices: use of troops offensively en masse or in dispersed garrisons holding down the local population in a primarily counter-insurgency role.I think this is covered by the sentences detailing the tactics of the French using small defensive locations rather than roaming battle groups
• Operation Camargue as an experimental French use of jungle-adapted armour (discussed briefly in "Vietnam on Track"), which the French had started developing in 1951. Done
• American behind-the-scenes involvement, supply of matériel, and funding. Fall doesn't mention much on this (though hardly suprising, he is scathing of all American involvement, understandably. Windrow only really discusses it in relation to Dien Bien Phu, do you have work you grab citations from?

• There's a passing reference in "Vietnam on Track" I think. Otherwise, it would be a translation from Gen Aussaresses' Pour la France: Services spéciaux 1942-1954.
• I've found a good French source and added a paragraph into background with facts and figures. The scale is astonishing. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• More or more local French-trained Vietnamese troops coming on-stream, releasing French combat troops for offensive operations. Done
• Giap's thoughts: he discusses the operation in "The Miltary Art of the People's War". I don't have access to this, unfortunately
• Much more on Viet Minh Regiment 95, which seems to have consisted of at least three battalions [310, 302, & 227).I can hardly find anything, hopefully you have some information

• On closer examination, only scraps. I have read about this regiment somewhere but I can't find where. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Camargue's role as the last major battle before Dien Bien Phu and its pre-cursor, Operation Castor. Done I have added this to the introduction and cited it to Fall

If you're looking for collaborators, I'd love to get involved with this. I was heavily involved with Battle of Arras (1917), which took a similar explain-the-background approach. My French is fluent, which may help with sources. And, at a pinch, I can do simple campaign maps (see the Arras schematic one) though the work is usually in the research rather than the execution :)

I am hoping that my partner can sketch a map, she's a fantastic artist and hopefully it will turn out quite clear SGGH ^speak! 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, mine take ages. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Other things

I was a bit puzzled about the accent on Mobilé in the text. Normally, it shouldn't be there. Does this come from a really reliable source, perhaps indicating a special usage?

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your final question, the French operate in battle groups that they called 'groupment mobiles' and both Fall and from memory Windrow have the accent, so I think it's right. Thanks for your comments, I'll get cracking soon! SGGH ^speak! 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My copy (Pen & Sword 2005) of Fall doesn't. He calls them Groupement mobiles or GMs. Perhaps it's an edition difference. I can understand calling the individual troops "mobilés" as slang, but it's the French/English hybrid (Mobilé Group), I'm puzzling over. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting.... while my Fall does seem to do it, having looked at Windrow, he doesn't, he only has the accent for Groupment Mobilés, I'll remove the accent in that case. SGGH ^speak! 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably safest. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes you are welcome to get involved, all help is appreciated SGGH ^speak! 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be ready for FAC now. What do you think? SGGH ^speak! 10:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on a quick read through, it's broadly much improved (and it was good to start with). a few niggles:

1. It might be helpful to explicitly refer to Communist China's 1949 victory;
2. The Aftermath section has a large number of "howevers" in it (including two in the same sentence);
3. Giap is less charitable about calling it a French victory (I'll see if I can dig out a quote, the problem is his stuff is written in Maoist jargon so it's difficult extracting sound-bytes);
4. A regional map would be good;
5. A few missing hyphens: "division size" > division-sized; "French dominated" > French-dominated
6. 18th Century > 18th century;
7. "Freed regular French forces up" > freed up regular French forces;
8. "to conduct the reassertion of French government" > reassert French governance ?
9. "French felt that their new strategy of strong ground bases, a versatile French Air Force and a model based on the British Burma campaign would bring victory over the Viet Minh insurgents". A bit clunky. Perhaps brackets or dashes after "new strategy" and "Burma campaign"?

Overall, it still needs a close copy-edit.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While I remember, the connection between the name is that the Camargue is a river delta and Operation Camargue took place in the Red River delta. (Navarre makes this point in his Agonie de l'indochine and Giap in The Military Art etc.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, red herring. I misread the text. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giap quotes (he calls Operation Camargue the "First Phase of the Navarre Plan", Dien Bien Phu being the second one).

• "the enemy concentrated in the Red River delta more than 50 percent of the mobile forces and declared that they were changing over to the offensive to regain the initiative in the operations". Giap, p 121
• "it was announced we suffered heavy losses although in fact our losses were insignificant ... their troops had to withdraw with heavy losses". Giap, p. 121

Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giap also summarises the entire Navarre Plan strategy (Summer 1953-Spring 1954) on p. 120. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats cool, could you implement many of the above? I have to go take care of some university work at present. I'll be back later but it would be good to get things done as quickly as possible. See you later SGGH ^speak! 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military of East Timor

I have been working on this article on and off for some months and think that it now provides a very comprehensive overview of East Timor's troubled military. The East Timorese seem to think so as well as part of the history section has been lifted from Wikipedia and posted on the East Timor Ministry of Defence and Security's website as the military's official history! I would be very interested in other editors' views on the article and suggestions for how it can be improved to FA standard. If anyone can point me towards more photos of the military that would also be much appreciated as the article is very bland at present (though the order of battle image which was created by Noclador is brilliant). --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good, overall. A few stylistic suggestions:

• Is listing the budget as "Unknown" in the infobox useful? I would have left out that field entirely, if there's no data for it.
• The diagram might be a bit neater floated at the side; on a wide monitor, the whitespace is a bit excessive.
• Personally, I find {{details}} to be better worded than {{main}}.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

51st Army (Soviet Union)

Been working on this Soviet army, one of a large number, in conjunction with user:W. B. Wilson, and since it's now in reasonable shape would appreciate suggestions for further improvement. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few suggestions, in no particular order:

• {{Infobox Military Unit}}?
• The list of commanders would work better as a table, at the least; another possibility would be to use {{service record}}.
• Ditto the OOB, but with {{command structure}}.
• The lead should be considerably longer.
• Various MoS fixes are needed; in particular, dates need to be properly linked.
• "In 1987, the 192nd Tank Regiment was re-formed into 97th independent Tank Battalion." - what does this have to do with the army as a whole?
• Additional detail on the post-war period, if any is avaialble, would be helpful.

