Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2011/Failed
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
Contents
- 1 Failed
- 1.1 Battle of Radzymin (1920)
- 1.2 Battle of Bautzen (1945)
- 1.3 McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
- 1.4 United Nations Security Council Resolution 82
- 1.5 Polish Underground State
- 1.6 John Sherman Cooper
- 1.7 Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
- 1.8 May Revolution
- 1.9 Hawker Siddeley P.1154
- 1.10 Avro Vulcan
- 1.11 1689 Boston revolt
- 1.12 Battle of Vukovar
- 1.13 Sukhoi Su-33
- 1.14 Mark Satin
- 1.15 Action of 23 August 1967
- 1.16 James Cook
- 1.17 John Babcock
- 1.18 Disney bomb
- 1.19 Lockheed Have Blue
- 1.20 Sukhoi Su-37
- 1.21 McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
- 1.22 Battle of Ap Bac
- 1.23 List of Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds recipients
- 1.24 Relief of General Douglas MacArthur
- 1.25 Blockhaus d'Éperlecques
- 1.26 List of Field Marshals of the British Army
- 1.27 Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
- 1.28 Edinburgh Castle
- 1.29 Hawker Siddeley Harrier
- 1.30 Livonian War
- 1.31 History of the United States Navy
- 1.32 Iowa class battleship
- 1.33 Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty
- 1.34 Hughes Airwest Flight 706
- 1.35 Battle of Atlanta
- 1.36 Singapore strategy
- 1.37 Operation Iskra
- 1.38 Croatian War of Independence
- 1.39 Battle of Mughar Ridge
- 1.40 SMS Radetzky
- 1.41 Manhattan Project
- 1.42 Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article significantly in October. Following the failure at the B1 criterion, I decided to show it some more love and expanded it even further. It received a completely new citations system, lots of new sources, plenty of images and such. In the end, Adamdaley also helped a lot to improve the prose of the article and point the author to some inconsistencies that needed to be sorted out before the article goes public.
All in all, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA and eventually FA status, but I'd love to hear from military historians first. Is it good enough to receive A-class assessment? I certainly hope so. //Halibutt 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On a quick procedural note, GA are considered a lower class than A class, so one would usually go through a GA process before an A-class process. Also, both MILHIST and Poland projects have B-class review systems, which would be a good thing to do before GA. For Poland project, we try to provide feedback on a GA level, assuming that any article that goes through a B-class review will want to go to GA next. Anyway, a quick comment on the Battle of Radzymin and why it would fail a current and quick Poland B-class review: not enough citations. Aim to have each sentence referenced for GA/A, and at least each a paragraph for B-class. Wile I see much of the article referenced well, I also see occasionally entire paragraphs with no reference. Also, split notes from references (current ref 22 is a note). Oh, and: add categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input. I assumed that since the article failed only at B1 previously and it has been corrected already, there's no need to go in small steps.
- Feel free to mark any sentences you find in need of a reference with {{fact}} tag. It is indeed helpful. However, all of the article as it is was written with the sources that are already mentioned and I'm afraid finding more sources might be a tad problematic, as the topic is not that popular and there's not so many non-primary sources even in Polish language, let alone English. However, if using the same reference 120 times in an article is not against any rules, then it's fine with me.
- As to categories, we forgot to uncomment them :) //Halibutt 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My philosophy on references is that all of them should be referenced, unless they talk of something very obvious (WP:BLUE). PS. A similar opinion was expressed here, I believe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As to categories, we forgot to uncomment them :) //Halibutt 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned below, the problem is what is a no-brainer. Some facts are pretty much obvious to me, but they might not be that obvious to others. Hence the need to mark them as needing a citation. It's not a big deal and it would help me a lot. //Halibutt 14:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment:Hi, I can see a lot of work has gone into this article, and I commend you for it, but unfortunately IMO it currently does not meet the A-class criteria regarding referencing. Indeed it would not currently pass B class, where the minimum standard is one citation at the end of each paragaph. I would mark the article per your comment above, but to be honest, I think you might find it a little off putting to see so many "citation needed" tags. If you can fix this, I will try to take a more thorough look (apologies for what seems a dive-by review, but I will be very busy offline for the next two weeks). I will try to get back to check your progress, though, after that. Some other things to consider in the meantime are (these are just suggestions): some of the images might be left aligned for variation; the authors' names should probably be sorted by surname first (surname, first name) in the References; per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above the Citations; and endashes should be used for page ranges, etc. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As to surname first idea, I personally don't like it at all. As Wiki is not paper, traditional name indexing by surname makes little sense. Especially that the only way people would be trying to find the surnames from within the article would be by Ctrl+F. Interestingly, more and more paper publications also stick to the more natural name+surname scheme nowadays.
- As to citation needed tags, I really see nothing wrong with adding [citation needed] tags where needed. As a person pretty much knowledgeable about the topic, it is natural that I consider many things obvious. In fact more obvious than they are in reality. Hence probably I wouldn't feel the need to, say, source a paragraph about Piłsudski's plans for counter-offensive from the Wieprz River line. This is mentioned in every single book on the war of 1920, so for me it's pretty much a case of "sky is blue" thing. But it might not be as obvious to others. In other words: try me :)
- As to other issues, thanks for your ideas, I will try to make use of them. In fact most of the format suggestions have already been fixed (See also section, en dashes). I'm not sure what to do about the images, I like them on one side of the article as it helps the mobile users. If aligning some of them left is a necessity, I'd rather someone with a more standard screen did that. Otherwise they might show up just fine on my screen, but a mess on most screens.
- Anyway, be sure to come back to the article once you're less busy :) //Halibutt 13:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I've added the cite needed tags where I feel that they are needed as per your comment above. If you don't agree, pls simply revert. Regarding the format of surname first, I don't hold matters of personal style against an article at A-class so it doesn't affect my support or otherwise, but to be honest I can't really understand the arguments against it. Using surname first allows readers who want to treat it like paper (or are unable to break the habit) to do so while also allowing those that don't want to (and use CTRL+F to search) to do that. Using a first name followed by surname approach basically ignores those readers who wish to treat it like paper. I'm not sure what benefit that creates as you potentially alienate half your readers. Nevertheless, that is just my opinion. If you can add the extra citations where I've marked, I will come back and review the article against the other aspects of the A-class criteria. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done :) //Halibutt 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I've added the cite needed tags where I feel that they are needed as per your comment above. If you don't agree, pls simply revert. Regarding the format of surname first, I don't hold matters of personal style against an article at A-class so it doesn't affect my support or otherwise, but to be honest I can't really understand the arguments against it. Using surname first allows readers who want to treat it like paper (or are unable to break the habit) to do so while also allowing those that don't want to (and use CTRL+F to search) to do that. Using a first name followed by surname approach basically ignores those readers who wish to treat it like paper. I'm not sure what benefit that creates as you potentially alienate half your readers. Nevertheless, that is just my opinion. If you can add the extra citations where I've marked, I will come back and review the article against the other aspects of the A-class criteria. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions:further to the above, I've taken a quick look through the article and have the following copy edit suggestions. Feel free to ignore as you see fit:- "newly-arrived", "partially-preserved", "badly-needed", "baldy-coordinated": there probably shouldn't be a hyphen after the "ly" adverb (see MOS:HYPHEN);
- date format, e.g. "August 13th" - I don't think that there should be ordinal suffixes (in the subsection headings);
- structure: generally looks well structured to me, but I have one suggestion: split the "Aftermath" subsection of the Battle section into its own section with a level 2 heading per WP:MILMOS/C. This is by no means mandatory, but is a structure that has enjoyed considerable success;
- this sounds a little awkward to me: "A 19th century and early 20th century Russian-built ring of forts, part..." I suggest maybe trying: "A ring of 19th and early 20th century Russian-built forts, part..."
- in one of the image captions: "Although more than 100.000 people..." (I don't think using the decimal point here is correct. I believe that this is a European style, however, in many English-speaking countries this would not be recognised: "100,000" would be more appropriate in my opinion);
- "began at 0700 hours, but the 21st" per WP:MOSTIME, this should probably be "07:00 hours" (same with "1900 hours the town", "dispatch at 0100 hours", etc. - please look for other examples);
- this seems a little awkward: "Commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky..." I suggest adding a definate article, i.e. "The commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky";
- this doesn't quite sound right to me: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle have been" (specifically "conduct" doesn't agree with "have"). My suggestion is: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle has been..." AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hyphens
- Done Dates
- Aftermath - not sure. Technically it would be possible to split it onto August 16 and Aftermath sections. However, both would be very short. What do others think?
- Done 19th century forts...
- Done decimal point
- Done time of day
- Done definite article
- Done tense
- //Halibutt 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my concerns have been addressed or responded to, so I've added my support for this article to be promoted to A-class. Good work, Halibutt. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportive Comments on sourcing I was canvassed by a fellow editor to take a look at this article for citations. Citation and sourcing quality is what I do. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliography
- It is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite the sections of books that were relevant to the article topic in the bibliography. Similarly it is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite chapters in a work where the work has a single author, and chapters are not authored separately.
- It is normally considered courteous to provide translations of book titles, "Rok 1920." ==google translate==> "Year 1920." This allows editors like me to understand _why_ and _how_ a book is being used.
- Did "Godziemba" miss out when they were handing out names?
- I have real difficulty believing that these sources are reliable for history:
- Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper?
- Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book?
- Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher
- Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog.
- (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."?
- You need to go and check scholarly journals, this means journals that have a peer review structure. Google Scholar is a good __first__ step, but then you need to check that the journal itself meets scholarly standards. (Usually in their submission requirements, or guides for authors, they outline their peer review status).
- Text & citations
- Prelude is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class.
- The second para of Battlefield is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class
- The first para of Opposing forces, and the last (analytical) sentence in the second para are uncited…
- "though in fact there were only two." who are you reliant upon for this claim?
- Most of the 4th para of August 13th is uncited
- Najczuk, p. 1 is a web source. A reference to "p. 1" is not an adequate citation allowing for the location of the supporting element of the document as webpages aren't paginated. For short web documents (under 10 paragraphs) it is reasonable to expect a person to locate the evidence for themselves, just like it is reasonable to ask someone to search over about 10 pages in a page based citation by scanning for nouns etc... However, Najczuk is quite a long web document; we cite web documents like so:
- By section titles, "Blogs, Section: The running of the hares" or "Blogs, §"The running of the hares"; for multiple sections... "Blogs, Sections 1–3" "Blogs, §§"The running…"–"The hiding…"
- By paragraph number or starting phrase, "Blogs, Paragraphs 44–48", "Blogs, ¶¶"Once along the lane…"–"He ran swiftly for his…"
- In English "quotation" is used for quotes shorter than 3-4 lines (think a paragraph on the web), for paragraph citations we usually use blockquotes. Italics are not used. When you cite a primary source contained in a secondary source (ie: by using a quotation), you need to cite the secondary's citation of the primary, "Kevin Blogs said, 'I love my darling wife.' [fn] Blogs 14 January 1900 to Blogs, Jane as quoted in Eriksdaughter, The lives of the Blogs pp.14–16" [This is an exception to the strong no PRIMARY use in history articles, but is an illustrative, not a demonstrative use, see WP:HISTRS which is in beta].
- Is the italics in "The Polish HQ at Warsaw was petrified to hear of the complete destruction of the 19th [Lithuanian-Belarusian] Division, a report that fortunately for the Poles proved to be false." emphasis or quotation? If so is it a quotation from a primary source or a secondary source's scholarly opinion? If it is emphasis, why should wikipedia editorialise emphasis here?
- This is not an exhaustive list of criticisms, but a demonstrative list. Apply the principles behind the above to the rest of the document: quotation by English language style, proper attribution, scholarly sources, citation of sources that allow you to make claims.
- Bibliography
- It isn't a B article yet, but it is an important battle, and will make an excellent contribution to the encyclopaedia's best content after polishing the claims and the writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the extensive list. I already fixed most of those in the article (check the recent changes; my personal fork of your list above is located here). Most of them were easy. However, I have trouble with point 1.1 (citing sections). What is it that you want me to do? Cite names of chapters if there are any? Or not cite them?
As to reliability of particular sources:
- Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper? - will get rid of it, not that the fact it was sourcing was anything controversial anyway
- Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book? - it's a yearly journal published in Minsk Mazowiecki. The article in question was authored by the same guy who wrote the 1990 Bitwa Warszawska 1920 roku [Battle of Warsaw of 1920]. Apart from being a specialist in this area (a military historian), he (pl:Janusz Odziemkowski) is also a professor at the Academy of General Staff, former head of the Military Historical Bureau of the Polish Army, former head of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites and, most importantly, a well-established author. So, if you asked me, I find his works pretty reliable. Of course, if you really, really insist I could for instance replace citations leading to his 2000 article with, say, his 1990 book. However, it would be time consuming and wouldn't change anything much.
- Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher - looking for a replacement. Odziemkowski mentions 3040 "killed, wounded and missing" without breaking this number up. Any ideas?
- Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog. - This is a citation from a book. Replaced it with a ref to the actual book.
- (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."? - I strongly believe Mówią Wieki is a reliable and reputable source. While somewhat "light" (you wouldn't find doctorate theses published there in extenso, rather 20 page excerpts), it is certainly a well-established historical journal, with more than half a century of history, strict publishing rules, published by the most respected Polish publishing house specialising in recent history (Bellona) and previously by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN, the most respected Polish publisher of academic publications. As to the google translation above, "student" in Polish means "university student", younger people are "pupils" and "młodzież szkolna" is literally "school-going youth", ie. college students in English, not pre-school kids :)
Let me know should you see any more problems with the article. //Halibutt 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Chapters in Books where the Book is sole authored. For example: Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia. We can simply cite it as Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia p7 in a footnote; or Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia in the bibliography. However, where there is one chapter which deals solely or overwhelmingly with the article's subject it is valid to cite it as Fifelfoo. "Citations". My love of Wikipedia. pp. 15–30.. The issue here is what is the appropriate courtesy to the reader? What style do you as the author like? Chapters aren't essential, for instance, if we use material from two chapters of my hypothetical book, or my entire book is called citations...
- I'm only commenting where I need to disagree, or explain my agreement with your actions below:
- " Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki " concur that as a published academic/professional historian Odziemkowski can publish his opinion on the Battle of Warsaw and attendant battles wherever he likes and it'll be a high quality reliable source. (See WP:HISTRS for advice on how to determine if someone is an expert historian, you did it exactly right).
- If the highest quality source, Odziemkowski, covers the casualty total as 3040 without breaking it up, then we might want to follow his lead on this, "3040 total casualties, including wounded and missing"?
- Kożuchowski: perfect, citing the book is far better than the blog
- Szczepański—I had a double problem with this source. English language glossy magazines of history tend to be appalling. Their audience tends to have a naïve conception of history-as-fixed-facts, their authors can occasionally be good, but they write to their audience. I understand (from Hungarian experience) that Central European intellectual culture does differ…but I also understand that the popular journals for people acting like intelligentsia are often well below scholarly standards. This source seems to suffer from a combination of both problems. (As an aside, Oxford University Press publishes a lot of stuff aimed at collegiate / undergraduate students; much of which isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia). This one I really need to leave to you to determine because my ability to read Polish (pl-google-translate) isn't up to the task of determining the quality of the source. I'd suggest you read the spirit behind WP:HISTRS and then make your own evaluation about the quality, if it is scholarly, or popular, and how far you should rely on it. Given your responses above I trust you to make this value judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid points, but sometimes MW is the only source for a given piece of information. While it would be nice to be able to use academic works, in case of Poland, little of that is accessible online. Which I know is hardly a perfect excuse, but if given a choice of using MW as a reference or not adding content to Wikipedia, I am inclined to use MW. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me
A very recent GA of mine, I think it is A-class as well. It had recent copyediting, everything is reliably cited, should be comprehensive, and we even have maps. Ok, Polish maps, but new and freely licensed, and if somebody has skills to localize them into English, I can gladly provide translation assistance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Enjoyed reading it. A few minor comments:
- The sections in brackets in the lead (e.g. " (despite the heavy casualties, the Polish–Soviet frontline was not seriously breached)," could easily be rewritten without the brackets, which would make the flow easier. (I can help reword if you need me to).
- " It is also sometimes called the last successful German tank operation of World War II." - I know its the lead, but you may want to explain who calls it this (e.g. "historians" etc.)
- Background - this section could helpfully explain which bit of the war we're in. (e.g. "At the end of the Second World War...") At the moment it assumes quite a lot of knowledge by the typical reader.
- "according to Komornicki," - always worth explaining who people are when you do this (e.g. "according to the historian Komornicki...")
- "Overall, the German units were less numerous than the Polish forces..." - less numerous (i.e. they had x regiments, the Polish had more than x regiments), or did they have less men, or both? This is important, as unit sizes varied considerably by the end of the war.
- "They also succeeded to free the surrounded forces in Bautzen and this "victory" was trumpeted by German propaganda in an attempt to strengthen the German will to hold out. Bautzen and large parts of Saxony remained in German hands until the end of the war." - lacks a reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed minor issues. The unreferenced claims come mostly from an addition by another editor which I missed till now ([1]); I asked him to add inline citations. If any German speaker would like to help with that, please do; I cannot and if the editor in question does not answer I may have to move all of his additions to talk. This would be a shame, as the German historiographical perspective is valuable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments/suggestions:interesting article, here are some suggestions:- in the infobox: "6,500 according to contemporary Polish sources" (6,500 killed, or killed and wounded? If the sources don't say, perhaps just say "6,500 casualties");
- in the lead (and also in Opposing forces section): "form of the remnants of the 4th Panzer and 17th armies on the other..." ("armies" should probably be capitalised here, as it is part of a proper noun);
- in the lead: "situated primarily along the Bautzen-Niesky line" (the hyphen here should probably be an endash);
- in the lead: "Combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26. Isolated engagements took place until April 30". This is slightly confusing, perhaps tweak slightly: "Major combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26 although isolated engagements continued to take place until April 30."
- in the Opposing forces section: "and the 600th Infantry Division (of the Russian Liberation Army) - around 50,000 men" (the hypen should probably be an endash);
- in the Polish retreat section: "however, 9th remained near Dresden" (probably needs "the" before "9th");
- in the Polish retreat section: "Świerczewski for a while was out of communication with his superiors". This might sound smoother as: "For a while Świerczewski was out of communication with his superiors..."