Believe me, if the Net or any other source had anything extra, it'd be in there. I'll go back again and see what I can find in translation from Soldat.ru. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is a good brief history of the Army. I'd agree with most of Kirill's comments, though I think that the lead's length is OK given that the article is relatively brief. Can you add anything about the quality of the Army during World War II - eg, was it regarded as a particularly good or bad unit? It would also be good if the reason for the Army's formation in 1941 was discussed - was this part of the pre-war mobilization plan and were its' initial units also newly formed? If they're available, some photos of the Army would be great. I like the article's structure, which is very clear. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope I've sketched in now reasonably well the circumstances of the Army's formation - the 12 August Stavka session.Buckshot06 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Constitution

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

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

Fifelfoo

Cite nitpicks

Full stops at the end of all cites?

No date, volume, edition, pages (other magazine cites in the same boat where you've referenced an online version): Cuticchia, Rosalie A. "Celebrating The History Of The U.S.S. Constitution". Marblehead Magazine.

Citation date consistency: Hendrix, Steve (16 November 2003) but yet Jennings 1966

Add to bibliography, repeatedly cited: DANFS.

Spacing: Jennings 1966, p.70

fn114. DANFS wikilinked for no apparent reason.

fn150: No author supplied, article from the 1970s, expectation of attribution in the 1970s Other news articles lack authors. Consider implementing [Staff Writer] for unnamed newsarticles from the 20th century onwards. Colon breaks your newspaper citation style consistency (see fn98). There are other floating colons in newscites, pick one way, stick. ""Happy 200th party for U. S.". Chicago Tribune: p. C12. 30 December 1976."

fn148 American Forests not ital? Publisher? Magazine? Unclear with your citation style.

fn157 contains location data on a book. Not all books have location data. Standardise one way or the other, or the middle way (no location when location obvious from University Publisher).

Well done in keeping the article's references that well for over a year! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

United States Army Special Forces

I'm requesting a peer review for this article because I think it may be good enough to be raised to a B-class article. Right now the article is still a Start-class. If its not ready to become a B-class, what improvements need to be made so that it meets the B-class criteria?

Outdawg (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Many more in-line citations would improve the article greatly, for a start, but what about recent missions - Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative, JCET, all that kind of thing ought to be included. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I'll echo Buckshot06's comment about citations; the article is very under-cited at this point. Aside from that, a few other suggestions:

• The "Green Beret" section, while interesting, seems out of place at the very beginning; I'd move it somewhere further down (at least past the history, and possibly into a broader section; see below).
• The history breaks off rather unexpectedly.
• The bulleted list in "Special Forces MOS Descriptions" would work better as a table.
• No information about equipment?
• Some more detail about the current operations of the SF would be good.

Kirill 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille

I would like to know what this article is missing to qualify for a higher rating than B-Class.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The article is pretty nice, overall. Some specific points to consider:

• The lead should be expanded to two or three full paragraphs. Done
• I'd suggest avoiding footnotes in the middle of sentences where possible. Unless the material is extremely controversial, grouping them at the end of a sentence or paragraph would clean up the flow a bit.
• The images are a bit cluttered; the large plane image, in particular, will run into the previous one on wider resolutions, and is too large in any case.
• The entire "Summary of career" section would look better in table form than as bulleted lists. His absences seem a bit too trivial to me, but I suppose they would be less jarring if in continuous form. You might also consider combining all the material into a single comprehensive timeline; but I'm not entirely convinced whether that would be an improvement, at this point.
• The gray/orange blocks don't really add anything that couldn't be done with a simple table with a single vertical line down the middle, and look a bit garish. Done

Higher ratings than B-Class all have associated formal reviews that articles must go through, incidentally; see WP:MHA for more details. Kirill 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the assessors comments are a little harsh on the colour table, it isn't that garish, the contrast is pretty light.

I don't think that the absences from the front are trivial either, these are important considerations in the career of a fighter pilot- especially so in Marseille's case, given the short period in which his kills were scored. The reader can then understand why mention of his actions, for example, in July-August were non-existant.

I agree that the image is a little too big, this I will correct.Dapi89 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, fair enough. I'd still suggest that a table form would serve better for the timelines than the current one, though, regardless of what one chooses to include in the timeline itself. Kirill 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the citations covering the nature of Marseille's last mission (see talk page), the citation and note were placed there as the information became disputed (caused by errors in general literature). I trust this is okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

Franco-Prussian War

I firmly believe that this article is almost ready for a featured article candidacy. All I need is objective criticism on how to ensure that it passes. There are a couple of events that need sourcing and more beef, but 80% of the work is done. Thank you! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Good work so far - there's a lot of very detailed material in it. I think the material is there to make it A-class or FA, but a bit of editing and referencing is needed first. A few comments as I read through:

• In the infobox, you distinguish French active and reserve strength, but not Prussian.

I fixed that- Howard mentions the "reserves and the Landwehr", and there is no other reference that differentiates the strength by reserves alone. Also, no captured totals for the Prussian Army is listed in any reference I have searched. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a definite shortage of references in the summary-style passages ('Prussian Army Advance' onwards). Even if something is referenced in another article, it must be re-referenced here.
• Is there more that can be said about the impact/results of the war? This section seems a bit on the short side. (This section is also unreferenced)
• It is a big topic and will inevitably be quite a long article. Could the 'Causes of the War' section be split off into another article and summarised? At the moment, it's quite a long section and only marginally relevant to the war.

I have created another article called Causes of the Franco-Prussian War, and I am working towards a summary for events based upon the material removed. Great idea! It was a bit too long. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• A difficulty with all big history articles is to find a way to make the article coherent. At the moment, I think this is lacking. The way I would approach this is to identify the key themes about the War (which also demonstrate why it's important and interesting) and where possible to refer to these themes.