- in the Polish retreat section: "line Kamenz-Kuckau-north Bautzen-Spree-Spreewiese-Heideanger" (the hyphens probably should be endashes);
- as per above here: "forming a line toward Kamenz-Doberschütz-Dauban";
- there is some date format inconsistency, for instance "21–30 April 1945" (in the infobox) and "24 April" (in the Polish retreat section), but also "April 17" (in Background), "April 21" (in lead), etc. It should probably be consistent;
- in the Notes there are three different date formats used: "April 15, 1945", "15.4.1945" and "20 April";
- there might be an English variation issue: for instance use of "kilometres" (British English) and "armoured" (British English), but "Mechanized", "armored" and "stabilize" (US English);
- in the Notes section: "Wawer and Solak are certainly mistaken in the case of the 2nd SS Panzer Division". Is this a Wiki editor's interpretation, or is there a source for this? I think it might need a citation;
- "Army Group Center", but also "Army Group Centre" (inconsistent spelling);
- watch out for overlink "Army Group Center" is linked in the Background section, but then in Opposing forces "Army Group Center" is linked. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most issues fixed. Can somebody with a dash script run it and fix the dashes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been addressed so I've added my support. Good work. Thank you for your contribution to the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most issues fixed. Can somebody with a dash script run it and fix the dashes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- No dab links [2].
- External links all check out [3] (no action required).
- Images all have Alt Text [4] (no action required).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals one error:
- Ahlfen, p. 208 (Multiple references contain the same content)
- The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
- Prose here: "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front in World War II...", consider instead "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front during World War II." (suggestion only)
- Missing word here I think: "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive...", consider instead "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, which was part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive."
- Missing word here: "Polish historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "Polish historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
- "General Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army...", should be "Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army..." removing rank at second use following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
- Tense here: "The events of April 21 mark the beginning of this battle...", consider "The events of April 21 marked the beginning of this battle."
- Are these redlinks correct: "Soviet 14th and Soviet 95th Guards Rifle"? Rifle what? Division? Corps? I think there might be a word missing here.
- Is this a typo: "The Soviet 294th Rifle Rivision was encircled..."? Should this be Soviet 294th Rifle Division?
- Prose here: "Bronikowski then lost no time and ordered an attack into Bautzen immediately...", consider instead "Bronikowski then lost no time and immediately ordered an attack into Bautzen."
- "...they also secured a road to Königswartha...", would this work better as "...they also secured the road to Königswartha..."?
- Grammer here: "...the remaining personnel was merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division", this should be "...the remaining personnel were merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division."
- "...on the raging battle in Berlin...", perhaps instead "...on the battle raging in Berlin..."
- Missing word here: "The historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "The historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
- "...critical of General Świerczewski's command, blaming...", should be "...critical of Świerczewski's command, blaming..." per WP:SURNAME.
- This is unclear to me: "...could have been such that he commanded the battle while drunk...", perhaps instead "...could have been because he commanded the battle while drunk..." (or something similar).
- Citations seem inconsistent to me. In some you use short citations (e.g. Ahlfen, p. 208) and in others more detailed citations (e.g. John Erickson (10 June 1999). The road to Berlin. Yale University Press. p. 591. ISBN 978-0-300-07813-8. Retrieved 11 May 2011.). Probably best to be consistent. Consider formating per the guidance in WP:CITESHORT? Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues addressed, but for the last one. Other editors have added refernnces since and they don't seem to want to respect previous standards. Frankly, I am sorry, but I don't really want to fix their mess time and again (see Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)#unreferenced_additions_re_German_historiography for example). If you could, please identify who added those references and ask them to fix the style - I'd appreciate it very much (and perhaps if you were to ask, they would realize it is not just me bugging them all the time). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Piotr. Those changes look good to me. Regarding the references: I know its a little painful but you might just need to do this yourself, I'd give it a go but I really have no knowledge of the sources used and do not want to introduce inaccuracies. Happy with you using the long citation format (although I personnaly prefer short citations), just as long as they are used consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have simply asked us on the article talkpage, instead of complaining on other pages about that other editors dont use your citation style. StoneProphet (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would; I am just not really used to others doing things. Thanks for a nice surprise, and helping out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have simply asked us on the article talkpage, instead of complaining on other pages about that other editors dont use your citation style. StoneProphet (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Piotr. Those changes look good to me. Regarding the references: I know its a little painful but you might just need to do this yourself, I'd give it a go but I really have no knowledge of the sources used and do not want to introduce inaccuracies. Happy with you using the long citation format (although I personnaly prefer short citations), just as long as they are used consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues addressed, but for the last one. Other editors have added refernnces since and they don't seem to want to respect previous standards. Frankly, I am sorry, but I don't really want to fix their mess time and again (see Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)#unreferenced_additions_re_German_historiography for example). If you could, please identify who added those references and ask them to fix the style - I'd appreciate it very much (and perhaps if you were to ask, they would realize it is not just me bugging them all the time). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks gentlemen. All my comments have been addressed so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on sources (mostly tune ups prior to FAC, none opposeable) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated your "Further reading" to the same template format as your body, similarly a minor fix on one parameter displaying incorrectly
- My edition (the edition linked to) shows Frank Cass as the publisher? "Aleksander A. Maslov; David M. Glantz (30 September 1998). Fallen Soviet generals: Soviet general officers killed in battle, 1941–1945. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7146-4790-6. Retrieved 12 May 2011."
- "Ministry of National Defense Pub" You may need to specify which nation's prior to FAC
- Obviously if taking this to FAC you'd need to double check all the publishers and locations, as these don't meet the FAC consistency requirement yet
- You may have problems with FAC with the level of reliance on a history newspaper, polska-zbrojna, and the HQRS requirement. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if we can add Poland to the Ministry publisher without changing the official name... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning oppose
- You've got some significant support already, but I'm not really ready to support an article with 49 citations from a single web page (polska-zbrojna.pl), which doesn't look like a reliable source to me. And since its in Polish (did you translate it?) its more problematic to review. Combine that with Poles in the battle of Berlin and you have over 50% of your citations from two sources.
- Polska Zbrojna is a military hist magazine, the article is by a notable historian (Zbigniew Wawner; here is a review of his book with some bio info, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have some of your 'further information' sources in the references section already. Did you copy the further information section from the German Wikipedia article?
- Yes. I have no reason to to AGF that selection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was the other way around - it matches almost exactly except this article uses templates and the other one doesn't. Kirk (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I have no reason to to AGF that selection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add some translations of the book titles in the references.- Added Polish translations. German ones should likely be done by a German speaker]
- The translation of "It was one of the most bloody battles that the Polish Army had ever been involved in." need some copy editing, but its at least cited. For starters, please review the List of battles by casualties article and reword 'most bloody battle(s)' to something more factual. Kirk (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure I understand your point here. I am simply repeating the claim per sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting back to my first point, its cited from a source with no references, so we have no way of verifying if its true or not. And what's his definition of 'bloody' battle is - is it another way of saying 'casualties', is it a total number, a percentage, etc.? What was the second most bloody battle of the Polish Army? Kirk (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure I understand your point here. I am simply repeating the claim per sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed per request of nominator here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior nomination here.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I'd like to see this article go through to FAC. It had already gone through an unsuccessful ACR and FAC before, and I think it is the right time to give the article another go at ACR. My aim (obviously) of this nomination is to raise the article's quality to FA. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcey stuff Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chapter title, Chapter author? Eden, Paul, ed (2004). The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft.
- Added chapter. No authors were provided to any of the chapters.
- There was recently a warning regarding FACs and small or speciality presses. Are any of the sources you're reliant upon published by non-commercial (hobbyist, consider "Osprey" as an example of a commercial press), or self-publishing presses? If so, what strategies have you used regarding these texts?
- I would hardly consider Specialty Press to be a small press, because it has published hundreds of detailed books on many subjects.
- Miscited, see internal characteristics of the cached copy on google, also consider archiving—I can't access the original (also Characteristics misspelt?): "Standard Aircraft Charateristics: Navy Model AV-8B Harrier II Aircraft" (PDF). US Navy.
- Appears to be a magazine, cite as such: Adams, Charlotte (14 December 1997). "Voice-recognition technology: Waiting to exhale". Federal Computer Week.
- Again, poorly cited, see internal characteristics of cached,—protip: institutions can be authors too, document titles aren't the publisher, the lowest institutional unit claiming responsibility is normally the author / publisher respectively "Navy Model: AV-8B Harrier II Aircraft" (PDF). Naval Air Systems Command. October 1986.
- What makes this military industrial lobby group reliable, especially when they have no named editor? "AV-8B Harrier". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
- There's a date, author, and small unit identification on this one: "USS Peleliu (LHA 5) Operation Enduring Freedom". US Navy. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
- There's an author: From Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs: "Navy, Marine Corps Aircraft Strike Libya" (Press release). US Navy. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2011.
- NOCAPS: "FARNBOROUGH
- Done.
- Chapter title, Chapter author? Eden, Paul, ed (2004). The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft.
Oppose at this stage:
- I've worked through a fair bit of this - the major issues for me are the amount of technical language in the text. I've given some examples below - the key for improving this carefully researched article for me would be to put yourself in the position of a non-technical reader. Imagine you don't know anything about planes; perhaps you've been on an passenger jet, but that's about it. Could you read through most of the article and understand it without clicking multiple links? I've given some examples below, along with some minor typo points etc.:
- The lead would require the unfamiliar reader to click on a lot of links; " vertical/short takeoff and landing ", for example, appears in the first sentence - if you didn't know that this means the aircraft is able to able to take-off or land vertically or to use short runways, you'd have to click on the link. I'd advise seeing if some of these terms could be expanded out to help the non-specialist reader.
- "Since mergers in the 1990s," - you'll want to clarify these mean corporate mergers, not project mergers.
- Done.
- " The aircraft took part in combat in Iraq again during the Iraq War beginning in 2003" - repetition of Iraq.
- Done.
- "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), it became increasingly apparent that they were handicapped in range and payload, and in 1973 Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas began joint development of a more capable version of the Harrier." - a very long sentence, worth splitting in two.
- Done.
- "A joint American and British team completed a document defining an Advanced Harrier with the Pegasus 15 engine in December 1973." - "Defining" is used in a specialist manner here, worth finding an alternative term.
- How is defining is used in a specialist manner?
- A project definition (which is what this is referring to, I think) means describing a user requirement and characteristics (e.g. an aircraft able to do x, y and z). For most, a "definition" is a description of what a word means. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The main source for this (Jenkins, p. 69) calls it "project definition document".
So I think you need a better reason for changing the word.Handled -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The main source for this (Jenkins, p. 69) calls it "project definition document".
- A project definition (which is what this is referring to, I think) means describing a user requirement and characteristics (e.g. an aircraft able to do x, y and z). For most, a "definition" is a description of what a word means. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Advanced Harrier was unofficially named "AV-16", with the aim of doubling the AV-8's payload and range capabilities." - I don't think it was was unofficially named this in order to double the AV-8's payload; rather, because they aimed to double the capabilities, they named it the AV-16.
- Done. Good point.
- "The British government pulled out of the project in March 1975 due to decreased defense funding, rising costs, and a small 60-aircraft order by the RAF." -Who did they order 60 aircraft from?
- It was originally requirement, but someone wanted me to change it to order. Reverted. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the baseline structure " - what's a baseline structure in this context?
- Changed to basic structure.
- "In 1981, the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget and five-year defense plan, after attempts within the DoD and United States Navy (USN) to terminate the program between 1978 and 1980." - I'd reverse the sentence, starting in 1978 and moving forward to 1981.
- No would not do that, because it would not make sense to the reader. If I changed it, it would mean the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget as a result of attempts by the USN and people within DoD to terminate it, which is incorrect. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking more of "There were attempts within the DoD and United States Navy (USN) to terminate the program between 1978 and 1980, but in 1981 the DoD included the Harrier II in its annual budget and five-year defense plan." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "40%" - under MOS, should be "40 percent"
- Done.
- " the new design be verified with flight hardware" - I don't know what this means
- "be practically verified with flight hardware" If you've read the next sentence, the sentence would be clearer what "flight hardware" meant. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be difficult, but "flight hardware" remains unclear: the later sentences suggest it involves wings and engines, but this isn't a common phrase; I'm used to "hardware" versus "software" in my day job, to be honest. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it sure looked that way. That part been reworded some more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be difficult, but "flight hardware" remains unclear: the later sentences suggest it involves wings and engines, but this isn't a common phrase; I'm used to "hardware" versus "software" in my day job, to be honest. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the modified forward fuselage and cockpit were not incorporated" - I might have missed it, but have these been mentioned previously?
- No.
- If we're talking about "the" something, it implies its already been mentioned. If you put "a", it would imply it wasn't already mentioned.Hchc2009 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "greater than expected drag," - again, "drag" is a term that new readers may not be familiar with.
- I've talked to Hchc2009 about this. --Sp33dyphil © •
© 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This bit of the discussion is at User talk:Hchc2009#Comments at AV-8B ACR btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " the use of a digital cockpit instead of the analog cockpit" - again, worth explaining what both of these are
- "72 rebuilt aircraft" - rebuilt from what?
- " eight examples" - does example have a specialist meaning here? (e.g. a test aircraft, or a trial aircraft?)
- Changed to aircraft.
- " horizontal stabilizers" - what are these?
- Linked.
- "prominent anhedral" - linked, I know, but few readers will know what these are, or be able to guess by context - worth explaining in the main text
- No, someone will complain that it is UNDUE.
- "four synchronized vectorable nozzles (two cold forward, two hot aft)" - ditto, would be worth helping the novice reader here
- The latter section has been copy-edited. I would've thought that the front section can be figured out with common sense; in any case, I don't know how to explain it.
- "one centerline and six wing hardpoints" - centerline can be guessed by context (along the centre of the plane?) but could be explained
- Sorry, if I add all these definitions, someone will complain about its being intricate and undue.
- " two fuselage stations" -what's a fuselage station?
- Changed.
- "by delaying drag rise " - what's drag rise?
- A rise in drag.
- "automatic maneuvering flaps and drooped ailerons" - what's an automatic maneuvering flap?
- "leading-edge root extension " - again, linked, but not likely to be familiar to most readers so worth explaining in main text
- Explained -- please check.
- " the outriggers were moved from the wingtip to mid-span for a tighter turning radius when taxiing." What's an outrigger?
- Explained.
- " hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control principle, and deliberately engineered lateral stability make the aircraft fundamentally easier to fly" - but not necessarily to read; many will be wondering why the pilot's hands aren't on the stick to start with, and what lateral stability is, and why you wouldn't wish to deliberately engineer it in the first place! :)
- Please, you're not reading the HOTAS article, where all the explanations are supposed to be.
- "The pilots sit on UPC/Stencel 10B zero-zero ejection seats, meaning that they are able to eject in a stationary aircraft at zero altitude" - not clear to me (as a non-pilot) why a pilot would wish to be able to eject from the ground from a stationary aircraft (might be worth a footnote).
- " early trialling of Direct Voice Input (DVI) " - not sure what this is.
- Explained.
- "to accommodate the second cockpit" - what second cockpit?
- The TAV-8B is a derivative of the AV-8B and has two cockpits, instead of one.
- " increases in chord and height." I've no idea what a chord is in this context.
- Added "(length of the wing's root)" -- please check.
- "this is effective after sunset when the objects' rates of cooling are different" - different from what? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
Comments
- McDonnell Douglas' facilities in Missouri spanned multiple cities/unincorporated areas in the St. Louis metro area, but none of them were in 'St. Louis'. I recall the AV8B production building was Berkeley, Missouri but a lot of the other manufacturing buildings were in Hazelwood, Missouri; you probably could find the address. Do all your sources have St. Louis as the location? An easy fix is to replace 'St. Louis' with 'Missouri'. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources list "St. Louis" if they mention the location. The main facilities are at St. Louis' Lambert airport, which is actually outside of the city limits. No need to be so precise here though, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you are citing sources, but they are wrong and I don't think we should propagate wrong information in A/FA articles. Some suggestions: for something that specifies the facility the first time i.e. Aircraft production would occur at McDonnell Douglas' facilities in St. Louis, Missouri... I would say suburban St. Louis... then later I would not specify the location, i.e. St. Louis production line Engineers at St. Louis I would omit St. Louis. If you list multiple locations, McDonnell Douglas' St. Louis plant, CASA's facility in Seville, Spain, and Alenia's production plant in Turin, Italy. I recommend Missouri. You should also be careful about mixing 'plant' and 'facility' in one sentence.
- Per WP:MILPOP I recommend deleting the popular culture section and move that content to a new article for Harrier/AV8B in fiction which you can link in the hatnote. Both things you mentioned I would consider trivial. Kirk (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section has been trimmed, but it really followed MilPop before as there were not numerous entries present. Hatnotes are supposed to be for disambigious pages and the like. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources list "St. Louis" if they mention the location. The main facilities are at St. Louis' Lambert airport, which is actually outside of the city limits. No need to be so precise here though, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on international relations which chiefly concerns the Korean War. Let me know if anything is missing, as once again no other articles of this type have been promoted before. —Ed!(talk) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to close I'd like to take another look at this article and make a few more fixes and expansions to it before bringing it to ACR again. —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It's great to see a good quality article on this kind of topic. I don't think that this is at A-class level yet though, and I have the following comments:
- The first sentence of the article "United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 was a measure drafted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950." is a bit weak - the key feature of the resolution was that it was adopted, not that it was drafted.
- Switched words. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the democratic Republic of Korea under Syngman Rhee" - I don't think that Rhee's government qualifies as being called "democratic" in any meaningful sense
- Reworded to reflect the situation a little better. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'United Nations' is linked twice in the 'Division of Korea' section, and should be abbreviated to UN after its first appearance
- When was General Assembly Resolution 112 passed?
- Reworded. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "North Korea sent a letter to the UN denying the legality of its activities" - should this be "denying the illegality of its activities"?