Keep up the good work and thanks for taking on this war! The Land (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

United States Navy SEALs

This article needs more than a peer review. There are to many people trying to edit and alter this article. It has been stuck at "Start-class" because many people add little bits of false info instead valid information that would actually improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outdawg (talk • contribs)

Nick Dowling

I agree that this article needs a lot of work. Some suggestions:

• Provide an inline citation for everything. I've been able to greatly reduce the number of bad edits to Australian Special Air Service Regiment by adding inline citations - they seem to deter special forces-cruft to some extent.
• Much of the wording is sloppy and confusing. For instance the training section states that "Anyone can volunteer" but then goes on to list a number of restrictions on potential SEAL candidates (eg, they have to be in the Navy, male and under 28). The section later gives a list of 'PST' (term not defined) criteria which candidates need to meet, before going on to say that candidates are actually expected to do better than meet these criteria. This is a bit confusing.
• The history section seems to be rather brief and the prose is choppy. This should be re-written to be a more comprehensive history of the SEALS organisation and deployments.
• The article would benefit from a section which spells out what roles the SEALS fill - this is briefly mentioned in the lead para, but never referred to again. What do the SEALS do to justify their existence? Why do Navy units operate hundreds of kilometres from the sea?
• The article is full of military jargon and unnecessary acronyms.
• Most of the external links should be removed as few seem to be in line with Wikipedia:External links (eg, Navy SEALS fan sites and individuals photo sites are pretty useless as links)
• The 'Area of Operations' section is written in an odd tone, and doesn't seem to cover anything worthwhile - it basically states that SEALS are required to operate in all terrains and then describes how they survive in different terrains, which doesn't seem to differ from how anyone else would survive in harsh areas.
• The 'Notable Navy SEALs' should be cited and be limited to people who became notable for being a SEAL rather than notable people who were once a SEAL. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Berkowitz

Nick gave a good starting list. I'd go a little further on "notable SEALS" (and predecessors); the idea that they are notable as SEALs, or at least special warfare operators, is a good point.

• If someone is notable as a SEAL, it may be that the things for which they were notable belong in the body of the article. For example, I was surprised not to see Draper Kaufmann (the younger of the father and son admirals) not even in the list, much less the lead of the article. Many will call him the creator of UDT starting in 1943, and the SEAL Program would never have happened without him.
• Other people key in the development, like Phil Bucklew, aren't there, and again, their role is part of the mainline history. One starting place is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/navspecwarcom-hist.htm
• I'd like to suggest you look at Special reconnaissance and Direct action (military), since they both refer to SEALs, UK Special Boat Service, etc., and it would be well to have them use consistent language and be appropriately wikilinked.
• What about technological enablers of the SEALs? Christian Lambertsen developed the first US Navy rebreather, but really is one of the first physicians who specialized in diving medicine. There are foreign contributors; the Italians are quite likely the inspiration for most swimmer delivery vehicles.
• Nick brings out a good point: SEALs are treated as general-purpose special operators, which is why you find them on the oceans of Afghanistan :-). I believe it important to bring out that they can be used in some, but not other, roles. The article on Operation Nifty Package is stubby, but there are some interesting starting points. The SEALs assigned to disable his boats had a classic SEAL mission and carried it out perfectly. The attack on Punta Paitilla Airport was a fiasco. When that part of the mission was first given to the SEAL planners, they wanted to infiltrate SEALs, before the invasion, to an apartment that had a line of sight on the aircraft, and destroy it with a Barrett .50 caliber rifle or heavier direct fire weapon. For military political reasons, that covert form of operation was rejected, and they were combined into a larger unit than SEALs typically used, and were given a light infantry, hi-diddle-diddle-right-up-the-middle light infantry mission to make a direct assault on the airport. Light infantry raids, and especially seizing or disabling airfields, is one of the specialties of Army Rangers (75th Ranger Regiment). The lesson was "don't use SEALs on Ranger missions, and vice versa."
• There is a certain political aspect to using SEALs as special operators far inland, but they do have some of the qualifications. Still, their use in Afghanistan allowed the Navy a role in a landlocked country. There probably is value in cross-training among special operators. There were a few SEALs in Operation Gothic Serpent (first battle of Mogadishu), and, since at least some of the A-teams in a Special Forces Group are expected to be SCUBA-qualified, some mixing is probably useful. All US special operations organizations have specialties, and a SEAL might learn something from how a Ranger would approach something, while a Ranger could learn from an Air Force Combat Controller. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

United States Naval Special Warfare Command

The United States Naval Special Warfare Command article needs a peer review because it is an "Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Military history article" and for normal improvement. Outdawg (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Firstly, I've had a look at the tagging. The first B-class criterion had been set "yes" in error, so I've changed that to "no", but is otherwise accurate. As the article fails on B1, "start" class looks right to me. Does this help?

Secondly, and you probably won't like this, the glaring omission is the lack of inline citations (two for the whole article). Before any expansion takes place, you should provide citations for all major statements. See WP:V for what to cite and WP:REF for how to cite it. As this may well considerably change the content and structure of the article, it might be better to request a fresh peer-review after the cites are done. If you need a hand, contact me on my talk page :)

Otherwise, it's a promising aticle with great potential ... All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Special reconnaissance

Peer review requested 2007-12-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider:

• The article unpredictably mixes footnotes and parenthetical citations; you should really decide on one style and use it throughout.

Agreed -- I thought I had converted all to footnotes, but apparently I missed some. Will fix. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Large portions of the article are uncited; this is particularly important with topics such as this one, where the bulk of the material is not common knowledge.

In some cases, I worked from one source and put the material in consecutive paragraphs. My general rule was that until I gave a new citation, it referred to the same source. Is there a better practice?

The typical convention for large sections from the same source(s) is to cite each paragraph; this minimizes the chance of running into later problems if some other editor inserts a paragraph from another source in the middle of a section with no intermediate citations. Kirill 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some bulleted lists may be appropriate, but others (e.g. in the "Infiltration" section) can be reasonably rewritten as prose.

There's something symbolically wrong with avoiding bullets in MILHIST, at least for an article after they've been invented. :-) Will look at these. I definitely want to use them for explaining acronyms such as CARVER.

• Long quotes should use blockquote formatting.

There may be some formats I need to learn. I've used angle brackets blockquote /blockquote more these days, but I think I've seen some other formatting methods.

• Bolding should only be used for the title of the article, not as a means of emphasis within the text.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. If you have any suggestions for additional national practices, they'd be very welcome.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

News Media and the Vietnam War

This began as a media section of the Tet Offensive article. Have expanded it up somewhat and am looking for some constructive criticism.RM Gillespie (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen

Good article I think. I'm just going through the Ngo Dinh Diem era, since I know about that specifically. Some things might be generally applied.

• Just from a general stylistic viewpoint, I think it's rather strange that you don't link to terms much, eg Homer Bigart, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, 1963 South Vietnamese coup, Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm are relevant links, among other parts so that people can continue reading about the related topics. The aritcle is generally very sparsely wikilinked.
• With all the intricate details and many things all happening at once in Vietnam, it might be difficult for a person who doesn't already know what the incidents were about to understand the context. eg, the Buddhist crisis section doesn't tell us at all what it is or how it came to be. Also, in such situations, I think {{seealso}} and {{main}} should be used so that the reader can be guided to articles like Hue Vesak shootings so that they can understand the background.
• The same applies to Ap Bac I think. The reader needs to know that the battle was significant in that it was the first open confrontation with the VC and that the US generals had claimed that the VC would be easily routed if they stood and fought. Also the reader will not know from the text that the official US army report claimed a victory whereas Sheehan etc claimed that the ARVN was outmanoevred.

• Notable incidents that might be dealt on in more detail (perhaps)

• 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing - one of the pilots involved used an anti-Diem article in Newsweek to convince his colleague to join in. Diem later accused the American press and government of encouraging his ouster
• Thich Quang Duc - Diem accused Browne et al of bribing TQD into self-immolating
• Xa Loi Pagoda raids - US journos debunk Nhu's propaganda that the regular army did the raids.
• Double Seven Day scuffle - Nhu's secret police punch up reports

Also, the other thing is that the Buddhists often tipped off the reporters before the demonstrations and such. Do you have the book by William Prochnau about the US journos in VN?

• Other generalities:There should probably be more photos of the people being discussed in the article, eg Diem. Also I am surprised that the photo of Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a VC prisoner is not included since it is usually cited as a media photograph that heavily swayed public opinion.
• Some parts are sparsely referenced.

Apart from that, it was an interesting read. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Japanese alliance

I've nominated this article for peer review as I would like it to be either brought up to GA-class, or if my own edits have already brought it to that level, I would like it to be rated as such.

Rupa zero (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

A well-written but uncited article. These are my proposals:

• "London at what is now the Lansdowne Club, ". Avoid external links like this one within the main text. Use instead proper citation using Template:cite web etc.
• The article has almost no citations, and the one existing is mixed with the references.
• You link sometimes single years, sometimes you avoid doing that, then you do not link full dates ... Inconsistencies. Check WP:MoS.
• "The Anglo-Japanese Alliance officially terminated on August 17 1923." Stubby paragraph. No further analysis surrounding this event?
• Format properly references adding ISBNs where possible, and use Template:cite book.
• "See also" goes before "references", but I would recommend to get rid of the "See also" section and incorporate its links into the main text.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Toddy1

I have gone through it section by section. In some cases I have criticised the lack of mention of issues at some points in the structure when they are sort of mentioned in other later parts of the structure.

Main faults:

• Lack of citations.
• Motivations section - does not mention Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. One effect of this war was that Japan was taken more seriously. Was the issue of the who annexed Hawaii a factor in Japan wanting an alliance with Britain? Once the 1902 treaty had been signed Japan felt that Japan was now recognised as on a par with Western Nations.
• Terms of 1902 treaty - the understanding that contemporary writers had during he Russo-Japanese War was that if France joined the war on Russia's side, then Britain would join the war on Japan's side. The summary of the treaty here is insufficiently clear to say whether this understanding was true.
• Racism issue - at this time there were a lot of Japanese people who wanted to emigrate, and a cause of friction was white racism towards Japanese immigrants who wanted to emigrate to Australia and the West of Coast of the USA. Australian racism was problem to Britain.
• Regarding Japanese loyalty in WWI, that depends on your point of view. This issue needs discussing fairly describing what Britain hoped/asked for and what Japan gave, and why they did not give as much as Britain wanted.
• Effects of the treaty - it is confusing to have stuff here that might be better placed in different early sections. The stuff about cultural/information/technology exchange etc. might be convincing were it not for the fact that cultural exchange had been going on from the beginning of the Meiji era.
• Limitations - putting the racial issues here implies that they were at the end - actually they were present in 1900. The bank issues need to be explained properly and dispassionately so that one could assess whether this was a fair judgement by banks.
• Demise of the treaty - this section is very much POV. Seems to imply that it was Japan's fault. There are several alternative contemporary/near-contemporary POVs:
  • It was a good alliance for Britain and should have continued. Blame Churchill, who was half-American for Britain quitting the alliance and offending Japan. Admiral Barry Domvile expounded this POV in one of his books.
  • It was a good alliance for Britain, but it was clear that if the alliance continued the Britain would find itself in an alliance again the USA, and it was not in Britain's interests to risk war with the USA.

--Toddy1 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

About a month ago I started work on this fairly neglected article in my userspace, hoping to turn it into a good piece. It snowballed a little more than I was expecting and now is accompanied by two daughter articles, May 1794 Atlantic campaign and Glorious First of June order of battle. I realise this is an awful lot of words, but if anyone can give me any pointers on any part of these articles it would be greatly appreciated. I am hoping over the next few months to take all three to FA quality and any advice to this end would be appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Excellent articles, overall. As far as the daughter articles are concerned, I think the titles ought to be changed to something more grammatically palatable; my suggestions would be Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (or Atlantic campaign (May 1794)) and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. The latter of these will be better suited for featured list status than featured article; I doubt an article consisting mostly of tables will pass FAC.