- No, the North Koreans were saying that the UN was illegal. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The attack was particularly to Truman" - what's meant by this? - I think that there might be some words missing
- Added a word. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth expanding upon the Soviet Union's attitude to the UN and its security council at this time as this was rather important and involved more than just "procedural disagreements"
- "US President Harry S. Truman ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to connect with US Army General of the Army Douglas Macarthur, who was in charge of US forces in the Far East." - what's meant by 'connect'? Was MacArthur not talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It seems a bit colloquial when applied to a military chain of command.
- Reworded. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should briefly explain what Security Council Resolution 88 involved.
- Do you mean 83? If so, fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea" - which UN-member countries other than the US sent troops into Korea within days of the UN authorising this? I thought it took several months for non-US ground troops to arrive. Various British Commonwealth countries had warships off Korea shortly after the war began, and the Australian No. 77 Squadron RAAF flew sorties out of Japan, but these weren't "troops".
- Changed to "Within days, ships and aircraft from several nations, as well as the first major formations of US troops, were moving into South Korea" to reflect this better. The first major British ground unit was the 27th Commonwealth Brigade but they weren't on the ground in Korea until about September. Major formations of US troops were there within a week. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Colum Lynch, and why do his views need a full paragraph? Have any other foreign relations writers or historians discussed the significance and results of this resolution? The wording of the paragraph on Lynch's views is also uncomfortably close to what's in his article at times.
- To my great frustration, I can't find any subsequent analysis of the resolution other than "it was a victory for the US" and what Lynch wrote. I've been looking for anything else I can find breaking down the merits of the resolution in hindsight. As for the wording, as complicated as the issue is, I'm having trouble wording coherent alternatives. —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made spot checks of Appleman 1998, and turned up a fair few problems I'm afraid:
- References 1b and 1c don't support what's cited to them - it appears that you need to cite a broader page range of Appleman 1998, as page 2 (of the online version, at least) doesn't support all that material.
- Hmm. I put those there without looking because the GA reviewer wanted the cites repeated every sentence. Ganged page numbers to 5 and 4, respectively. —Ed!(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 2 doesn't support what's cited to it
- Changed it to page 5. —Ed!(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The online version of Appleman doesn't match up with what's cited to page 36 in references 10a and 10b (this appears to discuss only the US response to the start of the war)
- Changed it to page 35. —Ed!(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appleman, p. 37 states only that the resolution was "amended", and so doesn't support the statement that it received only "minor amendments". The reference also doesn't state how long the discussion took, so doesn't support the statement that "The UNSC debated the resolution briefly"
- Made the wording vage to satisfy the source. —Ed!(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appleman p. 38 doesn't directly support the statement that "North Korea virtually ignored the resolution, and none of its military forces were slowed or halted; its government gave no response" - the relevant page on the online version is focused on the US mobilisation and further UNSC actions, and mentions the North Koreans only in passing. It doesn't mention whether the North Koreans did or did not respond to the resolution. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm taking that statement out until I can find the reference that makes that assertion. —Ed!(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References 1b and 1c don't support what's cited to them - it appears that you need to cite a broader page range of Appleman 1998, as page 2 (of the online version, at least) doesn't support all that material.
- The first sentence of the article "United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 was a measure drafted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950." is a bit weak - the key feature of the resolution was that it was adopted, not that it was drafted.
- Comments
- In addition to what Nick says, which I endorse. Unlike Nick, I have a hard copy of Appleman. It matches the online copy.
- The newly-formed United Nations recognized the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country Firstly, the UN was formed back in 1945. Secondly, it did not recognise the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country, but only of the part where elections were held (ie South Korea). Not surprisingly, your source does not back up your assertion.
- I see. Re-reading the source material, I think I just misunderstood the sentence, "The General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 December 1948 recognized the lawful nature of the government of the Republic of Korea and recommended that the occupying powers withdraw their forces from Korea "as early as practicable." Removed that sentence. —Ed!(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the UN stated in General Assembly Resolution 195 on December 12, 1948, that the nation was to be established under the South Korean government as soon as possible No, the UN very definitely did not do that. The Republic of Korea was recognised only as the legitimate government of South Korea.
- Fixed to "one government" per the above misunderstanding. —Ed!(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- just as similar incidents had brought on the second world war Capitalise "second world war".
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Soviet Union's delegate had boycotted all UN meetings because of procedural disagreements earlier in the year. Soviet diplomat Yakov Malik had been personally ordered not to attend the UNSC meetings It is not made clear that Malik was the Soviet ambassador to the UN.
- Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He authorized MacArthur to send ammunition and supplies to the Seoul-Kimpo area escorted by US military units This fails to inform the reader that said ammunition and supplies were in fact already en route. Also, they were bound for Pusan, not Seoul-Kimpo. You have misread Appleman, p. 38
- Fixed and clarified. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the ineffectiveness of the warning What warning? UNSCR 82? On North Korea?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 I know the reader can click, but you should say what this was about.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea True, at least the part about the US troops; but very misleading. Truman had ordered them in before UNSCR 83 was adopted. This would later be held up as an important precedent for US action without UN approval.
- Reworded this per above. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I note in passing that Colum Lynch (the Washington Post's UN correspondent) gets it wrong; UNSCR 82 did not cause the Soviets to return and start vetoing.)
- I think he's not referring just to UNSCR 82 but 83, 84 and the other resolutions related to Korea which aligned the UN against Soviet interests. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote from Truman may lead the reader into the impression that the UNSC endorsed his reasoning, but it did not.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You pass over the legality of Truman's actions.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other things I qwould like to see in the article: At the moment it seems rather America-centric. I would like more about the reaction of countries to the resolution, particularly the Britain and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me
As long as I am doing A-class review requests, here is another of my recent GAs that I think is A-class worthy. Reliably sourced, comprehensive, and went through c/e-ing for the GA. Comments appreciated! (And I'll stop at those three for now :) ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:very interesting article. Although I can see a lot of work has been done, I don't think it is quite ready yet; probably only needs a copy edit, though. These are the issues I found:- images lack alt text; it is not a requirement at A-class, but it may be beneficial adding it in;
- in Note b: "Certainly, Polish resistance was the largest resistance till German invasion of Yugoslavia and invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941". This might sound smoother as: "Certainly, Polish resistance was the largest resistance until the German invasion of Yugoslavia and invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941" (emphasis added only to highlight suggested changes);
- in the lead "Soviet Union" is linked twice, which is probably not necessary;
- the duplicate links tool reveals possible overlinking of many terms, including: Eastern Front, Soviet Union, London, Government Delegation for Poland, Stefan Rowecki, Polish Committee for National Liberation, fall of communism, Armia Krajowa, and others;
- inconsistent presentation: "Research into activities of the underground state" (specifically the use of lower case "underground state", when elsewhere you use capitals);
- the year ranges should probably have endashes, but its not really a warstoper;
- inconsistent presentation: "the sanacja regime" and then "prewar Sanacja regime" (specifically the capitalisation of "sanacja");
- "National Council (Rada Narodowa) was formed by the..." (should probably be "The National Council (Rada Narodowa) was formed by the...");
- this seems awkward to me: "Eastern borders, as delineated by the 1921 Treaty of Riga, would be kept by Poland and the country should be compensated in the north and west by German territories, according to the plan". Perhaps try: "According to the plan, the country's Eastern borders, as delineated by the 1921 Treaty of Riga, would be kept while in the north and west compensation would be sought from German territories";
- "the nationwide uprising, the Operation Tempest" (probably don't need "the" before "Operation Tempest");
- "In addition to the costly and eventually failed" (this might sound smoother as: "In addition to the costly and ultimately unsuccessful...";
- incorrect tense: "that the Polish government-in-exile in London is not representing Polish interests". Perhaps try: "that the Polish government-in-exile in London was not representing Polish interests...";
- "Mikołajczyk would serve in prime minister's role till 24 November 1944". Might sound better as: "Mikołajczyk would serve in the prime minister's role until 24 November 1944";
- "its leaders and soldiers on "liberated" Polish territories". Should be "its leaders and soldiers in "liberated" Polish territories...";
- "12-point declaration demanding that the Soviet army leaves Poland and the repression of the non-communist political parties is ceased..." Should be "12-point declaration demanding that the Soviet army leave Poland and the repression of the non-communist political parties cease"
- this appears to be missing something, "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted to form an opposition, threatened with arrests, retired or emigrated". Perhaps try: "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted to form an opposition were threatened with arrests, retired or emigrated";
- inconsistent date format: "disbanded on January 19, 1945" but elsewhere "27 June 1945". This should be consistent;
- "Remains of the armed resistance", perhaps try: "Remnants of the armed resistance..."
- this appears to be missing something: "surrender to the communist regime continued for several years as the cursed soldiers, fighting the Soviet-backed communist forces until eradicated". Perhaps try: "surrender to the communist regime continued to hold out for several years as the cursed soldiers, fighting the Soviet-backed communist forces until eradicated";
- inconsistent capitalisation: "as the top military and civilian authority, recognized by the authorities of the underground state as their commanders" (of the underground state, everywhere else it has been presented in capitalisation);
- "The main role of the civilian branch of the underground state was to" (as above);
- is this correct: "worth at least several divisions (or close to a million soldiers)"? How large was a division in the German Army? In the Australian Army (sorry, that's all I know), in WWII a division was about 18,000 men. Thus "several divisions" (meaning about three or four divisions) would be no where near one million men. What I'm saying here is that the term "several divisions" is too vague. Maybe if the sources say, you could include the exact number of divisions. If not, maybe delete the reference to several divisions and just go with the "close to a million soldiers" clause. Looking at Armia_Krajowa#cite_note-Pogonowski-16, I think that the upper cap is from ICP, but I cannot verify it right now.
- You are right, this was inconsistent. This source confirms several divisions, ICP which I was able to find and verify notes claims "up to 930,000 soldiers"; I've clarified this in text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 10:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939-45 had come from Polish sources." Slightly awkward, perhaps try: "43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939-45 came from Polish sources".
- I'm happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Issues fixed or addressed above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 10:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added my support. Before taking it to FAC, I recommend asking someone with a copy editor's eye to take a look, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Issues fixed or addressed above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 10:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not promoted --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although Cooper won the Bronze Star Medal while serving under George Patton in World War II, he is probably best known for his diplomatic and legislative careers. He was Ambassador to India and to East Germany during the Cold War, and while in the Senate, he broke with the Republican Party in opposing escalation of the Vietnam War, so this review may also appeal to folks interested in these periods. The article has undergone a peer review, and the reviewer opined that it was FA-worthy. However, since I have another article at WP:FAC right now,
I thought I'd list it for A-class here to get some more feedback in the meantime. I appreciate all of your comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing and citation quality is good except for: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really reluctant to accept TIME from the 1950s for statements like this, "The Cooper family had been prominent in the Somerset area since brothers Malachi and Edward Cooper migrated from South Carolina along the Wilderness Trail and through the Cumberland Gap shortly after Daniel Boone." This, "While his father was away on business in Texas, his mother sent him to sixth grade at the public school, which he attended thereafter." is a more credible use of TIME. I'd like a response about how valid you think TIME in the 1950s is as a local historian or family historian?
- This information was in another source I used as well, but I forget whether it was one of the Herald-Leader articles or the Schulman biography. I don't have the Schulman work accessible today, but I will try to remember to check tomorrow. Regardless, I'm confident this statement is accurate.
- Last time I checked, page B2 was a single page, not a series of pages "Lexington Herald-Leader: pp. B2."; " Lexington Herald-Leader: pp. B1."; " Lexington Herald-Leader: pp. B1."; "Lexington Herald-Leader: pp. A1."; etc. etc. etc.
- Yeah, this was before I discovered that {{cite newspaper}} had both a "page" and a "pages" parameter. Fixed now.
- England doesn't exist, you mean United Kingdom, "Cambridge, England"
- I'm really reluctant to accept TIME from the 1950s for statements like this, "The Cooper family had been prominent in the Somerset area since brothers Malachi and Edward Cooper migrated from South Carolina along the Wilderness Trail and through the Cumberland Gap shortly after Daniel Boone." This, "While his father was away on business in Texas, his mother sent him to sixth grade at the public school, which he attended thereafter." is a more credible use of TIME. I'd like a response about how valid you think TIME in the 1950s is as a local historian or family historian?
- England does exist I live there, but you can also see Talk:England where a consensus was reached. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Locations are citations to the nation state the publication occurred in, see your Chicago or Turabian or Oxford. Unless something very strange has happened to the constitution of the United Kingdom in the last month, apart from changes to primogeniture rules being floated, England for this purpose does not exist, and the consensus amongst editors across and encyclopaedia page doesn't trump the manuals of citation style. There are very, very few works citable as published in England, and they are mostly primary sources from before the union. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm totally at a loss on this issue, but I've changed it to United Kingdom per your suggestion.
- Locations are citations to the nation state the publication occurred in, see your Chicago or Turabian or Oxford. Unless something very strange has happened to the constitution of the United Kingdom in the last month, apart from changes to primogeniture rules being floated, England for this purpose does not exist, and the consensus amongst editors across and encyclopaedia page doesn't trump the manuals of citation style. There are very, very few works citable as published in England, and they are mostly primary sources from before the union. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate period, "Howard, Robert T.."
- Fixed.
- Duplicate period, "Howard, Robert T.."
- Sorry for the delay in responding to these issues. I was on vacation last week and thought I would have Internet access at my vacation location, but I didn't. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note It's been more than 30 days since the ACR was opened; if nobody turns up during the next two days, I might have to close it as "No consensus". --Sp33dyphil © • © 01:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed / not promoted due to nomination at FAC -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I need to know what is needed to bring it to FA level. That's the goal and any help would be highly appreciated. Kind regards, Lecen (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
A reasonably long article, so I might need to do this in bits. As ever, I enjoy this period!
Lead:
- "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking
- "In the face of major protests during 1831, Caxias remained loyal to Emperor Dom Pedro I, even though his own father and uncles deserted and betrayed the monarch" - Sequencing (the gap between protests and the emperor) makes it unclear what the protests were about. "Deserted and betrayed" - slightly pejorative terms, particularly given the "even though" bit.
- " to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I)
- "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?
- "Caxias remained on the side of the lawful government. " - I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established"?
- "Given the command of loyal forces" - "the loyal forces" (e.g. all of them) or "some loyal forces" (a particular element)?
- "he was officially designated as patron saint of the army" - This confused me - aren't most patron saints actual saints? (NB: I could be really wrong, of course!)
- "The Duke of Caxias is usually regarded by historians as Brazil's greatest and most accomplished military officer." - "is regarded by modern historians"? "is regarded by most historians"? ("usually" sounded odd) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Hchc2009. thanks for finding some time to review the article. Let's see:
- The lead should be summary and the article is about Caxias, not Pedro I. I plan to start expanding Pedro I's article in the near future. The use of the words "deserted" and "betrayed" aren't pejorative. If U.S. Generals, in command of U.S. troops, force Barack Obama, the lawful head of state of the United States, to resign during major politic protests against him, that would be a betrayal and desertion.
- The main text says "father and uncles betrayed Pedro I and joined the rebellion". The verbs "betray" and "desert" in the lead do carry additional connotations in English (although they can also be accurate). Few would write today that George Washington "betrayed" and "deserted" King George, his lawful king, to whom he'd sworn the loyal oath; Washington certainly "rebelled" against him though. The same would apply to Cromwell and Charles I - and again you wouldn't normally write about Charles having a "lawful government" unless you were making a distinctly anti-Parliamentary point or similarly pulling out some other argument. My advice, unless the main text expands to explain a bit more (perhaps in a footnote), would be to simply say "rebelled against Pedro I" in the lead, which is quite neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of this has to do with these guys ending up on the losing side and the legitimacy of their cause. They broke their sworn allegience to the legitimate government. While George Washington might not today be described as having "deserted and betrayed" (though that is exactly how he was long viewed in British sources), few would quibble with Benedict Arnold being described using those terms. Nevertheless, I've changed the wording in the lead, as going into their desertion and betrayal (which I believe the sources support) would be more appropriate in the body of the article than in the lead, as you suggested. • Astynax talk 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established" Lawful government is the correct one. It was the government formed under the constitution and democratic elections. If the word "established" it could imply any kind of government, including dictatorships.
- "loyal forces". All forces loyal to the government in each of those provinces where he traveled to.
- "Patron saint". That is the closest translation to the Portuguese word. Obviously, it doesn't mean that Caxias is a saint or that Brazilians regard him as a saint.
- A difficult one. "Patron saint" can mean "exemplar" or "initial leader" in English, but you can't be officially designated as such, it's an informal label. I'm struggling to think of a better wording for it - others might be able to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the non-religious equivalent in English to Patron Saint? Protector? According to this English author, it should be "symbolic patron". --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it to "the army's tutelary patron"
- Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier. There isn't a single other Brazilian who could rival him. That's not I the one who is saying that, it's just how he is seen.
- I'm not disputing his greatness; it's just that "usually" implies that sometimes they don't regard him as this. If he's always regarded as the greatest, then you can safely just say "Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't mind if I suggest this, but shouldn't you read the article first, and then the lead? once you get to know the subject, it will be far easier to understand what is in the lead. I know the opposite should be the correct way to go, but it would be far easier for you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically readers will read the lead first, which is why if I'm reviewing, I tend to start with that. There's a risk that if you do it the other way around, you then come to the lead with more information than the typical reader will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other comments in reply...
- "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking: there is a link in the infobox alongside this phrase. Some see this as too close to repeat the link, some think it is isolated enough that it needs to be repeated. I personally have no preference.
- "to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I): I've attempted to clarify this.
- "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?: In this case, literally countless. Outside of the capital, the situation was extremely chaotic for some years and no one knows how many rebellions were sparked, merged into other rebellions, died out on their own, or were suppressed by local authorities. The regency was often more concerned with internal political jockeying to be involved effectively in suppressing, let alone tracking, provincial uprisings. Only the major rebellions receive/received any attention.
- Thanks for taking the time to read and give your input. • Astynax talk 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed / no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. It's already a good article, and I have referenced all (or almost all) sentences and check the MOS point by point. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Great to see an article on this. It's a long piece, so I may take a couple of stabs at the comments. Here goes...
- "The May Revolution was a direct reaction to Spain's Peninsular War of the previous two years..." I agree with this in the lead; when you get into the "causes" sections, however, the Peninsular War is buried halfway through the last paragraph of the "international section" - I think you could usefully make this all much more prominent, in keeping with the lead. You also don't actually say in the main text that the Revolution was a direct reaction to the war
- "Between 1775 and 1783, the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against their former rulers" - the Argentinians may have perceived this to be the case, but this version of events wouldn't be recognised by most modern historians of the conflict: the Revolutionary War is often seen as much more of a civil conflict between partisan American factions than a simple revolution. Might be worth emphasising that this was the perception, not a factual description of the conflict.
- "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." - this bit isn't referenced.
- The British invasions of the Río de la Plata article is a bit less certain about the British motivation here than this article; it suggests that "it was not agreed whenever Britain should turn those cities into British colonies, or promote their emancipation under British protection", and cites some alternative sources. Might be worth ironing this difference out.
- "This situation damaged the viceroyalty, as Spain's economy was not powerful enough to accommodate the supply of goods coming from the colonies, causing economic shortages and recession." - I didn't quite understand why this would be the case: it might be worth explaining further.
- "Events developed at a slower pace than in the United States independence movement. This was in part because the entire educational system in Spanish America was controlled by the clergy, leading the population to hold the same conservative ideas and follow the same customs as in Spain." How reliable is the source for this? I only ask because he's writing from 1926 and this seems quite a strong anti-clerical argument.
- "There was no aid from Spain during either invasion." - would there have been enough time for a message to have got to Spain and for aid to have been sent?
- "they wanted to prevent Spain from splitting into many kingdoms" - "many" or "several"? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of vecinos) " - although vecinos is linked, it forces the reader to leave the article to work out what this all means - it would be worth expanding slightly in the main text.
- "legitimacy of local authorities in Upper Peru as well" - what does "local authorities" mean in this context? I ask because in the UK this would mean town and city governance (i.e. quite a low level)
- " Saavedra, Paso, Chiclana, Vieytes, Balcarce, Castelli, Larrea, Guido, Viamonte, Moreno and Sáenz" - I wasn't sure who these people were at this point in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. However, I think the order of the "Causes" is read more naturally in the current order, because it's the order in which things were taking place. American Revolution, French Revolution, Industrial revolution, British invasions, Peninsular War. The significance of the Peninsular War over the other causes is seen in the narration of the events: everything else is context and influences, but the "casus belli" that actually set everything in motion was the arrival of the news of the fall of Seville. Once reading that part, the reader will understand why the May Revolution is a direct consequence of the Peninsular War.
- As for the clergy, that info is correct: yes, the clergy managed the education in conservative principles, and yes, ideas evolved slower than in North America. Notice that this happened 40 years after the American revolution, it started because of events between Spain and a third party (not between Spain and its own colonies, as the Tea act; which means that without the Peninsular War all this could have been delayed even more), and even in the following years thee were still monarchist criollos, who thought to establish a local monarchy rather than a republic. The info is also for the benefit of US readers: it is likely that they never heard anything about the people or events described here, but as there is a broad similarity to the American Revolution (patriots, loyalists, colonies in the Americas, a mother country in Europe) they may draw a comparison. Which may be good as a start, but in history all comparisons must be taken with care.
- The lack of help from Spain is not a recrimination, just a cause of further consequences. It is because of the lack of such help, and the double victory against Britain with just local forces led by criollos, that they achieved this umprecedented political and military influence. If Spain managed to bring reinforcements in time, and liberate Buenos Aires with their regular forces, the city would have been liberated, but the criollos would stay down in the social hierarchy, and the May Revolution would have not taken place, or take place in a different manner.
- Everything else has been fixed as requested Cambalachero (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently Fails A Class criteria, some sourcing quality concerns, one instance of clearly out of date research and theory, some indication of original research from primary sources The rest is the normal citation fixits; I haven't done a detailed check that the bibliography and citation list match each other because I assume some changes will happen as a result of the more fundamental criticisms being discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- General:
- Your use of "Actas capitulares" indicates and demonstrates the proper use of primary sources in a history article. Few editors manage this. I wish to congratulate you directly. If you have difficulty on this point, please rely on me at FAC. You also cite and use a primary source well at fn.213.
- On the otherhand, your use of Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7. looks suspect.
- Bibliography:
- Refer to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES regarding appropriate sourcing quality to meet this project's standards. If you have further questions, WP:HISTRS can expand your understanding of sourcing expectations in a field covered by academic history.
- Your Locations are inconsistent. "Wilmington:" ?? Where?? Either follow one of three rules: No State/Country locations (I get sad); The "Well Known Publishing City Rule" where London, New York, Capital Cities, etc do not need their state or country located, but everything else does; or, State/Countries for everything. Remember: there's no such thing as England in this sense.
- What makes this primary source adequately reliable for an A-Class article? What makes the interpretations of this source for fact and motivation not original research? Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7.
- Why are we using a historia minima? Dómina, Esteban (2003) (in Spanish). Historia mínima de Córdoba.
- Why are we using a government website not authored by a historian? "Semana de Mayo" (in spanish). Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.
- Fix formatting. (Magazine articles take this format "Article title" Magazine title, if you're using templates cite journal |title=Article title |journal=magazine). This source is of adequate quality as it is an interview with a historian regarding the need for historical revisionism (the good, academic one). Fonrouge (2009) (in Spanish). Galasso, Norberto; Pigna, Felipe (November 2009). El deber de reescribir la historia. Interview with Juan Manuel Fonrouge. 2010 (magazine). Buenos Aires.
- This country doesn't exist, "Great Britain". Cite location as the United Kingdom
- Is this a post-graduate textbook, or an undergraduate/schools textbook: Historia contemporánea de América Latina?; Los mitos de la historia argentina (26 ed.).
- Local governments' advertising websites are not appropriate sources for history articles, http://www.mimercedes.com.ar/masnotas.php?ampliar=11468
- Whom? "New York: Order of the trustees." you actually mean, "Hispanic Society of America" as the publisher. Did you read a full copy of this work, or a snippet view?
- Occasionally we non-Spanish speakers enjoy a courtesy translation of book titles, chapter titles or journal article titles, etc. This can be supplied with the |trans_title= parameter. Of course this is voluntary and only a matter of courtesy not obligation.
- References:
- Fix immediately: fn66 ^ Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.[Full citation needed]
- fn105 "Actas capitulares..." surely this should be within quotes, like so, ""Actas capitulares..."" so as to duplicate the title from the bibliography, no?
- You are not seriously citing this theoretical claim, "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." to a work published in 1902? We live in an age where post-colonial and transnational history is the cutting edge; where Wallenstein's world systems theory has a deep and abiding effect on history. Where most history is Marxist, Marxian or post-Marxist in its acceptance of the role of material reality in driving ideas and social organisations. This is simply out of date research.
- Formatting error in wikicode? fn.5 "Luna, "...Belgrano,"
- Short titles, p.s and pp.s are beautiful. Short titles are excellently chosen.
- Pigna, p. 234; Pigna, p. 236. (fn.114, fn.116). Were these quotes drawn out of a narrative in a high quality scholarly source, or were they from sources included in a source section / reader section of a textbook? If the HQRS narrative cited the source, we need to cite their cite as well as citing them, "He ran swiftly down the field" fn: James Johnson at Hackney Field 1814 speaking to a crowd of mendicants (NA 14.08998 Box 14), as cited in Foo, Mendicants, p. 13. (Incidentally, you do this perfectly at fn213)
- How do I tell this work, "Luna, Independencia...," from this work, "Luna, ...independencia,"? Maybe choose a different distinguishing short title?
- General:
- Done I have fixed the pointed thing, and replaced the problematic references. The one from Mercedes had in fact been replaced some time ago, but I forgot to took it out from the list. The book by Esteban Dómina is used for the reference 186, and details the perspective of the other Argentine cities at the time, a topic that is often overlooked by most books. So, it's not useful for the whole topic, but it's useful for a related piece of information at a section. Everything adds. As for Belgrano, when a book cites another book, I like to check as well that other book used as reference and cite it if possible. So, removing the autobiography as a reference does not change anything, I simply go back to the book that cited it in the first place, and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil © • ©'
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel the article is in good shape, and is ready to take the next step. I feel it is as good as the Northrop YF-23 and McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, two successful ACRs of mine that went on to become FAs. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: An interesting aircraft. Some bits are worth explaining further for the non-specialist:
- "plenum chamber burning" - worth linking or footnoting, as I've no idea what this is! :)
- "as to preserve the commonality concept" - ditto: it's in the lead but won't make much sense to the non-specialist.
- Y clarified by Ian. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "With the Labour government coming to power in 1965," - do you mean "Due to the..."?
- "that supersonic aircraft hold significantly more value than subsonic aircraft" "held"? Also, has this view changed?
- Y This view hasn't changed. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth placing this aircraft development against the context of the Cold War and the likely adversary?
- Well, the books didn't mention anything about the Cold War. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a Pegasus development" - Pegasus? Worth linking or explaining.
- "NATO Basic Military Requirement 3" - ditto. Is this the specification that then follows, or something different?
- The project started as an inhouse project before NATO issued the BMR-3. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a dash speed " - ditto. I think I know what this is, but wouldn't be certain I'm right.
- "principle competitor" - "principal"?
- " 'unsound'" - the MOS would prefer double speechmarks
- In the biblio, the ISBN numbers are inconsistently hypthenated.
- Hmm, the second publication doesn't have an ISBN that starts with "1" that I know of. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wood 1975, p. 252 needs a final full stop to be consistent with the other fns.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I think I've just happened to have actioned some of these with my usual copyedit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Lead looks really long.
- Is the use of numbers consistent? Not sure the policy and if that should be 50% or fifty per cent.
- Images have no alt text. :( Help our friends with screen readers out. :)
- Why are the Planform silhouettes located there? What are they attempting to illustrate? Unclear to me. --LauraHale (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- Looks pretty good to me so far but still have to go through refs and images. Prose-wise, aside from my quick copyedit, a few things:
- On 6 December 1961, before the design was submitted to NATO, it was decided that the P.1154 would be developed with the requirements for use by both the RAF and the Royal Navy. -- Be nice to avoid the passive phrasing here; do we know who decided it would try and meet the RAF/RN reqs?
- Hmm, the books didn't say who decided it. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In February 1962, the Royal Navy's Admiralty received the aircraft concept with great interest, and at the same time the Royal Navy was seeking a new interceptor aircraft for their aircraft carriers -- The expression makes it sound like the Admiralty and the Navy aren't connected; do we mean the Admiralty was interested because the Navy was seeking a new interceptor?
- Should link or describe AI radar.
- The book only mentioned the radar only once, and I don't think there's any article on it.
- Well AI stands for "airborne intercept" (or "interception"), so should say "airborne interception (AI) radar" or something similar. The Lightning had it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harrier.org.uk looks more like a useful external link than a reliable source. I can see it provides a bibliography but the books aren't specifically cited -- what claim does it have to reliability as a WP source?
- Can't confirm that File:Avav8 1 05.png is PD; appears no permission to view source file.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes Harrier.org.uk reliable?
- Add dashes to the ISBN for the Wood book.
- The aircraft carried no guns or missiles?
- Cite 14 still needs a full stop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the full stop and ISBN items. I'll try to work on the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My Harrier sources do not cover any cost savings mentioned in the sentence cited with Harrier.org.uk. Maybe somebody else can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you want to go to FAC with this, and maybe even if you don't, I'd recommend rewriting the See also section as a section of text at the end, comparing and contrasting those aircraft to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just gonna blank the section. I don't think the See also section is important enough to take up much of my effort. BTW, this ACR is stalling really badly; maybe the project should compose a substitution message that can be sent to some of the neutral members at WP:MILMEMBERS to ask for their comments at PRs, ACRs and FACs.--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we seem to have a bit if a backlog at ACR again, at least. This one's past the 28-day mark now, and my most recent queries and some of Storm's haven't be answered yet, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, we'll have more discussions about the See also sections, I'm sure. Agreed with Ian; until other reviewers' comments have been addressed, I wouldn't take this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The FAC delegate recently announced ex cathedra that See Also sections were not allowed in Featured Articles. I see no reason to prohibit them in A class articles though. There was a lively discussion about whether the Projects can override the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link? (I had to suppress a smile at ex cathedra.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The FAC delegate recently announced ex cathedra that See Also sections were not allowed in Featured Articles. I see no reason to prohibit them in A class articles though. There was a lively discussion about whether the Projects can override the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on citations: clear, but Notes:, spacing, "Quote:"At" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenkins and Wilson appear in the bibliography, but not the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One year ago, this article attained GA status. Since then, multiple members have worked hard to further research the article, study and reexamine various elements, and greatly expand some subsections. Editors have been made aware of the intention to place this through higher levels of reviewing months ago, and have taken the time to provide preliminary feedback for improvements which have been taken onboard. The article seems stable, and it has my attention to carry out improvements in response to the comments made in this review. I feel the topic to be an important element of the history of the Cold War, in effect the Vulcan was the primary nuclear deterrent for Britain for a considerable number of years; it toured the world demonstrating both favour and threat alike to distant shores in various diplomatic efforts and joint operations. Its much-reported presense in the Falklands War came when its retirement was imminent, yet may have been one of its most recognised contributions to History (not too unlike how the SAS gained popular recognition following the Iranian Embassey Seige). I feel the topic is worthy, the article is prepared, and editors are ready to take further action as need be. I submit that Avro Vulcan be considered by the dedicated teams here at MilHist. Kyteto (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources comments
- In the bibliography but with no citations: Arnold 2001, Bullman 2001, Chesnau & Rimell 2003, Dodds 2007, Holmes 2004, McLelland 2007
- Be consistent in how you annotate multiple authors ("and" vs. comma)
- Page ranges use en, not em dashes.
- Be consistent in whether you include "UK" after British publisher locations. Eisfbnore • talk 07:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the nominator of the article's previous (WP:AV) A-class review which didn't attract much attention. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, working through the article from the start;
- "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan" should be bold rather than italics?
- Do we need to explain that it's an aircraft? If not, "... is a jet-powered delta wing strategic bomber that was operated ..." would be fine.
- "The Vulcan lacked defensive weaponry," This sentence is ungainly and might benefit from being split into two.
- "In its final years of service, some of the Vulcans". Awkward construction; perhaps replace "its" with "the" or some other fix.
- "on the potentialities of weapons of war" - does this just mean "on potential weapons", or something more?
- "American/British/Canadian" - MOS:SLASH seems to think / shouldn't be used in this way.
- "ought not to have exceeded" - perhaps better as "ought not to exceed".
- "ie atomic" should be "i.e. atomic" per WP:MOS.
- Clarify whether the requirement was to carry an atomic bomb and a 20,000 lb conventional bombload; or just one of these two options at a time.
More later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Your alts are not working.
- The alt image details or the alt technical specs list? Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the belated reply. Images. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've made sure the alts are now consistent, but removing the unique one that was put in alone for some reason. Kyteto (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the belated reply. Images. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt image details or the alt technical specs list? Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more refs for the second paragraph in Prototypes and Type Certification? (Not that much of a problem)
- Possibly create Bomber Command Development Unit.
That's it....... for now. Buggie111 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- This reads a little oddly as the text is plural, but the aircraft type is singular: several scale aircraft, the Avro 707, were produced to test and refine the design principles.
- This also struck me: use of electronic countermeasures (ECM) based in the tail The location of the ECM equipment is probably too much detail for the lede because you'd have to explain that that's where the equipment is.
- I'd move the bit in the lead about the improvements of the B.2 to immediately follow the date of the B.2's introduction. As is, the lede doesn't flow well because that's not in a logical spot.
- Shouldn't the type designation in the 4th para of the Origins section be Avro 698?
- Is there a link for tail-warning radar?
- , however the U.S. would cancel Skybolt's development. Tense doesn't match the rest of the paragraph. Should probably be "the U.S. later cancelled the development of Skybolt" or something similar.
- This is also odd. Like the rest of the V-bombers no foreign country purchased Vulcans, however interest had been present. Other countries expressed interest, but nobody bought any or similar phrasing would work here.
- The end of this sentence is problematic as well: As part of the offer for the TSR-2, the RAF would have transferred several V-bombers, including Vulcans, to the RAAF, however the F-111C was procured.
- Link to chaff and flares.
- So all B.1s were retrofitted with aerial refuelling receptacles? Were they included in the B.2 from the beginning?
- It is unclear if all B.1s were retrofitted, I've looked at sources, and it is not commented on any absolute fleet-wide implimentation. A source has suggested that the refuelling aspect was included in the B.2 to begin with, but it is a rather general text and may have retroactively 'assumed' this on the basis that it was there as a difference from the B.1's service configuration. I can't be certain the refuelling systems were there from the start hence nothing in the article has been said in the article one way or the other deliberately. Kyteto (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to W28 warhead.
- British airborne elements coming under effective fire. If you mean aircraft, say so, and don't use this euphemistic phrase.
- This is awkward because you talked about the refuelling requirements in the proceeding paragraph. At the time, these missions held the record for the world's longest-distance raids; reaching the islands required extensive in-flight refuelling operations.
- Dates need n-dashes.
- How can an engine be supersonic? Rephrase or explain.
- Do we know when the B.1/B.1As were retired? And when were the B.2 variants retired?
- I like the comparison of variants table. Nice to see what the differences amounted to. More articles should have them, IMO. I'd provide metric conversions though.
- I'm getting strings like ?UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004A-QINU?20?UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004B-QINU? in your notes. Something's broken in the software because this isn't the first article with your note style to display like this for me today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking quickly, some of these notes been acted on and some haven't. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded to all answers that I could; consider all issues given to have been addressed unless deliberately noted otherwise. I'll look into the metric conversions. Kyteto (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted / renominated at FAC prior to ACR consensus -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review for several reasons. First, it's been much expanded from the small article that I created about one year ago. I've worked on some minor edits lately - some restructuring, etc. I am not sure if this article would manage to reach FA class, so I'd like an A-class review to at least advance it to that level. I will be glad to work on more edits and restructuring if they are found necessary.
DCI2026 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the person who did most of the expansion mentioned by DCI, I will support this effort. Magic♪piano 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Add alt text to images.