As for the specifics of this article:

• The title of the first section is a bit misleading, I think, as you're not really discussing the wars as a whole; I'd suggest changing it to the standard "Background" (or "Prelude", although that would be more the role of the later "May 1794" section).
• Personally, I find the wording of {{details}} more natural than that of {{main}}.
• "Rear-Admiral Joseph-Marie Nielly had sailed from Rochefort to meet the convoy in mid-Atlantic five battleships and assorted cruisers" - surely you mean ships of the line and frigates? ;-)
• A tactical map of the action would do wonders for readers trying to follow the text, I think.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, I will certainly think on the article titles and I should have clarified that the order of battle was intended to be a FL not an FA. I will change the {{details}} and the first title as suggested. As for the third point, battleships was (and in some sources still is) a synonymous term with ships of the line and can be less of a mouthful. As for cruisers, I was using the word in the more general sense of a "cruising warship" i.e. frigates and smaller rather than the modern cruiser. These terms may be obsolete however, so I will investigate replacing them if they are confusing. I have been unable to find a tactical map of the engagement with or without copyright except this version from the German wikipedia which is confusing and in some areas rather inaccurate. My search continues but if anyone else turns one up please let me know. Thanks again--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacky - if you have on-line copyrighted maps, it may be worth giving MapMaster a ping. He did the map on Battle of the Gebora (an FA) for me, and didn't take too long about it either. I provided an image of a map of dubious copyright, and he used that to base his own version on. So, I'm sure if you asked, and had a bit of patience (he's not too active, I don't think), he'd be able to help you out. Carre (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have replied, just an update. I think I have addressed everything mentioned, and User:Rama is doing an excellent job sorting out the correct names of the French ships and officers which were muddled by the sources I used (and by me). The only thing I have not dealt with is the lack of a map in the article. Try as i might, I cannot find a useful map online which I can give to mapmaster and in addition, almost all the maps I come across offline are contradictory, confusing or plain wrong. For now, a map seems to be an unlikely proposition unless one can be found. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, Order of battle at the Glorious First of June is now a featured list. If anyone is willing to run over the main Glorious First of June article with a copyedit, I would appreciate it so that I can take it to FA. I have been criticised in the past for my prose style and this might ease the articles passage if some respected editors could look it over. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Swarming (military)

Completing request for Hcberkowitz (talk · contribs). Kirill 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Esskater11

One thing i noticed is that while the article states its about military swarming the article has all kinds of things about non military affairs. I suggest either the title needs re-working or the non military stuff cut out that isn't needed. Esskater11 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are much more detailed articles about biological swarming, so the military aspect had to be disambiguated; that's the reason for the title. The insect behavior described in this article, for example, is strictly in the context of how it is being used in current military research. I'd welcome specific comments about general swarming that does not support the military research aspect. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ERcheck

There is a confusing mix of citation styles used. Both <ref> and {{Harv}} tags are used. The use of the "id" entry in the {{cite book}} is for unique identifiers, commonly the ISBN; I've not seen it used for an editors identifier. The editor's identifiers, such as "Rand-Edwards-2000" seems to be fitting for the "name" in the "ref" tag. — ERcheck (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In light of the extensive use of "ref" tags, I'm beginning to make the citations consistent. — ERcheck (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Very interesting and well-referenced article. — ERcheck (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen

The way the article is set up in the lead, it seems as though two different articles have been put into one place

• If you are looking to get this to GA or above, you will need more sources everywhere, there are many unsourced paragraphs.

• "Instead the best investment for third world nations and groups is to adapt swarming. History has shown that massed swarming has actually had more success than swarming through firepower. The United States is intensely reliant on firepower. As the Viet Cong showed, attacks from all directions, in close quarters can be highly effective" this will sound like OR without attribution and sources, for example

• The article is at times like a discussion paper or textbook with a rehtorical style, the article explicitly poses questions to the reader "...?" etc
• At times the article segues into lecturing "Swarming should be adapted, for appropriate missions, but is not a panacea." and especially the header of that given section.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are MOS violations in the headers since "Swarming" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised unless it is the first word in the header.

Sissi (Finnish guerrilla)

Creidiki

Article has been re-structured, content and refenrences added, comments please.Creidiki (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see if this article meets B-class criteria or tell what it needs to be promoted Creidiki (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen

It would probably need a lead which is at least more than one sentence, and it would also need references throughout the article generally. And the references should be filled out with publisher details, author details and so forth. Do you know how this works.? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done up one of the citations as an example. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article also needs a copyedit in some places. Some of the short 1-2 sentence paras will need to be merged.

• "Sissi troops are trained in: Pohjois-Karjalan Prikaati, Kainuun Prikaati, Jääkäriprikaati"

• Are these training courses or the locations of the army bases

More sources that are independent of the FDF are preferable.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

As per Blnguyen. The "introduction" section has been moved to form a lead in order to establish context. Some citaions are needed as well. As for content, it would be a good idea to have a section dedicated to operations in which the unit has participated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heuschrecke 10

Previous peer review

It is currently on a real peer review, but I have gotten no good answers and it has changed a lot, see this diff which shows the difference from the old peer review to this one. Dreamy ^§ 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Megapixie

A promising start. Suggestions:

• The lead is a little confused - i.e. there are single sentences like "The manufacturers were based in Magdeburg.", which spoil the flow of prose a little. Try and break it into maybe three paragraphs, which each paragraph about a specific area.

•  Done

• When I write these articles I try and split it clearly into a Lead, Development, Description, Operational history, Variants. The description should include a front to back description of the vehicle. Example: "The tank has a welded steel hull varying in thickness between 10 and 25 millimeters. The driver sits at the front left of the hull, with the engine to his right. The engine is a The driving controls are lever based, with four forward gears and two reverse gears connected to the Acme hydrotransmission system by a series of rods. Behind the driver, in the center of the turret is the two man turret..." This is important, as the article should be able to stand alone to a certain extent.