- "on April 18, 1689, by" missing comma"
- "to the dominion
leadersrulers. Leaders" Two leaders two to each other. - "Andros, the commissioned governor of New England in 1686,
hadearned" - "he
hadinfuriated" - second lead paragraph seems incomplete
- "Sir Edmund Andros
hadwas in 1686beenappointed " - "officers, who were put in command of colonial militia, treated" missing commas
- "became increasingly unpopular
, and alsobecause alienated"? If not, why was he unpopular? - "large standing army" what's the role of standing?
- "Increase Mather sent a letter to the king, thanking him for the declaration, and then suggested" --> "Increase Mather sent an appreciation letter to the king regarding the declaration, and
thensuggested - "Despite
repeated attempts bydominion secretary Edward Randolph's repeated attempts to stop him" passive voice - "the old Massachusetts charter" the implies that the charter has been mentioned before, which it hasn't.
- "The military force he led in Maine
was a combinationcomprised of British regulars and militia from Massachusetts and Maine" note the removal of comma. - "gathering outside Boston at Charlestown" Charleston is a neighbourhood of Boston, in which case outside doesn't apply.
- Charlestown is now a neighborhood of Boston. It was a separate community until the 19th century. This is also true of Roxbury. I have added clarifying clauses. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "On
the 19th19 April" check throughout article
- For the article, should the MDY format or the DMY format be used when recording dates? I have made several edits changing the phrases you mentioned, but have not done anything with the date format yet. DCI2026 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is to be British English it should use DMY; if American English MDY. Pick one and standardi
sze. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is to be British English it should use DMY; if American English MDY. Pick one and standardi
- I believe that the article currently uses MDY. I shall check for any British or other English variants currently used in the article, and will revise. DCI2026 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wikify "New York"?
- Shouldn't "Lustig, p. 192" and the like have the year of publications in them? "Lustig 2002, p. 192"
- I didn't add most of the books. I agree that the publication year should be a part of the citation. Will fix. DCI2026 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I make any changes, I'd like some more input on this - the publication years are listed on the article (under the References section), but they are not parts of the visible citations. Is this actually fine, or should I go ahead with the changes?
- My rule of thumb in citations (at least in articles where I'm writing the bulk of the citations) is to only include the year if it's needed to unambiguously identify the source (like in this article). If you look at feature articles you'll see a variety of forms and practices in citation. The key (as with dates and language usage) is to be consistent in form. See also WP:CITEVAR. Magic♪piano 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I make any changes, I'd like some more input on this - the publication years are listed on the article (under the References section), but they are not parts of the visible citations. Is this actually fine, or should I go ahead with the changes?
- I checked out the St. Augustine article and understand what you mean. So, at least for right now, we can leave out the publication year for the citations. DCI2026 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What "Task forces" (periods and conflicts) does this come under? Remember this article isn't my strong point. Wanted to make the Military History Template complete and correct. Adamdaley (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, but there doesn't seem to be much activity here. Is there still a chance of the article being promoted? DCI2026 23:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People review when and how they like. Some people will look to see if early review issues are addressed before engaging in their own reviews. Remember that all participants here are volunteers. Lack of activity is not necessarily a problem (see how other current and past A reviews have progressed). Magic♪piano 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add most of the books. I agree that the publication year should be a part of the citation. Will fix. DCI2026 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closd/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joy and I wish to co-nominate this article for featured article status; I have been advised by Dank to seek an A-class review first. It has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the battle, which falls two months from today, on 18 November 2011. The battle was a critically important event in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and will be the subject of commemorations in Croatia. It will also attract significant international media coverage, some of which has already begun to appear, in the run-up and on the day itself. Having written featured articles before, I've set out to write this to featured standard from the outset and I'm pretty sure that it will meet many of the featured and A-class article criteria. The sister article on the Croatian Wikipedia is already a featured article (though this is not a translation of it). Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources comments
- Be consistent in whether you put dates of publications inside brackets in the shortened footnotes.
- Be consistent in whether you provide translated titles for citations.
- Offline sources should have page numbers.
- In what way are you sorting sources without authors; by title or by publisher? --Eisfbnore • talk 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've omitted the brackets, since I don't seem to have any way of adding them through the harvnb template.
- You can use {{harvtxt}}. Eisfbnore • talk 09:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, since I don't have reliable translations for the other non-English titles I've left them out altogether.
- Hmm, in the previous GA reviews I've read, ad hoc trans_title seemed to have been preferred. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you want to go through all the non-English titles and translate them, please feel free to do so. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do others think, would this be a worthwhile effort? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you want to go through all the non-English titles and translate them, please feel free to do so. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, in the previous GA reviews I've read, ad hoc trans_title seemed to have been preferred. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on the page numbers. This should be sorted in the next couple of days. Please note though that some offline sources, such as news agency reports, do not have page numbers - adding them will only be possible for offline newspaper references.
- Almost all page numbers now added. A couple are still missing; I'll try to track them down. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources without authors should be sorted by publisher. I've spotted a couple of discrepancies and fixed them. Prioryman (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I substituted "17th-century" for "Baroque"; if you meant specifically that the town retained original Baroque architecture, it would probably be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two aren't synonymous, I'm afraid. An art historian I cite further on in the article specifically highlights the pre-war town's Baroque architecture as the finest example of its kind in the country. Referring to it as a "17th century" town implies that it was founded then, which isn't the case. I've restored "Baroque" but linked it to Baroque architecture. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and "17th-century" was a bad choice. The link helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two aren't synonymous, I'm afraid. An art historian I cite further on in the article specifically highlights the pre-war town's Baroque architecture as the finest example of its kind in the country. Referring to it as a "17th century" town implies that it was founded then, which isn't the case. I've restored "Baroque" but linked it to Baroque architecture. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Austrians' Military Frontier, a cordon sanitaire established as a barrier to block further Ottoman expansion.": Can we do without cordon sanitaire? - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We can, the meaning here doesn't exactly match the latter article so there's no need to potentially cause confusion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "nom de guerre": This is a hard call. Did he use the name only during the war? If not, about how long did he use the name? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dedaković came to be known Jastreb ("Hawk") in the Croatian media during the war and his second in command Borković was nicknamed "Mladi jastreb" ("Young Hawk"). It's difficult to pinpoint when these nicknames came into use and if they were really used as codes in military communications or were invented by the media, but the nicknames stuck and are almost always appended to their full names when they appear in the local media even today (which is every now and then as they both went on to became vocal critics of the government's handling of war veterans' affairs since the war ended). I think nom de guerre if fine but it could just as well describe it as his "nickname". Timbouctou (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. In that case, I'd prefer "nickname". - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary sources that I've seen suggest that the names were actually codenames used for reasons of operational security and that the men's real names were kept secret at the time of the battle. I'll look into this. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't see the problem with using the meaning that maps to pseudonym through the nom de guerre redirect. The text there is a bit long on the original etymology, but then it clearly states: Such pseudonyms are often adopted by [...] resistance fighters, [...] This practice hides their identities and protects their families from reprisal; it may also be a form of dissociation from domestic life. [...] It's not a perfect match, but it seems appropriate and there are no inappropriate connotations as there were with the quarantine term (disease). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked it to nom de guerre. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that works. There are several sources referring to the names as noms de guerre, and one specifically says that they were used as a codenames during the battle and that the men's real names were not disclosed until afterwards. Joy's comment about the reasons for using the pseudonym seem about right. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked it to nom de guerre. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. In that case, I'd prefer "nickname". - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dedaković came to be known Jastreb ("Hawk") in the Croatian media during the war and his second in command Borković was nicknamed "Mladi jastreb" ("Young Hawk"). It's difficult to pinpoint when these nicknames came into use and if they were really used as codes in military communications or were invented by the media, but the nicknames stuck and are almost always appended to their full names when they appear in the local media even today (which is every now and then as they both went on to became vocal critics of the government's handling of war veterans' affairs since the war ended). I think nom de guerre if fine but it could just as well describe it as his "nickname". Timbouctou (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serbian Territorial Defense Forces": Since this article is BritEng, I'm inclined to say that should be "Defence", although of course organizations are generally entitled to pick their own name. Anyone have an opinion on this?
- It's a legacy of a previous version of the article. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Yugoslav/Serb": Try to do this without a slash (including in the heading); see WP:SLASH.
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The head of the Serbian secret police, the SDB, visited a nearby Serb-held town in Croatia during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen and officers of the SDB commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar.": There's some kind of problem here; I think it's that I'm not seeing the connection between the first and second part of the sentence.
- Reworded as: "The Serbian secret police agency, the SDB, actively participated in military operations. Some of its officers commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar[63] and the SDB's head visited the area during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen." Better? Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded as: "The Serbian secret police agency, the SDB, actively participated in military operations. Some of its officers commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar[63] and the SDB's head visited the area during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen." Better? Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the town was ... eventually reduced by the JNA": reduced to rubble? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reduced" in the sense of crushing a rebellion (it's an alternative meaning of the verb). For the purposes of clarity, I've replaced it with "taken".
- "intermittent artillery and mortar fire from Serb forces once a day or every couple of days": I'm not sure of the meaning here. I think it would probably be an improvement to remove "intermittent", unless I'm misunderstanding.
- "Intermittent" is probably redundant. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serbian/Yugoslav", "JNA/Serb", "and/or": same as above; see WP:SLASH.
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is running slow now, and I'd like to finish up, so I'll list the rest of the changes to be made here rather than making them myself:
- "between 6,000–8,000 soldiers", "between 1991–95": between 6,000 and 8,000 soldiers, etc.; see WP:ENDASH
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His trial is currently ongoing." "currently" is redundant. Also, as of when? (see WP:DATED)
- I've taken the line out since, as you say, it's time-dependent. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Croatian officials estimated that over 25,500 houses had been damaged or destroyed out of 28,000 homes in Vukovar – 90 percent of the total and put the cost of the damage at $2.5 billion": you're missing a dash, but I'd use parentheses. Also, describe them as "houses" or "homes", not both.
- I've reworded this a bit to resolve these issues. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the rump Yugoslavia": probably, "what remained of Yugoslavia"
- "The rump Yugoslavia" is the standard term; see e.g. [5] Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but most readers won't know that, and rump means "ass" and so will come across to them as POV. Is "what remained of Yugoslavia" inaccurate, or too informal? - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with "the reduced Yugoslavia"; feel free to debate this, but I need this for now to support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched it to its proper name and linked it, so it should be all clear now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not happy with "reduced" and "rump" is in no way POV - it's a well-established and widely-used geopolitical term, as in "rump state". I'm also not very happy with the proper name, as it risks confusion with the previously-used Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the article doesn't explain the difference between the pre-war SFRY and the wartime FRY, nor should it, as that would be off-topic. As a compromise, I've restored the term "rump Yugoslavia" but linked it to Joy's "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", so that if anyone is confused, which to be honest I doubt, they can always click on the link and find out more. Prioryman (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched it to its proper name and linked it, so it should be all clear now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with "the reduced Yugoslavia"; feel free to debate this, but I need this for now to support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but most readers won't know that, and rump means "ass" and so will come across to them as POV. Is "what remained of Yugoslavia" inaccurate, or too informal? - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The rump Yugoslavia" is the standard term; see e.g. [5] Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "high, due to the destruction of the town's major industries: high due to the destruction of the town's major industries, ...
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the majority of houses being rebuilt and the restoration": the rebuilding of the majority of houses and the restoration - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "reintegration": I'm not sure, but maybe: re-integration (considering the hyphenation style in this article)
- Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A Serb boy spoke of how he wanted to know what was written on the monument but was too frightened to go and read the inscription; one day he got up the courage, ran to the monument, read it and immediately ran back to "safety".": This reminds me that, if it's not clear already, I'm not evaluating the neutrality of this article, I'm just working on the prose. But ... I'm not sure how I feel about this sentence. Saying that one boy had one reaction is going to strike some people as WP:UNDUE weight. OTOH, it personalizes the story, and many people find that details like these make the story more readable. I guess I don't have a position.
- "apology and regret.", "one place for all its citizens.": "apology and regret", "one place for all its citizens". See WP:LQ.
- Agreed, fixed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Helsinki class missile boats": Helsinki-class missile boats
- Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "on New Year's Eve ...": not a big deal, but I wouldn't include the quote. If reviewers decide it's better to include it, then it's a little better to capitalize the "On" even if it didn't start the sentence in the original. As always, make sure the unquoted material (I'm assuming there's something before the "on" in the original) doesn't change the meaning of what you're quoting.
- I've shortened it significantly, as a large amount of the quote wasn't really essential. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to the content of the Popular culture section, but another heading might be better ... "Films and books", perhaps.
- Changed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect I'll be able to support on prose. Nice article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed your "GLAM/British Museum" infobox. About the one or two quotes that I thought you might want to remove ... it's entirely possible that they comport more with the type of article a museum might be looking for, say if a patron uses a QR code to get to Wikipedia to learn more about an exhibit ... and I see there's new QRpedia software out just today. I'll give this some thought. I'd be very interested in how anyone interested in GLAM thinks the QRpedia initiative might or should affect prose standards at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing ... all the A-class articles are getting reviewed, eventually, but with some articles, it's taking a while. Long articles like this one are sometimes the last to get reviewed. If you like, after I'm comfortable supporting, I'll make a request at WT:MIL for more reviews ... and, whether they arrive or not, I would have no objection if you feel you're on a deadline and you want to head back to FAC. The prose is solid. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I don't recall Nikki's points at the last FAC; make sure those have been addressed before heading back. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know they have been, though some of them were a bit vague and requested specifics weren't provided - it's the best we can do in the circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a brief look and found one that looks like a false positive - they said that "newspaper sources without weblinks should include page numbers", but that doesn't match for all - for example a Tanjug item is not a newspaper source rather it's an agency news item and it's safe to say that they don't span multiple pages :) I linked the agency to make it clearer - maybe we should also move it to the "other" reference section? I then also asked them to re-check. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I don't recall Nikki's points at the last FAC; make sure those have been addressed before heading back. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I haven't had a chance to review the recent edit by User:Justice and Arbitration; I'll look at it at FAC. (Note: the soonest this can go back to FAC is two weeks since the previous FAC, that is, October 3.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I was concerned the FAC nomination wasn't withdrawn, merely put on hold while the issues you wanted to raise were dealt with here. I'll ask for advice on this point. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend waiting two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the FAC nomination can be completed in time for the anniversary if a two-week wait is forced - that will only leave four weeks for the whole FAC process. I've asked Sandy for advice. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend waiting two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I was concerned the FAC nomination wasn't withdrawn, merely put on hold while the issues you wanted to raise were dealt with here. I'll ask for advice on this point. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood that this is a judgment call, but the majority of our readers won't be familiar with the term rump state. The problem is that this is Wikipedia; if they're reading a history article, they will assume it's just something they need to learn; on Wikipedia, a synonym for "ass" might come across as vandalism or a sly POV edit. Obviously, they can educate themselves by clicking on the link ... the problem is that readers don't usually click on links, so the article has to make sense without the links. As I said, I can't support with "rump" in the text, but I do agree with and understand your objections. Find another word, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rump" simply means "remnant". I really don't agree with the proposition that article content should be governed by an assumed lowest common denominator of the reader's knowledge. As a further compromise I've reworded this as "Serbia and Montenegro, which had formed the rump state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which should make it abundantly clear what the FRY was and that the term is not in any way POV. You'll note that the FRY is already listed on that page. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll invite opinions from WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but it seems to me to be a very strange ground on which to oppose a nomination. If a hypothetical 15-year-old American kid reading the article gets the sniggers because he sees what he thinks is a synonym for "ass" that's unfortunate for him, but it shouldn't be our concern, nor should we censor ourselves because of his ignorance. It's a completely unobjectionable, widely used term (see [6] for many recent examples). And with a link provided to the context in which it's used, i.e. rump state - a distinction which is absolutely necessary to avoid confusion with the pre-war Yugoslavia - I don't see how it cause any confusion whatsoever. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia referring to "rump states" [7]. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rump state" is a precise and widely used term for what the article is referring to. Interestingly, the featured article on William III of England managed to survive not one but two FARs with the term rump state in it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll invite opinions from WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand how it might be read with an implication of contempt. The first use of the word in this context was in the phrase used by Clement Walker to describe the Rump Parliament as "This fagge end, this Rump of a Parliament with corrupt Maggots in it." DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the context in which the word is used in this article. The Oxford English Dictionary gives three related definitions. The one you're referring to is II.4.a, "A small, unimportant, or contemptible remnant or remainder of an (official) body of people, esp. a parliament" (specifically with reference to the Rump Parliament, which was certainly a POV term back in 1649 but isn't exactly controversial now). That's not the meaning I'm using, which is II.4.c, "The rest or remainder of a thing; a remnant", which has no POV implications whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the OED's first quoted use of the term "rump state" is actually from an American source of 1893, and its most recent quotation is precisely the context in which I'm using it, from the Wall Street Journal in 2000: "A mandatory-retirement proposal to force Mr. Panic, the former prime minister of the rump-state of Yugoslavia, and several other directors to step down." Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, don't worry about this, I value your time. The pre-Murdoch WSJ quote is very helpful; they used to have excellent copyediting. If no one can find something reliable that supports my position, I'll have to give in on this one. Garner's, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and all my online sources are letting me down here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in terms of online sources, try these several thousand for examples. It's the standard term in the literature, as it was and is still necessary to distinguish between the pre-war and post-war Yugoslav states. Anyway, thanks for your forebearance and your help in reviewing this article. Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I might add that The Independent, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, New York Times and Wall Street Journal Europe all used the term ("rump Yugoslavia") in exactly the same context.) Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding research, Timbouctou and Prioryman. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'm glad we got it sorted out. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding research, Timbouctou and Prioryman. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rump" simply means "remnant". I really don't agree with the proposition that article content should be governed by an assumed lowest common denominator of the reader's knowledge. As a further compromise I've reworded this as "Serbia and Montenegro, which had formed the rump state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which should make it abundantly clear what the FRY was and that the term is not in any way POV. You'll note that the FRY is already listed on that page. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support: I think it reads well, but I'm not in a position to judge on the sorts of things raised at the FAC and above. Reference usage and style seems very good, the level of detail exemplary and no signs of a bias outside of the odd sentence where that bias is subsequently balanced or viewpoint questioned. Would be happy to see this go back to FAC in time for the anniversary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I've been asked to check whether the concerns I raised at the previous FAC have been adequately addressed. Some of them have. I did not redo spotchecks at this point. Others:
- WP:ENGVAR, for example in the use of "meter" and "kilometre"
- Now "metre" throughout. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check internal consistency, for example in "percent" vs "per cent"
- Now "per cent" throughout. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS issues - hyphen use, need to identify currency (is the damage estimate in USD or some other currency?), etc
- Changed one hyphen in the text to a dash: "Serbian–Byzantine". I left the hyphens in "nationalist-fascist" and "Austria-Hungary". Since the text is BritEng, I agree that reviewers will ask for "US$" at first occurrence. What's the "etc"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more a lack of hyphens that's a problem - for example, should be "20-kuna note". Other MOS issues include wikilinking (for example, Yugoslav People's Army is linked twice in the lead), inconsistency in whether ranks are abbreviated or spelled out, and inconsistent use of blockquotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It'll be a few days before I can get back to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed the first three specific issues, but I'm not sure what you mean about inconsistent use of blockquotes. I see four uses of {{quote}} which don't have the third or fourth parameters - do you think we must fill them out? The metadata is linked through references and each quote is preceded by an introduction that states the author, so the parameters seem redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more a lack of hyphens that's a problem - for example, should be "20-kuna note". Other MOS issues include wikilinking (for example, Yugoslav People's Army is linked twice in the lead), inconsistency in whether ranks are abbreviated or spelled out, and inconsistent use of blockquotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed one hyphen in the text to a dash: "Serbian–Byzantine". I left the hyphens in "nationalist-fascist" and "Austria-Hungary". Since the text is BritEng, I agree that reviewers will ask for "US$" at first occurrence. What's the "etc"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The town's proximity to the Serbian border also gave it a degree of strategic military importance" vs "The town itself was strategically expendable" later in the article - this seems contradictory
- Not really. Holding it was more important to the Serbs than the Croatians - it was strategically important as a base for controlling the region, but its loss did not substantially harm Croatia's overall strategic position as it was far from the Croatian heartland and gave the Serbs little significant military advantage. The loss of a central Croatian town like Gospić, which was also a key strategic flashpoint, would have been a very different story. I've added some words to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or Maslenica, Zadar, Šibenik - targets of parallel Operation Coast-91. Or Karlovac - have a look at the map at Croatian War of Independence#1992: Ceasefire that shows the choke points. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Logo_of_the_JNA.svg still lacks source information. It's self-made, but on what source was it based?
- File:JTO_Logo.jpg is still sourced to a deleted page
- This has been discussed on the article talk page at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Logo issues. I'll try to get that discussion resolved this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no satisfactory solution appears to have been found I've replaced the logos with File:Flag of SR Serbia.svg, File:Flag of SFR Yugoslavia.svg and File:Logo of Croatian National Guard.svg for the respective forces. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how page ranges are notated
- Resolved. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All newspapers without weblinks need page numbers
- No. See Prioryman's response to my point above. Some news agency reports do not have page numbers. --Eisfbnore • talk 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that, but offline newspapers do, and there's still a few of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the following are the missing ones:
- Champion, Marc (20 November 1991). "UN envoy inspects ruins of Vukovar". The Independent (London).
- Radin, Charles A. (26 November 1991). "Reflecting on a battle's losses: Fallen Croatian city's restless defenders rue past and wonder what's next". The Boston Globe.
- Tanner, Marcus (20 May 1991). "Croats likely to vote for independence". The Independent (London).
- Are there any others? Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of the "Other sources" lack publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved - they now all have publisher info. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions. I think this pretty much concludes the A-class review - thanks to everyone who has participated. There is one outstanding issue, that of the three missing newspaper numbers, but I should be able to sort that out tomorrow. Due to the short time left before the anniversary I've now moving this back to FAC to take care of any remaining issues. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can treat this as a request to withdraw this nom, particularly as it's now been listed at FAC -- will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed as No Consensus Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra"'
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think the article is complete and now needs to be reviewed for FAC. I need everyone's help to see the article through. Thanks Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why are some of your shortened citation harvlinked and others not? Also, some of your multi-author harvlinks appear not to be working correctly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments [by Anotherclown]
- No dabs [8] (no action required).
- External links check out [9] (no action required).
- Images all have alt text [10] (no action required).
- The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- "The Yakovlev Yak-38, the Soviet's only operational VTOL fighter, was unable to undertake its role during the early 1970s." Why? Half a sentence here would add context IMO.
- "admitting" doesn't seem right here "carrier capable of admitting STOL aircraft." Perhaps "carrier capable of operating STOL aircraft."
- Same here "to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s..."
- "the Project 1160 carrier would be able to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s, but was abandoned..." Why?
- This doesn't quite make sense to me: "To prepare for the operations of the Su-27K, along with the rival MiG-29K on-board the new carrier, namely the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems, as well as the training of pilots, an establishment was set up in Crimea." Specifically the use of "namely". Perhaps reword?
- This is also unclear: "A takeoff ramp was installed at the complex, where takeoffs would be executed to assure that the MiG29Ks and Su-27Ks would be able to operate from carriers." Specifically "where takeoffs would be executed". I'm assuming the ramp was used to test the capability of the aircraft to operate from the new carriers?
- Yes it was. See [11] 1:18. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These two sentences could be worked into one: "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six), supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1.[18] It has 12 hardpoints." Suggestion "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six) on 12 hardpoints, supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1..." or something similar.
- "and thirteen Su-27Ks" should be "and 13 Su-27Ks" per WP:MOSNUM.
- "At the sixth Zhuhai Airshow in autumn 2006, Aleksander Denisov, lieutenant general of the Russian Air Force." This should be "Lietenant General Aleksander Denisov" per WP:SURNAME.
- "publicly confirmed at the news conference". What news conference? Probably best to reword as "publicly confirmed at a news conference."
- This could be written more economically: "the plane's arresting cable broke after landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in Northern Atlantic. The arresting cable broke due to the high speed above the limit." Specificially you say the cable broke in two sentences. This could work better written in a single sentence. Consider: "the plane's arresting cable broke after a landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Northern Atlantic at high speed..." (or something similar).
- Done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my points have been dealt with so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
- Thanks Phil, I believe your edits in response to AC's comments all check out, except for "Lietenant", and instead of "the development ... proceeded, as well as the training of pilots ...", I'd prefer "... and pilots were trained". - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed "Lietenant" - thats embarrassing as it appears to my typo from the above comments (plus I forgot to sign before...) Taking two and administering an uppercut. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this and all your reviews, AC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed "Lietenant" - thats embarrassing as it appears to my typo from the above comments (plus I forgot to sign before...) Taking two and administering an uppercut. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing: 'Flanker': "Flanker" per WP:MOS#Quotation marks
- "With the downsizing": Look for ways around using "with ...ing".
- "both the People's Republic of China and India": Was there something you wanted to emphasize or contrast by using the "both", or can we do without it? - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming we can do without the "both": "There were negotiations with both the People's Republic of China and India regarding purchase, but these did not lead to sales.": Attempted sales to China and India fell through.
- "operationally": in operations, or in an operation
- "24 examples": 24 aircraft - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "nose-wheel": in other articles, you don't hyphenate it. I don't have a preference.
- "the Su-33 has a strengthened undercarriage and structure, folding wings and stabilators for carrier operations.": I'm not sure how much of that is "for carrier operations". I can see how folding wings would make sense for carrer operations.
- Butting in, Dan, I'd expect all the above to apply to carrier-based aircraft. With little runway on the deck, the aircraft can come down hard, requiring the extra strength -- and of course the folding wings/stabilisers are there to aid storage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In terms of range and payload, the aircraft is superior to its rival Mikoyan counterpart, the MiG-29K, however the MiG-29 is a multirole platform with more advanced avionics, making it capable of a wider range of missions": The aircraft's range and payload are greater [if both are superior ... or is it just the range that's superior for a given payload?] than those of the rival MiG-29K, but the Mikoyan fighter has more advanced avionics and is capable of a wider range of missions. [And ... link appropriately. And ... I think that it's hard for most readers to make sense out of "multirole", except in the sense of "capable of a wider range of missions" ... and you say that. If you want to be more specific, then I'd recommend listing the roles.] - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ian, you're spot on about your post above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)
- Continuing. A general comment: please stop writing things like "the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded", when the steam catapult was abandoned but presumably the rest were developed, and stop using the same generic verb tenses for everything regardless of what happened ... be clear about whether something would have done or did such-and-such. It's annoying as ... well, it's annoying. But it's not your fault ... some engineers are deliberately deceptive about whether they ever got something to work and whether they ever got funding, and the rest, not intending any deception, have followed suit and adopted the fuzzy language as a general writing style. It's impossible to make sense of. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Project 1143.5 carriers": ?
- "to validate the takeoff ramp": ?
- "Three Sukhoi T10s (–3, –24 and –25)": I'd probably go with: The Sukhoi T10-3, T10-24 and T10-25 [with hyphens]. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a lighter multirole fighter": same comment on "multirole" as above, although here below the lead, I'm open to the argument that it may be necessary to say and link "multirole", in addition to saying which roles you mean.
- Not yet. Okay, I got down almost halfway, to Testing. I know you want to write a lot of A-class articles, and that's doable, but you're going to need some help. If I were in the same position, what I would probably do first is just put articles up, one at a time, at WP:PRH and our A-class review and WP:AV's A-class review and ask for help, and see if anyone jumps in and helps. I would also try to help other people's aviation articles get through reviews. If that started working, I'd take that as a sign that I had found a useful collaboration. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've skimmed the article again, and I think the things that Sturm tagged, and more, need attention. Phil hasn't been back. Also ... the reviews have been high-quality, but I think there's no substitute for reviewers from the aviation project on aviation articles ... and I might be wrong, but the only one I recognize from WP:AV is Sturm, and he's not in favor of promotion, either. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've also been involved in the Aviation project but, as with Storm, it's not my main pigeon. I agree we should have more dedicated members of that project reviewing these things, and you'll find that they show up to reviews of some aircraft articles, though perhaps more often to the ones written by long-standing members of the AV "fold". I've said elsewhere that I think we should continue listing articles here because our ACR process has tended to be stronger than at AV, however we should post cross-notices of MilHist ACRs for aviation articles at that project to try and drum up interest. It's probably a bit late for this one since it's already over the time limit, although given it has two supports, if Phil did undertake to address o/s issues from you and Storm post-haste, I'd favour leaving it open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you're a jack of all trades Ian! Agreed on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh ... just realized that the 30,000 articles on RAAF officers that Ian's written and I've copyedited are all tagged by WP:AV ... not sure why I didn't make the connection before, must be some missing neurons :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you're a jack of all trades Ian! Agreed on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've also been involved in the Aviation project but, as with Storm, it's not my main pigeon. I agree we should have more dedicated members of that project reviewing these things, and you'll find that they show up to reviews of some aircraft articles, though perhaps more often to the ones written by long-standing members of the AV "fold". I've said elsewhere that I think we should continue listing articles here because our ACR process has tended to be stronger than at AV, however we should post cross-notices of MilHist ACRs for aviation articles at that project to try and drum up interest. It's probably a bit late for this one since it's already over the time limit, although given it has two supports, if Phil did undertake to address o/s issues from you and Storm post-haste, I'd favour leaving it open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've skimmed the article again, and I think the things that Sturm tagged, and more, need attention. Phil hasn't been back. Also ... the reviews have been high-quality, but I think there's no substitute for reviewers from the aviation project on aviation articles ... and I might be wrong, but the only one I recognize from WP:AV is Sturm, and he's not in favor of promotion, either. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I've commenced my review/copyedit; will aim to continue tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...a larger weapons undercarriage doesn't sound right. "Undercarriage" usually means the landing gear; do we mean a larger weapons bay, or underwing pylons capable of taking larger weapons, or what?
- It has been speculated that further modifications to a new production batch would include a phased-array radar, thrust-vectoring nozzles, and long-range anti-ship missiles doesn't really work for me. First of all I'd suggest that any "speculation" should be attibuted in the text, as we don't know whether it was from the author of the cited source, or him describing others' thoughts; secondly, what became of this -- did a new production batch indeed include these mods, or not?
- You probably should try linking, or else briefly describe, "non-flare" landings.
- autumn 2006 -- which hemisphere? Should give a month or least say "early" or "late" 2006 instead.
- That's pretty much it from me for the prose review. Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look okay so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see these have been largely actioned so close to support, however I think you mean "the aircraft's nose is not raised prior to touchdown", rather than "not rotated"; it might even be better to re-word to something like "the aircraft does not assume a nose-up attitude prior to touchdown"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, think that's better, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like of the plane documents 6 crashes, compared to 2 on this article. Please put your Support on hold for now as I try to translate these accidents (a bit of help would be nice as I don't speak Russian). Some of these accidents are attributed to Russian books and might not be readily coherent as to what they mean. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I'm afraid I don't know Russian either, although I know someone who does, a bit, if you get stuck. On the other hand, the heading "notable accidents" implies that not everything has to be documented here, and if you've only come across two in your extensive research, perhaps they're ipso facto the "most notable" ones... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like of the plane documents 6 crashes, compared to 2 on this article. Please put your Support on hold for now as I try to translate these accidents (a bit of help would be nice as I don't speak Russian). Some of these accidents are attributed to Russian books and might not be readily coherent as to what they mean. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, think that's better, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see these have been largely actioned so close to support, however I think you mean "the aircraft's nose is not raised prior to touchdown", rather than "not rotated"; it might even be better to re-word to something like "the aircraft does not assume a nose-up attitude prior to touchdown"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose. I stopped reading after the first paragraph of the design section which uses two tenses. I've liberally sprinkled awkward tags where needed up to that point. Fix these and do a more thorough edit of the remainder of the prose and I'll review the rest of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in to clarify re. Design: after the first, introductory sentence, it's all present tense in that section, which I think is reasonable enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fail this review now, the article is obviously not up to scratch. 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)
- Well as I've intimated above, obviously two reviewers (AC and myself) think it is up to scratch, and if you felt you could dedicate some time to addressing Dank's and Storm's points I'm sure they'd be a case for continuing the review -- one (pragmatic) benefit is of course we wouldn't all be coming back at some later date for another one! However if you can't manage that now then we'll naturally respect your wish to withdraw it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fail this review now, the article is obviously not up to scratch. 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)
- OK, I've made the changes. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking for some kind of response to my "Comments" above. Also, something that I think was right before has gone wrong: "work proceeded on the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded." - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've made the changes. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed as No Consensus Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this biography for A-Class review because I believe it meets all five A-Class criteria, and because I believe it is of compelling interest to those who care about military issues, political activism, and political thought. Its subject entered the public eye as a draft dodger leader during the Vietnam War, and proceeded to create Canada's (and arguably North America's) most significant draft dodger assistance organization. He spent the rest of his life trying to articulate a "visionary" but non-Marxist political philosophy that would inspire the U.S. to play what he felt was a more benign role at home and abroad. The article ends two paragraphs after he calls for mandatory national service (i.e., a draft) on Voice of America radio in 2004, nearly three decades after the Vietnam War.
I wrote the original stub article in 2004 and did the major expansion / revision in 2005. Here I have updated, revised, and expanded it by a factor of 15 in an effort to make it truly useful for readers and researchers for decades to come. On my own, I had it reviewed for substance by some of those familiar with some of the events discussed. I then put it through the FAC process, and entered nearly 100 changes suggested or inspired by my FAC reviewers. I hope you will enjoy reviewing it.
Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in the 2005 revision (the original stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers of quality texts (see, e.g., Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought, Westview Press, 2nd ed., 1998, pp. 281-316). My principal goals here were – and are – clarity and ease of reading.
Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention. Babel41 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I deeply appreciate your willingness to do this work. I'll try to make it worth your while. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The writing is excellent; the problems I'm seeing aren't fatal, but before we're done, I think some of the sources are going to have to go, and some of the writing needs to be toned down a bit or condensed.
- Okay. I trust you. My goal (esp. after digesting Nikki's, Ed's, and your FAC comments) is to turn this into an entry that will last & be useful to researchers long after Satin's death. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "visionary" isn't forbidden in WP bios, but coming in the first sentence, it doesn't set a neutral tone.
- Done Agreed! Moreover, the article doesn't need it. I simply cut that whole phrase. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "he has been called ...": in a newspaper whose slogan is: "To fear God, tell the truth and make money". Is there support somewhere for the idea that this is in some sense an expert or consensus position?
- Done For better or worse, the Daily Herald represents the views of tens of millions of Americans and is one of America's 100 highest-circulation daily newspapers, according to Wikipedia. But I've (a) taken the superlative out, and (b) added corroborating references from a variety of sources covering five decades. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "transformational,", etc.: See WP:LQ, and also my review in the recent FAC.
- WP:LQ is very clear, thanks. I've proofread the Intro. and Personal Life sections, and will cover the rest tomorrow if my eyes hold out.
- Done All the text and all the references are now in LQ-style. - Babel41 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LQ is very clear, thanks. I've proofread the Intro. and Personal Life sections, and will cover the rest tomorrow if my eyes hold out.
- "House of Anansi Press": isn't described in the lead, and is described as "then-fledgling", in the text. At the time Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada was published, did the company have more than one employee? Although "published" is a reasonable description according to dictionaries, Wikipedians are sensitive about the word and the concept ... that is, we try to use language that makes it clear whether something fits our notions of a "reliable source", which more often than not means the product of an establish publishing house with a reputation for a rigorous selection process and professional fact-checking. This isn't of course a criticism of the book.
- Done Anansi's evolution is not important to Satin's biography, so I simply cut the material about Anansi (including the "then-fledgling" phrase) from the "Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section. It was indeed a reputable publisher by the time it brought out Satin's book; its initial founders, who ran the place for the first few years, were two well-known Canadian writers, Dennis Lee and Dave Godfrey; one of the books published before Satin's was by the already internationally acclaimed writer Margarat Atwood. Evidence of publication by Anansi can be found via the many references to the Manual in the body of my article - these include the New York Review of Books and the Cambridge Companion to Canadian Literature! And see the two linked references in my next comment. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "reports nearly 100,000 copies sold": has anyone other than the publisher said that?