•  Done

Megapixie (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

• MoS stuff for a start. I've fixed some of it.

• Could you please explain what must be done?

• Introductory paragraphs are confusing - the intro should be a clear overview of it.

•  Done

• The relationship between the two designs is confusing. Were there 2 designs of which one was selected and one not, or were both selected?

•  Done See the Cancellation section.

• The comparison of the two is over-complex - especially since they both have the same crew and engine and other details. The specification comparison should be summarised for those who can't follow the spec table.

• How would I do that? And if you notice there are differences. Doing...

• Where does the 165/1 fit in - another design, a derivative?

• Yes... It doesn't need to be there, it is just another weapon-carrier that came before the Heuschrecke. I'll remove it. Done

GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CVA-01

I have just rewritten quite a bit of this and put it into coherent sections, and was wondering where to go from there, as well as how good it is at the moment. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

Good article structure. Not enough sources and references. There is also a sentence at the lead section which seems to be very hypothetical. It is unsourced as well. --> Had these ships been built, it is likely they would have been named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually in most of the sources. I've added one of them to reference it. I'll add in further references when I can. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

I'd agree with Fayssal's comment about the structure being good - the article is off to a good start. In terms of content, I think that the article should take a more critical approach to the carriers. For example, the reasons why the RN wanted such large carriers need to be fleshed out - eg, why did the RN think that large fleet carriers represented the best use of its resources after Britain had lost its empire and was mainly focused on NATO commitments? Was there dissent within the RN over the plans to build these ships? In particular, the discussion of the project's cancellation seems simplistic - was this really just cost cutting (eg, did the Labour government perhaps also not think that Britain needed large carriers? - the ships were cancelled only a few years before the Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez) and did it prove to be a good or a bad decision? (there's lots of material on the performance of the Invincible class during the Falklands war you could draw on here) You note in the article that the Treasury estimated that the RN had grossly underestimated the cost of the ships - this suggests to me that the project might have had serious problems - what were they? As a more general note, the article needs lots of inline citations given that its dealing with a 'paper' ship. However, that all said, this is already a pretty good article and there should be more than enough references available to improve it to an excellent article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done quite a bit of that. Still need to add those citations. Some may take a while, as they are National Archives bits and bobs. I fear that the structure has been made worse though... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Paradis massacre

This is my first ever article on Wikipedia, so I can't judge its quality, nor are there any GA/FA/A articles on similar topics that I can compare it to, so on advice I have taken it to PR. It's biggest weakest that I can see is its lack of inline citations, which at the moment I can't do. I have also requested images for it, which do exist but I do not have the technical skills to get them. Any feedback on these points, or any other issues would be great, I do hope if I can get the citations to take it to GA eventually. Mattyness (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

Looks good to me. I apologize that I don't really have any suggestions to make. Obviously, in-line citations and images would be a great boost to the article, but other than that nothing really stands out. I wonder what other editors think about the use of words like "atrocity" and "massacre" in this article. Don't get me wrong - I'm as anti-Nazi as the next Jew, and if this wasn't an atrocity or a massacre then I don't know what is ... even so, we have to make efforts to show a neutral point of view. If you have inline citations directly quoting that this was called an atrocity and massacre by objective scholarly secondary sources, that'd be great. Otherwise, excellent work for your first article. Welcome to the project!!LordAmeth (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply When I figure out how to use inline citations properly, I will try and cite the whole article, which I believe is possible although not many sources are avaliable, and I can't find any books devoted to the topic, only ones that mention it in passing.

I see your point about "atrocity" and will consider changing it to something less POV-ish. As for "massacre", a quick Google search shows that nearly all of the correct hits call it the 'Le Paradis massacre', so that would seem the convention. I am still waiting (hoping) for images, or else I will have to try and do it myself.

Other points I would like to add, I have a quote from Pooley on his events of the massacre, but it is all used in the article, so it would basically just be repeating it. Is it worth putting it in? And...damn, I had something else to say but it has gone out of my head as I was typing. Well, thanks for your response. And thanks for the praise! :) Mattyness (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have cited the whole article, although I have not yet cleared up the references and notes sections. I would really appreciate some more feedback. Mattyness (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall; just a few minor issues that I noticed:

• The footnotes don't seem to actually show up anywhere; you're probably missing a <references/> tag.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible. It shouldn't be too difficult to link most or all of these terms from the text. (Totenkopf was indeed a part of the Waffen-SS, if I'm not mistaken.)
• The long quotes in the trial section should use blockquote formatting, and should ideally be cited directly.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply I have done all your suggestions: the references and notes sections have been done, the "See also" section removed, the quotes put into blockquote form, and cited. I welcome all other suggestions. :) Mattyness (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I will be taking this to GA now, so please consider this PR closed, or whatever the correct Wikipedian term is. Thanks to all who contributed, and I welcome any further comments on the discussion of Le Paradis massacre page. Mattyness (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to start the FA nom process but give editors one more look at it before I do. I think this article has solid bones, with some great citations. I am working on removing the last few unauthoritiative sources and will do so before I pass it up for FA nom, so please don't comment on those. Part of my request involved editors examining citation format, prose, spelling, and other style issues which may be of concern. I would appreciate anything you can give me on this. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Hey Daysleeper, certainly not an area of my expertise but I'm happy to provide general comments where I think the article could be tweaked...

• "that fought with the Union Army" - could be ambiguous to fight with someone could read as in "to have a fight with someone..." - "fought on the side of the Union Army" perhaps?

Adjusted with "a regiment of the Union Army"

• "Zouaves" - what does this mean?

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Link "Commonwealth " accordingly.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep citations in numerical order - you have a [4][3] at the moment, there may be others..

Question: If the citations are the same, I thought I could use the same citation name, thus only creating one entry. See citatin 11 as an example. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

'Response: Yeah, reusing them is fine, but reuse them in such an order that the citations appear numerically... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rechecked and it looks fine now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• "flashy Zouave uniforms " "fashioned in flashy uniforms" POV unless you can cite "flashy". Even then, it's probably worth a reword.
• "fezzes " - link this to Fez.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• You've redlinked "Henry Willard" - do you expect him to have an article, i.e. is he sufficiently notable to warrant one?

He was a notable Washingtonian, who yes, I expect should or one day will have his own article. The hotel in question still exists and is one of Washington, D.C. finest. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Early action has several short paragraphs, consider merging a couple of them.
• " First Battle of Bull Run" needs linking in the "First Bull Run" section.

Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• " double-quick" - why italics?

My own added emphasis from several months ago. Removed to maintain nuetrality. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• "their foul conduct in camp" expand and explicitly cite I think!
• You have a section heading "Draft Riots.." is Riot a proper noun here? If not then it should be lower case, as you have it in the main prose.

Draft Riots is generally assumed to be the name of the event, and the article maintains capitilization for both words. The only instance in the article in which I use the two words together is in the header, which I believe to be an acceptable usage. If another editor can find a described use to contrary, I will certainly change it. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• There has been a slow move towards having a combined references section with subsections General (your References) and Specific (your Notes), possibly worth considering.

I will have to look at how other articles have done that; I'm not familiar with that style but will certainly give it a look. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have right now, I enjoyed the article a lot, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Daysleeper47 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more comment - ensure you use the en-dash for separating page ranges in the citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadnought

This article was first forked from battleship over the summer. I have far from exhausted my to-do list on it but I'm running out of inspiration, hence the peer review. There was a very brief previous peer review since when I have added a whole wodge of technical material (yes, I know, none of it's sourced- that's next on my list). What does everyone reckon? Regards and many thanks, The Land (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen

Well, you've mentioned sourcing, but let me re-iterate that concerning the "super-dreadnought" section. It was always my impression that the first real super-dreadnought was the Queen Elizabeth, because she incorporated 15-inch guns and oil-burning engines. I'm also a little uncomfortable using Robert K. Massie as a source; he's not careful enough in his research. Marder or something like that would be better. Mackensen (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree broadly about Massie - I think he's a reasonable source for most thigs but he does drop occasional clangers. I don't have Marder, but I do have the relevant bit of Conway's History of the Ship, which indicates that the Orionss were the first super-dreadnoughts. The Land (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Massie is an unreliable source (not much different from a blog). He regurgitates old myths. His books are inadequately footnoted, so it is impossible to know the source of his statements.--Toddy1 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The 13.5in and 14in ships were described as super-dreadnoughts.--Toddy1 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

As you've pointed out, sourcing is probably the biggest concern at the moment; there are large chunks of the article with very sparse citation, if any. Aside from that, a few other points to look at:

• The image placement needs to be reworked; the multiple images stacked along a single margin near section headers produce all sorts of bizarre floating effects on some browsers.
• The prose is somewhat choppy overall, with many short and even one-sentence paragraphs. I'd try to condense things a bit.
• Some of the sectioning is questionable. Why is the single paragraph on Japan in its own section? I'd actually go so far as to suggest that the "Dreadnought building" section contain only two sub-sections, one for the UK and Germany and one for everyone else.
• The section headings could use a bit of work. "Development of the all-big-gun battleship" is rather too long—why not just "Development"—and leading articles should be omitted.

Hope that helps! Kirill 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MBK004

As has been mentioned before, keep working on the sourcing. Other than that, I've uncovered a few things that could use (at least for me) some clarification:

• In the lead: --> The product of British technical superiority and the willpower of Admiral Jackie Fisher, Dreadnought was no bolt from the blue.
  • No bolt from the blue? - What does this mean, perhaps better wording is in order?
• Shouldn't World War I and World War II be wikilinked in the lead?
• Is it really necessary to link to a page multiple times within the article? Isn't one link at the first mention of the term appropriate?
• Long-Range Gunnery section:
  • Wikilinks to Russo-Japanese War, and Naval War College? Could not find any occurrence of these being linked at all in the article.
• The choppy prose and questionable sectioning mentioned by Kirill above is also something I agree with.
• Image placement is also as mentioned above an issue that needs to be resolved.
  • This image: Image:British Grand Fleet 2.jpg needs a proper license tag. Proper image licenses (Fair-Use, PD, etc.) are part of the GA requirements. This is something that was brought up in the GA review of USS Texas (BB-35).

Overall, this is a promising article that I look forward to seeing Featured! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Barrage (artillery)

I've been working on this page for a couple of months and I've taken it about as far as I can without advice or assistance. Last review went backwards from B-class to Start-class, but I think it's improved a lot since then. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Land

Looks good to me. I've upped it to a B. The main comments I'd make at this stage are about structure. The article could use a longer lead section (3 or 4 paragraphs) with a potted summary of the history and a bit of info about the use and misuse of the term. (See WP:LEAD for more info). I think the structure needs to choose more between a chronological framework and a thematic one, or one then the other. As it stands the first section (Development of the creeping barrage) is the start of a chronological approach, and then you get the analysis of different types (Would it be better to integrate the material on standing, box and creeping barrage variants? Perhaps discussing the advantages/disadvantages of each in turn rather than a section on this specifically?), and then you return to a chronological presentation (World War I, World War II, Korea).

Is it worth talking a bit more about the barrage versus other applications of firepower (artillery or not?) - and hence the role of the barrage in doctrine?

Congratulations on a very detailed article!

Have you seen [16]? Regards, The Land (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've ordered that book, along with [17] which I used in writing the article. Mind, the Bidwell book I did have on my shelves (Artillery Tactics, Almark) is pretty superficial, compared to the Hogg book. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have just re-read 'Fire-Power' - I think it is worth making a few more points in the article...