- Done I was wrong; the article I cited does NOT attrribute the 100,000 figure to Anansi. And I found a recent article in the other leading Toronto newspaper that gives the same 100,000 figure. I now cite both newspaper articles together, first in my Intro. and then in the "Manual" sub-section, and I managed to find and include public links to both articles. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I suspect that the 100,000 figure includes sales of mimeograhed, bowdlerized, and pirated versions by U.S. anti-draft groups (that Anansi could have stopped if it wanted to). But it would require "original research" to prove this. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "anti-Vietnam War movement": See WP:DASH; I rewrote this, but you're welcome to revert if you like, if you also replace the hyphen by an en-dash.
- Done I decided to leave your rewrite because you are CLEARLY more in tune with Wikipedia's everyday rhetoric than I. I cannot help pointing out, though, that your construction, which includes the word "resistance," sounds slightly more politically radical than mine. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right ... I self-reverted, but added the dash. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I decided to leave your rewrite because you are CLEARLY more in tune with Wikipedia's everyday rhetoric than I. I cannot help pointing out, though, that your construction, which includes the word "resistance," sounds slightly more politically radical than mine. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a guess, but I think the quote from Satin's mother will be considered too long at FAC, and perhaps here at A-class review as well.
- Done I shortened it by 25% (one sentence out of four). I would hate to cut more, since much of Satin's behavior can be seen (and has been seen) as rebellion against his parents lasting many decades. And it is a great quote, embodying so much of what (the radical wing of) S's generation hated about their parents' attitudes and feelings. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "His Wichita Falls debate teacher, Roma Gilbert, writes ...": Concerning this source and many others, I think it might be helpful to read up on our policy about use of secondary vs. primary sources. At FAC, there's a higher (but still not well-defined) threshold called "high-quality sources", a standard that is at least considered for A-class as well.
- Done I totally get this, and I simply took the whole quote - the whole paragraph - out. The "Early years" sub-section doesn't need it, not when it ends with Satin's confessed sadness, as it does now. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work on this! I'll keep going after a couple more reviews come in, I want to see if I'm on the right track. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I totally get this, and I simply took the whole quote - the whole paragraph - out. The "Early years" sub-section doesn't need it, not when it ends with Satin's confessed sadness, as it does now. - Babel41 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got down to Explanations offered. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the principal author: In anticipation of your and others' further comments, I have done tons of new work on this article (as you can see from its "History" page). I really hope other Military History reviewers give it a look. Although it is about an anti-war activist and theorist, it does NOT treat him as a hero or his causes as gospel. If anything, it (gently) reveals the soft underbelly of many idealists' hopes and dreams. I look forward to working with any comments any of you might care to provide. - Babel41 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, we're happy to talk about the downsides of war all day long, that's not it ... we just don't have enough reviewers. There are a few articles that are getting more reviews than yours, but that's because people may feel confident with the material. You'll get a few more reviews before this closes, I expect. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the principal author: In anticipation of your and others' further comments, I have done tons of new work on this article (as you can see from its "History" page). I really hope other Military History reviewers give it a look. Although it is about an anti-war activist and theorist, it does NOT treat him as a hero or his causes as gospel. If anything, it (gently) reveals the soft underbelly of many idealists' hopes and dreams. I look forward to working with any comments any of you might care to provide. - Babel41 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather someone else review the Explanations offered section and the paragraph in the next section that begins "Satin defined himself as a neopacifist"; I'm more comfortable reviewing narratives than critiques.
- "isn't easy", "tired of" (quotes yours): quote marks are fine, and even necessary, when paraphrasing runs too high a risk of obscuring the meaning ... but it seems to me that it's not hard to paraphrase "isn't easy" and "tired of"; they aren't pregnant with meaning. Also consider paraphrasing other one- and two-word quotes.
- Done I couldn't paraphrase your two examples because I refer back to them in my parallelism two paragraphs on (and they were in fact carefully thought through by SUPA's spokesman and board). But I got rid of TWELVE two- and three-word quotes elsewhere in the article, and it reads better for it ... thanks. - Babel41 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "RCMP": I recommend writing it out; then give the acronym.
- Done - Babel41 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to a study of the Manual in a literary journal, some editions experienced a falloff in quality of typeface and paper stock and an increased politicization of some content.": Seems like too much detail.
- Done Agreed. I now end the sentence after "quality". The rest has been exterminated. - Babel41 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, New Age politics, 1970s – 1980s. These are my edits. (I'm sorry, I've only had time to copyedit halfway on the A-class articles lately.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your great work! Recovering from oral surgery. Over the next two days I'll be entering about 100 mostly tiny changes to make the text more perfectly compatible with MOS. I will then gather & enter ISBN numbers for all 73 book references, per Nikkimania's original suggestion. Ed, wait till you see all my NBSPs! - Babel41 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. I hate oral surgery. Like the drugs, though. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments above look good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. I hate oral surgery. Like the drugs, though. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your great work! Recovering from oral surgery. Over the next two days I'll be entering about 100 mostly tiny changes to make the text more perfectly compatible with MOS. I will then gather & enter ISBN numbers for all 73 book references, per Nikkimania's original suggestion. Ed, wait till you see all my NBSPs! - Babel41 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed as No Consensus Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed the GA review, and I want to improve it further. The article is about a major air battle between North Vietnamese and USAF fighters, fought in 1967. Canpark (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing concerns
- "forcing the bomb-laden aircraft to jettison their loads" versus "forcing the bomb-laden aircraft to jettison their ordnance" - overly close paraphrasing
- "From summer 1965 to the winter period of 1966–67, the campaign was aimed at degrading North Vietnam’s capability to infiltrate and send men into South Vietnam" versus "from summer 1965 to winter 1966-67, aimed to degrade North Vietnam's capability to infiltrate men and supplies into South Vietnam" - ditto. There are a number of other instances of this throughout, please check thoroughly
- Article says bombing campaign was ended 21 October, source says 31 October
- "they ordered the MiG-21 fighters to climb up to 28,000 kilometers" - source says feet
- "covered by 10/10th cloud, which started at a height of 1,500 feet (460 m) and cleared at 3,000 feet (910 m)" - phrasing is very close to source, but source gives measurements as 1500 and 3000 meters
- "The VPAF High Command immediately scrambled two flights of four MiG-17 fighters from the VPAF 923rd Fighter Regiment, followed by two MiG-21 fighters from the VPAF 921st Fighter Regiment at 2:51 pm" - not in source, at least not on page cited
- "which resulted in the deaths of Weapon Systems Officers Captain Ronald N. Sittner (66-0238, 8th TFW) and First Lieutenant Charles Lane (66-00247, 8th TFW).[17] Major Charles R. Tyler, Captain Larry E. Carrigan, Major Robert R. Sawhill and First Lieutenant Gerald L. Gerndt ejected safely from their aircraft, but they were captured alive and became prisoners of war. Major C.B. Demarque and his Weapons System Officer, First Lieutenant J.M. Piet were rescued shortly after they ejected from their malfunctioned aircraft over Thai airspace" - other than Tyler and Sittner, I don't see these names mentioned in the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please address these issues before we can go on about it. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerenetalk 12:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It has been peer reviewed and considerably improved in the last month and I should like to proceed to FA in the near future. Thank you.Harkey (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- 1) Lead needs a rewrite, I think. "Cook charted many areas ... by the Admiralty." doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic; nor is the legacy suitably addressed. Still needs that copyedit (particularly with regard to use of quotations) I mentioned. There's a space before the colon in note 1.
- 2) Some references also need filling out, eg. "Profile of Captain Cook Primary School at BBC News". There are a couple of references to Google books, which isn't how they are usually referenced. (eg. what is currently ref #60). Refs 61 and 62 are the same and can be consolidated via the "name" parameter (I don't know if you understand how to do that, if not, I can find you a link). #58 seems malformed. Is it actually the book being referenced if #59, or its review? Best avoid the latter; if the former then reference it as a book. #15, #17, #18 look like they need work. #42 does not have a page number (again a book that needs referencing as a book).
- I'd like to see the latter point in particular brought up to speed quickly to give this ACR maximum chance of success. Would you like me to help you with it myself? I'm guessing you don't have much experience at this game. I had a look at this one at PR and I think it has strong potential. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Edit]. I notice some books are beneath, in which case it may just be a style problem and not a source problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. As you noted, I am inexperienced in this field. I would value any help you are willing to give in editing the article.--Harkey (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- This needs a rewrite "...1752 promotion to mate (officer in charge of navigation)".
- The link should be master's mate, note in the merchant service they were simply called mate (not a chief mate). Mates were not officers and were not in charge of navigation (that's the master's job!), they assisted the master with his duties. Hough says he was a master's mate on page 11, put a citation after you fix the wording. I thought Hough's description on page 6 was better since it specified he took an exam.
- Hough doesn't have the detail of his temporary command of a cutter in 1756; it says the eagle was being refitted until 1757.
- His promotions to lieutenant and commander need some more information; first, an ordinary seaman getting a commission was rare so I assume one of your sources mentions why they thought he was deserving on the rank. Second, he was 39 years old, which was also extremely old for a lieutenant; I would just put his age in that sentence. Similarly, his promotion to commander sounds like a reward to me based on the successes of the first voyage; I would cite this.
- After promotion to Post-Captain Hough doesn't mention anything about an 'honorary retirement' (half-pay? a special reward?); if you have a source I would cite this. Kirk (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I've read through the peer review here and I see you were advised to bring this to MilHist A-class review (which is where we are). This puzzles me, as although he was a captain in the Royal Navy, and this brings it within the scope of MilHist, I would have thought that other WikiProjects might have been a better place to go for assistance with the non-military aspects of this article. Don't get me wrong, you are getting good advice above on the military parts, but what is really needed is a review of the exploration and scientific aspects. I don't know how much experience MilHist editors have with those topics, but what is needed here is careful consideration of how to balance the summaries of the voyages (what he is most famous for and about which an awful lot has been written) with the other aspects of his life (as this is an article about him, not the voyages). I'll add a few comments below, but what would be useful is to flag up the actual biographies of Cook and separate those out from the other sources, as where I would start is seeing which biographies of Cook have been used here (and which haven't). One question I would ask is how many of the actual books listed in the bibliography do you have, and how many were there when you started editing the article? I see from here that your first edit to this article was around this time last year, when the article looked like this. Could you summarise what has changed since then, and how much of the current text was added by earlier editors (this earlier text needs to be thoroughly checked against the sources provided)?
Having said that, I'll now make some more specific comments.
- The 'see also' section needs to be tidied up, as eight is far too many. Try and fold them into the main article with a reference and a link for each mention.
- The 'external links' section needs tidying up. Decisions need to be taken on which links should be here, which should be on other articles, and which should be used as references. The three biographical dictionary entires (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are a good example of where things could be trimmed down. Either keep all three and expand under a "Further reading - biographies" subsection, or drop them altogether (though note them on the talk page). The alternative to trimming the external links (or moving them to other articles) is to do an expanded layout, grouping the external links by topic area, guiding the reader to where to read more on what could be a very large topic (depends on how successful the spinning out of the voyages to their own articles is). But most people will tell you to trim the external links and only use the essential ones. Any that might be useful for future editing (i.e. for use as references) should be recorded on the talk page.
- We should really have articles on the second and third voyages (we currently seem to only have an article on the first voyage). That would immensely simplify the organisation of this article.
- I would drop the 'Atlas portal' template.
- The image caption should say where the blue plaque is located.
- There are loads of pictures available to use (including this one that I took of a statue in London earlier this year). There should be some indication that you've considered the range of pictures available and consciously selected the ones being used here, with reasons for including each one. Otherwise there will be the potential for instability there as people try and add more pictures.
- It will be possible to track down the history of all the memorials and monuments and state exactly when they were commissioned/dedicated/unveiled. Currently, the article lacks these dates and details, with only one year mentioned (1993).
- The Runnymede/Kennedy mention is not needed.
- I hope the above is helpful. I would be happy to read the article again and say more, but will leave it at that for now. Overall, I think a lot more work is needed, but as Grandiose says, the article definitely has potential. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. All the above comments are most helpful. I have already started to make the changes, with the easiest first. I have six biographies of Cook, as well as several books discussing various aspects of his achievements and legacy, to hand, and have already checked the facts in the article against them. I agree that we need at least two more articles on the voyages and possibly one on Cook's legacy. Some of the works listed in the bibliography are not cited in the article so could be moved to a further reading section, or to the talk page, without significant loss to the current content. --Harkey (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the best course of action at this time would be to withdraw the article from ACR. I investigated the sources more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy needs more consideration. Thank you all for your comments.--Harkey (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; a MilHist project coordinator should action this within the next 24 hours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the best course of action at this time would be to withdraw the article from ACR. I investigated the sources more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy needs more consideration. Thank you all for your comments.--Harkey (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed / withdrawn by nominator -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Canadian Paul 03:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I previously nominated this article here, over a year ago, for A-Class status, and it failed because of a lack of reviews, not for any particular content reason. I am renominating now because I still feel that my original reason for nomination applies: it has been certified as a good article for some time now and, now that he has died, I feel that all the resources have now surfaced for this article to meet the criteria. As Canada's final surviving veteran of World War I, he was not only an important historical figure for the country, but one of the final links to one of the largest military conflicts in human history. Canadian Paul 03:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Always happy to see Canadian English articles at A-class.
- This may or may not be relevant, but the article for Frank Buckles (the last American WWI vet to die) survived A-class and then went up in flames at FAC. In the post-mortem, we decided that it was probably too early to try to get the article through FAC, because most of the sources were recent and overly positive in tone. The first section, Early life, reminds me of some of the problems pointed out in the Buckles FAC. I'm not sure what the standards are on this at A-class; I'd like to hear other opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read this article yet, but I think articles on subjects who were not notable for most of their lives and then suddenly became notable for something they did 90 years ago have inherent problems that there's not an awful lot editors can do about. It means that they might do well at fora like this, but not at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Opposing, in part per HJ and Nick: those sources can't support an A-class bio article, but if someday a high-quality biography is published that you could use as a source, I'd be willing to take another look.
- Also, you haven't taken action on or asked about any of the great advice you got from Nikki from last year's FAC. Understood that new nominators often won't know who to trust, or even know what they're being asked to do, but skimming that FAC and this article, I agree with everything Nikki said (as usual). We don't have the reviewer resources available to do things twice; please either take her advice (and everything so far on this page looks good, too), or, if it doesn't seem right or you don't know what she's asking for, ask about it here before this A-class review closes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defense, my FAC was closed before I even had a chance to read, let alone work on, any of those points, so I apologize if I had forgotten about them. Canadian Paul 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defense, my FAC was closed before I even had a chance to read, let alone work on, any of those points, so I apologize if I had forgotten about them. Canadian Paul 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- There seems to be a formatting problem with the signature image
- Need page numbers for newspapers without weblinks
- FN 17 appears to be a web source, but no URL is provided
- Some phrasings seem a bit colloquial - "wrestled freight", "pleasures of beer", etc
- WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times - for example, Monarchy of Canada. Also, don't link terms in See also linked in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I've fixed the signature, but I want to go over the rest more carefully, so I will take care of them tomorrow. FNs 5,7, and 17 were all once web sources, but 5 and 17 have disappeared. I tried to search for 5 in the Toronto Star archives, but I couldn't find it, nor did a web search help, and 17 seems to have been permanently archived. I'll try a few more search tips and do what I can with WP:LINKROT. Canadian Paul 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know if you need help - I've got access to a few research databases that archive Canadian newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could find anything on the Toronto Star one, that would be much appreciated... I'm not sure why it doesn't pop up in the archives... as for the other one, I'm sure that I could find another source to provide the same information, so I'll take care of that tomorrow. I've gone through and hopefully fixed all the linking issues, so I will go in and tidy up the colloquial phrasings tomorrow as well... my eyelids are drooping at the moment... Canadian Paul 05:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't been able to find it. To confirm: is it the Star, as you say here, or the Sun, as the article says? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could find anything on the Toronto Star one, that would be much appreciated... I'm not sure why it doesn't pop up in the archives... as for the other one, I'm sure that I could find another source to provide the same information, so I'll take care of that tomorrow. I've gone through and hopefully fixed all the linking issues, so I will go in and tidy up the colloquial phrasings tomorrow as well... my eyelids are drooping at the moment... Canadian Paul 05:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know if you need help - I've got access to a few research databases that archive Canadian newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While a lot of work has clearly gone into this article, I think that it falls short of A class. A problem might be that it's still too early to write the article - a book or detailed magazine article on Babcock's life would help a lot as newspaper articles about veterans tend to be of limited use given that they're often reliant on the memories of very old people. My specific comments are:
- The chronology of Babcock's life jumps around a lot for no clear reason - this makes the article quite frustrating to read. For instance, the 'early life' section suddenly jumps forward to the 1920s, and the first para of the 'After the First World War' section jumps repeatedly.
- The details of Babcock's military experiences are vague. Some of the language is also highly unclear (for instance "he was stopped by the company commander." - a 'company' is one of the basic units of an army, and the Canadian Army would have had hundreds of them).
- "Soldiers holding acting ranks in the Canadian forces receive the salary and allowances of the rank, but can be reverted to a previous rank at any time due to their lack of the necessary training or experience to hold that position permanently.[11] In Canada during wartime, individuals could be promoted to acting ranks in order to meet service requirements." - I'm not sure what the purpose of these sentences are. I don't think that this article needs to explain how the military rank structure works as we have dedicated articles on this topic.
- "He received a Canadian Army pension that totaled $750 shortly after the conflict" - was this a one-off lump sum, or did he receive a regular pension?
- "After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 he attempted to sign up for active duty with the army's flying service (the United States Air Force was not formed until 1947), but was turned down for being too old.[7] He therefore spent World War II in the United States Army" sounds rather odd given that the US Army deployed millions of men overseas. The United States Army Air Forces is well known, and should be named rather than be called the 'army's flying service'.