1. Stressing the difference between barrage as a form of suppression vs long preparatory bombardment
2. mentioning the debilitating effect of the barrage on infantry tactics - walking forward under a barrage hindered the development of infantry small-unit fire tactics
3. perhaps referring to the barrage as an anti-aircraft technique

Regards, The Land 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Carre

I'm glad The Land reclassed this to B - I couldn't see any reason for it to drop back to Start at all. I found it a very interesting read, and certainly learnt a lot from it. I've been going through it in the past couple of days sorting out some MOS issues, and I know I haven't fixed them all; therefore, I'd suggest you visit WP:MOS, and familiarise yourself with the various conventions there. Of course, MOS is only house policy in wikipedia, and doesn't touch on content.

I think the article could do with a copyedit, since I got slightly confused in some sections – it's easy to miss simple things out when you're conversant with a subject, which would be useful, indeed sometimes needed, for a layman. Some of the barrage usages in the various wars aren't clear about who's attacking whom. For the First and Second World Wars, there isn't much about how the Germans/Axis used barrage tactics - there is some in the First (eastern front), but not much else.

I agree with The Land about the confusion in structure; while describing the various barrage forms, you refer to the wars...but then you go into a chronological account. How best to address this is a difficult question. I think, since this article is about the barrage, it would be best to explain all the forms, with some examples of where/when they were used, rather than going for chronological. For example, introducing the pepper-pot barrage in the middle of the Second World War is a tad disconcerting!

All in all though, this article shows much promise, and now I have to go and check all my articles to make sure I haven't used the term "barrage" incorrectly! Carre (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit]Actually, looking at the history, the drop back to start was justified for referencing reasons, but much improved now. Carre (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

1. Promising article with huge potential and very little to add to The Land's and Carre's comments.
2. A bit more on the history might be useful (Boer War, allegedly).
3. The role of the recoilless field gun (which facilitated rapid synchronised fire)
4. You describe a Chinese barrage but don't name it :)
5. Separate section on directing fire and its development from Wii, WWII and today? (Flash-spotting, sound-ranging, aerial observation, reconnaissance etc etc
6. Modern uses. Coordinated aircraft / missile / naval gun attacks. Role partially performed differently today.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard Berkowitz

Apropos of fire direction for counterbattery, I have linked sections in three articles on MASINT. Start with Geophysical MASINT#Counterbattery and Countersniper Location and Ranging, then follow links to the relevant sections of Electro-optical MASINT#Tactical Counterartillery Sensors and Radar MASINT#Counterartillery Radar. "Counterfeedback" on the MASINT is very welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Changban

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know if this article has any possibility of being a GA or maybe a FA, and recommendations. Thanks, Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Everything has a possibility of making FA (eventually); but there's still quite a bit of work to be done here before you're really ready for that:

• Citations! An article that's not thoroughly cited stands no chance at all of passing FAC, or even GAN. I'd suggest focusing on this as your top priority.
• The repetition of names in the "Combatants" and "Commanders" fields in the infobox is somewhat clunky; I'd suggest, at the least, changing the combatants to be "Forces of Cao Cao" and "Forces of Liu Bei".
• The lead should be quite a bit longer.
• After the major issues are resolved, some thorough copyediting will likely be needed; there are some pretty rough spots in the prose.

Hope that helps! Kirill 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Military Revolution

Submitting request for Aryaman13. Kirill 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems heavily WP:ORish and needing a lot more citing(some paragraphs without anything at all). At the moment reads much more like a college(=university) essay than an encyclopaedia article. Buckshot06 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is a very good start, but I would tend to agree with Buckshot06: it still retains an overall structure and flow more suited to an essay than an article. A few more specific points that stand out:

• The "Origin of the concept" section is woefully incomplete. While Roberts was the first to propose a coherent thesis of the "Military Revolution" under that name, the general point that a revolutionary development in warfare had occurred in the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries was certainly made by historians before that point (F. L. Taylor and Charles Oman, for example). There's some potential for a longer section outlining the develompment of the concept up to and including Roberts' formal introduction of it, I think.
• A large part of the "Discussion on tactics" isn't, really. I would suggest breaking things apart into multiple sections on the different variations on the basic thesis (Roberts & tactics; Parker & geography; Hall and firearms per se; and so forth); some of these points are more technological than tactical, and trying to cover them all under a single heading is probably not the neatest way of approaching it. Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics may be a useful source for some more material on the technological side of the debate, incidentally.
• The "Discussion on size of armies" has an unduly prominent place, I think, given that it's only one of the concerns involved; I'd suggest pulling it into a somewhat more general section on the various historiographic issues involved in this debate. Alternately, it may have potential as an entirely separate article on the army sizes of the period; but it's not really the core of the military revolution thesis, I think, and should not overwhelm this particular article.
• The "Conclusion" section is entirely out of place; such general statements should be made in the introduction to the article.
• On a more technical note, the footnotes need some cleaning up, and should probably contain page numbers (or ranges) where possible.

Hope that helps! Kirill 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

Humbly submit this article for peer review. The article's subject is the most complex and difficult that I've edited yet and I really appreciate any inputs or suggestions anyone might have. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Narson

• A quick glance at it and it looks pretty good, the first thing to leep at me is 'civilian from...Kurdistan'. Kurdistan doesn't exist, they can be ethnic kurds from Iraq or Turkey or any of the other places the theoretical Kurdistan would encompass. I imagine it is referring to Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq there. Narson (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Might also be good to find a picture of any of the other non-military non-US 'victims'. Narson (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the feedback. I changed "Kurdistan" to "Kurdish community" with a wikilink to "Kurdish people". I haven't been able to find any pictures of the non-US victims. Cla68 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, as usual; just a few minor points:

• I'd suggest avoiding contractions ("didn't", "weren't", "couldn't", etc.); they're not really well-suited for a formal encyclopedia article, in my opinion.
• The positioning of the Commons box causes the two-column footnotes to leave a wide gap along the right margin, since they don't wrap around it properly; I suggest moving it down to the "Further reading" section.

Kirill 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Done and done. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article. I don't envy you the wiki workload you have at the moment. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)