- What's the relevance of his grandson serving in Iraq? Babcock only spent a few years in the military (which he didn't regard as being particularly notable service) and this was common for Canadian and American men of his generation. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm choosing to withdraw my nomination. I think that a common idea is that his fame is too over-balanced to late in life to write an A Class article, so I'll agree with that and say that it's probably not worth keeping this nomination open. So nothing personal and no hard feelings - hopefully a book will come out some time in the future (but probably not). Cheers, Canadian Paul 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerenetalk 16:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article is well-structured, pretty comprehensive and factually accurate. The article contains strong supporting visuals, such as images diagrams and movies. It has recently appeared on DYK and passed the GA review. I nominate this article to improve it with your suggestions and, hopefully, to bring it to FA status at a later stage. Thanks in advance for any input! Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-ordinator note: this nomination was not transcluded on to the ACR page or announced until 13 August. As such, I think that the 28-day review period should start from that date, so long as nobody has any objections, in order to give the article a fighting chance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems only fair to me at least. Anotherclown (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note 6 should be incorporated into the very first line of the article - official name should be given, not buried in footnotes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with minor comments:
- "the Royal Air Force adopted two large" - do you really mean adopted? (e.g. they were used by someone else or for another purpose, and then by the RAF for this purpose). I wasn't quite sure! Done I rephrase the first sentence to emphasize on Wallis' work.
- "These features accord with Newton's approximation for impact depth, and the empirical design equation known as Young's equation..." The jump into (relatively) technical language here is quite sharp - is there any way of softening it for the casual reader?
- "The CP/RA[Note 6] Disney bombs..." there's a note explaining it, but could you perhaps say "The Disney bombs, officially codenamed 4500-lb CP/RA bombs, were 16 ft..." which would mean that you wouldn't have to click on it to make sense of the CR/RA bit?
- "barometric switch" - worth linking or footnoting what this is. Done --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to anecdote, the idea arose..." As the first sentence in a new section, you'll want to say what the idea was. (e.g. "The idea of the bomb...")
- "to decide in its favour giving it "P plus" priority" - worth explaining, linking or footnoting - is this a high priority...?
- "In June 1945, the Air Council[Note 15] wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty expressing "their appreciation" of the work that had been done on the "rocket bomb"" - did the Air Council really write about "their appreciation"? I could imagine a letter in which the Council put "our appreciation" in it, but it sounds like the quote is describing the letter, not actually from it (in which case, you'd need to say whose quote it is). Unless, I suppose, it was the Secretary of the Council writing the letter... - anyway, just curious!
- Did the bomb influence any later designs?
- Enjoyed the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- This is awkward: On the 30 March, 36 aircraft from the US Eighth Air Force, including 12 from the 92nd Bomb Group,[36] attacked with Disney bombs the Valentin submarine pens
- Don't use this phrasing with dates: "the 27 of March". It's just 27 March since we don't use 27th of March. Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for mixing American and British English. Pick one and standardize on it.
- Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and fix your reference's titles. Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All books need place of publication. Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Add Spillman to the Bibliography Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a semi-colon in place of the comma in Thom. Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the double period in the first external link. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments This is an interesting and very detailed article which is close to meeting A class standard. I think that a few issues need to be addressed first though:
- The clarification needed tag in the first sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Testing of the Disney bombs began' should be addressed (though this seems an adequate level of detail to me)
- " There had been numerous other attacks from bombers carrying smaller, conventional bombs." needs a citation
- The last paragraph of the 'Development and testing' section states that the Watten bunker was an 'ideal' test location, but the first paragraph of the 'Post-war development' section states that it was 'too small to be a satisfactory target' - can this contradiction be resolved?
- "so a very large bunker complex, such as Valentin, would have required many penetrating hits to be sure of destroying all the contents." needs a citation
- Notes 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 need references. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: (very minor - mainly with a view towards FA). I might not get back to this review before I have to go away for a month (leaving next Friday). As such, for the closing co-ord, please do not consider this review as an oppose or a support. These are only some suggestions.
- sometimes you use Second World War and sometimes World War II (and then sometimes WWII). Either is fine, but it should be consistent, I think;
- the use of emdashes, endashes and hyphens to break up clauses is a little inconsistent;
- sometimes endashes are being used in compound adjectives, when they should probably just be hyphens. For example: "prisoners–of–war" (should just be hyphens);
- the References and Further reading section appear in a different sized font. I'd suggest making them the same by adding the "refbegin"/"refend" tags to the Further reading section as well. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources comments
- Be consistent in whether you hyphenate isbns Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe (28 January 1945) needs an endash in the volume range Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you use m-d-y or d-m-y date style in citations
- Something has gone awry with ref 27 Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 5, 7, 9 and 44 need page numbers
- In the bibliography but with no citations: Keefer, I. J. (December 1947). --Eisfbnore • talk 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "making repair uneconomic by the shock waves transmitted through the ground.": ?
- I generally don't comment on footnotes, but I don't think these footnotes are working. For the first two, it's not clear how much weight you give to the other figures. Since I haven't read the refs, I'm not in a position to say exactly which of the footnotes are tangential, but footnote 3 is one candidate; there are so many footnotes that some of them are likely to come across as tangential. The material in footnote 5 would be better in the main text.
- "It was shaped to be much slimmer than was usual for aircraft-dropped bombs and a cluster of booster rockets accelerated the weapon as it fell, so it struck the target with a velocity much greater than its free-fall, terminal velocity.": "so it struck ..." and following seems redundant.
- "These features accord with Newton's approximation for impact depth ...": "features" isn't the right word here ... that would include the rockets, which Newton didn't write about. Maybe "Per Newton's ...". Also, "Newton's approximation for impact depth" is an WP:EGG problem; better is "Newton's approximation for impact depth".
- "dense, long and thin (i.e. has a large sectional density)": Personally, I'd omit the parenthetical comment, since most readers would get more from "dense and thin".
- "CP/RA": acronyms should be spelled out at first occurrence, and even though this is technically the name of the bomb, it's also an acronym.
- "the bomb ... they": Either "the bomb ... it" or "the bombs ... they".
- "Shellite": the best I can tell, lowercase it. There seem to have been several different mixtures called "shellite", some of which might be uppercased, such as Diggers' Shellite. Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "No.58 MK I tail Pistol fuzes": "No. 58", and don't insert a location (tail) in the middle of a name.
- "(i.e. furthest from the nose)": probably just (furthest from the nose)
- "nineteen": WP:ORDINAL prefers 19. I don't have a preference.
- I've been reminded that ORDINAL says "nineteen" is fine. See User talk:Dank#Ordinals for more. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the 3 inches (76 mm) Rocket Projectile": the RP-3, a 3-inch (76 mm) rocket projectile
- "In the third rear section": In the third (rear) section
- Oppose. I'm going to stop there ... I don't often oppose simply over prose issues, but this needs more work than I have time to give it. I'm hoping someone can finish up, it's an interesting and well-researched article. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote. However there are plenty of suggestions below to help with the article's development, and if it's being taken across to WP:AVIATION a good starting point would be the outstanding items and MilborneOne's review (which has been unaddressed here due to lack of time but would be valuable if carried over). EyeSerenetalk 10:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra"'
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...the article had just passed GA nomination. I believe the article is an FA potential, and the first step towards nominating it at FAC is here. The article is accurate and verifiable, well-written (I hope!), neutral, and follows MoS guidelines. At the end of this ACR I wish to learn how I can improve, not just for this particularly article, but other aviation and military history-related as well. I'd also like editors to rate the article using {{Rating|X|X}}, so I can have a visual of the Project's general feeling of the article. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
- Why doesn't Alison J. get any credit in the citations? You list them as a coauthor of Crickmore's in the bibliography.
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books or not.
- In citations but not in bibliography: Eden 2004. Eisfbnore • talk 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed latter two points – to reply to your first point, I think Alison and Paul are siblings. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing a bit with this, if you head to FAC Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org will not be considered 'high quality' sources. You're also using Crickmore a bit heavily, which is understandable given the scope of his book, but finding another author to complement Crickmore would be ideal. You'd be surprised at what two different authors can uncover on the same subject. Overall, though, this is a great article – nice work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What does this mean? Northrop's submission featured angular and flat surfaces, although the company's and Lockheed's designs were similar to each other.
- Take that sentence literally – the Have Blues didn't have any angular (curved) surfaces, while the Northrop's submission had some. This link shows the Northrop design, although it doesn't feature any visible angular lines. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesss, but it could be expressed better -- have a look at my copyedit and see what you think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the Senior Trend section even here? It should be condensed to a single sentence saying how the Have Blue success led to the F-117.
- Because the five full-scale development aircraft weren't F-117s at all, so I think F-117 and Lockheed Have Blue should have some info about them. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These are awkward, think about combining them: Afterwards, a model was moved to radar testing facility in the Mojave Desert near Palmdale. The Grey Butte Range, owned by McDonnell Douglas, allowed more accurate tests of the aircraft's RCS.
- Something's missing here: were each awarded a $100,000 for further research.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed a. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko
Great job, I really only saw a couple minor things.
- The reference for Ufimtsev, P. Ya, doesn't appear in the bibliography.
- I'm not sure if the http://www.paglen.com/pages/projects/nowhere/archive/have_blue.htm is a very good reference so it might be better to try and find a better one if possible.
- I think the http://area51specialprojects.com/haveblue.html is also a questionable reference and should probably be replaced as well if possible.
I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Paglen.com page and replaced Area51specialprojects.com with the Jenkins book. As for the first point, it's only there to prove that the work by Ufimtsev existed. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick reply well done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Rose
Useful job, Phil. You asked me elsewhere to advise on your writing and I remarked at the time on the generally high standard of your work. I stand by that but we can all use some critiques of our prose, me included, and I note you've also asked here for a "rating" on your efforts.
- With the above in mind, I've tried to spell out in edit summaries why I've made certain changes. However I've stopped at Construction and further tests because I think you should go over the rest of the article and copyedit it yourself.
- I'll make the general comment here that basic layout, prose and style is okay; most of the stuff I've noticed includes typical grammatical things that you might pick up yourself just re-reading the article, "visually" (silently) to get the typos, and aloud to check the flow/structure of sentences.
- The most serious thing in this one (I haven't noticed it particularly in other articles of yours) is the tense switching every so often. One example is this, where we go from past to present in two sentences (my italics):
To build the demonstrators, Ben Rich had to raise $10.4 million from the Lockheed management, which was secured by June. Phase 2 encompasses three main objectives, which are the validation of: the four low-observable signatures (radar, infrared, acoustics and visual); acceptable flying qualities; and the "modeling capabilities that accurately predict low observable characteristics of an aircraft in flight.
- In the next example (after you correct a careless typo), you can probably get away with the present-tense "is needed" because you're saying you need more air in all takeoffs, not just with this plane (again, my italics):
The flight control system was borrowed from the F-16. The overwing engine inlet was covered by a low-RCS grid; during takeoffs, when more air is need, blow-in doors were constructed at the upper fuselage to admit additional airflow.
- I wrapped it there so have look at correcting these and the rest of the article, and then let's discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry for my ignorance, but sometimes I write down what comes into mind. I won't make the same mistake again Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read through the rest of the article to check for anything else similar to what I've noted above and in my copyedits? N.B. I'll be away in sunny Queensland till early next week so may not be online very often till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry for my ignorance, but sometimes I write down what comes into mind. I won't make the same mistake again Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport- external links check out [12], and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Three dabs [13] (action required)
- Some images lack alt text [14] - its not an ACR requirement but you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only).
- Not sure this is clear: "Martin and Ben Rich, who recently became Skunk Works' president". Recently now, or recently then? If you are attempting to use past tense then I think this should be reworded as "who at that time had recently become" or something similar to make it more clear.
- This seems a little redundant: "(CIA) gave Skunk Works the permission to discuss", specifically "the permission", IMO this could probably be reworded to "(CIA) gave Skunk Works permission to discuss..."
- This is unclear to me: "formally requested DARPA for participation in the program". Was the request made to DARPA for Lockheed to be allowed to participate or did Lockheed request that DARPA also participate in the program? Perhaps reword here.
- Not sure about this: "Overholser later recounted on his discussion with Sherrer", specifically "recounted on", this might be more simply worded as "Overholser later recounted his discussion with Sherrer".
- "The heat there built up, failing the hydraulic lines." This might be better as "The heat built up there, causing the hydraulic lines to fail."
- Overall this a very good article IMO. Just a couple of technical and a few prose issues to resolve/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my points have been dealt with, happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting where Ian stopped, at Construction and further tests.
- "the four low-observable signatures (radar, infrared, acoustics and visual)": I asked at the YF-23 FAC (and didn't get an answer) if "all-aspect" stealth meant anything more than radar and infrared; does it include acoustics and visual? (And is "visual stealth" nothing more than a fancy term for camouflage?) IMO, "a low-observable signature in radar" would be so much easier to read as "reduced susceptibility to detection by radar", and I'll make the edit ... let me know if there's some technical point that I'm missing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming back to this, I noticed that 3 of those things belong together; I went with "reduced visibility in the radio wave, infrared, and visual spectrums and reduced acoustical observability". "Radar" isn't strictly parallel to "infrared" and "visual", but we can find a way to squeeze it in if "radio wave" doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "modeling capabilities that accurately predict low observable characteristics of an aircraft in flight.": It was missing a quote mark ... and I have no idea what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Phase II": I went with "Phase 2" for consistency. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "23 October": I have no idea what year this is. It says, "On 1 November 1977, Lockheed and Northrop were each awarded $1.5-million contracts ...", then two sentences later, "In March 1976, a Lockheed model was transferred ...", then "23 October" comes in the next section. (And why are the 1976 and 1977 events not in chronological order?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Final assembly of HB1001": What's HB1001? You haven't mentioned HB1001 so far in the article.
- "ground tested": Needs a link or explanation ... unfortunately, I can't find a suitable WP page to link to. Possibly, the first paragraph of Flight_test#Execution could be split off into a section called Ground testing.
- "secret roll-out": "roll-out" generally means "unveiling", so "secret roll-out" is contradictory ... what does it mean?
- "with ground tests beginning": You'll get some resistance at FAC to "with ...ing" in this sense; try "and ground tests began".
- "While superficially similar to the later F-117, the Have Blue prototypes were smaller aircraft, about one quarter the weight of the F-117 ...": If it was much smaller, then "superficially similar" isn't the phrase I'd use; it means they appeared the same, and apparently, they didn't.
- Oppose. I'll stop there, and I'm going to ask for opinions over at WT:AVIATION. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like to see Dan's points actioned or answered before doing any more myself -- although as it's gone well over the standard 28-day limit without achieving consensus, I believe this ACR should be closed at this point (neither Dan nor I can do that given our involvement) and renominated when Phil has had a chance to go over the comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MilborneOne
- I have nominated one of the images at commons for deletion, it claims to be pd but is credited to Lockheed Martin. As we already have on non-free image I am not sure if it needs to be rescued and uploaded to en-wiki.
- In operational history/HB1001 it start with the first flight then goes straight into a commentary and history of the chase-plane pilot, breaks the flow perhaps need to deal with the two pilots in a different section.
- In operational history/HB1002 it mentions re-building the aft fuselage, in latter sentence it stays the spin reovery chute was removed - they appear to be connected - perhaps that could be made clearer.
- Some of the other text in operational history/HB1002 doesnt read right like "allowing the hot exhaust to migrate to the right engine compartment" it is not clear where from perhaps need to explain where the clamp was.
- Intro - the first fixed-wing aircraft designed from an electrical engineering perspective, sounds like they did the wiring and generators first. Further down it says the design was based on compter calculations related to RCS, doesnt sound like electrical engineering.
- Kenneth Watson was hired as the senior lead aircraft designer notable ?
- Construction of both Have Blue demonstrators used leftover tools from the C-5 program - sounds like they left a few screwdrivers and wrenches on a bench, not really clear what it means.
- I am not sure what you really require as part of this assesment so although I could go one with more points I will leave it at that for now, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much for your review! This one is past the 28-day limit, so it will probably be closed soon without promotion. I don't have any idea if WP:AVIATION's A-class review will give different results, but I'm willing to review it over there, provided Phil wants to put it up there. If you want to copy your review over there, that would help get us started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-class review again after having rewritten it. It's a short article, and any comment is welcomed. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggestions: G'day, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- in the infobox, the link to the Su-35 should be moved to the first mention
- Y Moved. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- there appears to be a mix of US and British English variation, e.g. "supermaneuverability" (US) but "programme" (British)
- Y Should be British English. Changed to "supermanoeuvrability". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- this needs a ref: "This lesson was incorporated into the modernized Su-35, which made its first flight in February 2008."
- Reworded, and added references. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- is this a typo: "...lack of energy will means he.." (specifically "means" instead of "mean")?
- Y Added {{sic}} template. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "removal of canards, the design of which imposed a weight penalty on the design..." suggest tweaking to "removal of canards, which imposed a weight penalty on the design.." (to remove repetition of "design")
- I know what you mean, and the phrase is referring to the canards; however, I'd like to make it clear that it's not referring to the removal of the canards. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, your solution looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean, and the phrase is referring to the canards; however, I'd like to make it clear that it's not referring to the removal of the canards. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- typo: "using the its flying test beds..."
- Y Removed the. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Sukhoi_Su-37_at_Farnborough_1996_airshow.jpg: is that the licensing provided in the OTRS ticket? It's typically used only for text-based works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying the photo isn't licensed for use in an online article? Perhaps I can replace it with File:Sukhoi Su-37 (14260362128).jpg? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at this point I'm wondering what exactly the OTRS ticket says about the licensing, because this one seems an odd choice and I know Commons was trying to move away from it - did the ticket specify this exact tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to verify the the ticket as I wasn't the person who uploaded it. In addition, it seems like only someone who has an Wikimedia account could verify it. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at this point I'm wondering what exactly the OTRS ticket says about the licensing, because this one seems an odd choice and I know Commons was trying to move away from it - did the ticket specify this exact tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying the photo isn't licensed for use in an online article? Perhaps I can replace it with File:Sukhoi Su-37 (14260362128).jpg? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Welcome back Phil, and well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Dank. Thank you for the edits. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Support The sentence ...the aircraft pitched up to 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position for several seconds... merges two specific terms: "pitch up" (i.e. to pull the nose up), and "up to" (i.e. a maxium of), and I got confused as to what the sentence was actually saying. It's not helped by the preceding link of "Super Cobra" to "Pugachev's Cobra"; the two manoeuvers do not appear to be the same - Pugachev's manoeuver pitches up only as far as the vertical, i.e. 90 degrees. Maybe amend the previous sentence to say that the Super Cobra is a variation of Pugachev's Cobra, and this sentence to say that the aircraft pitched 180 degrees about, or something like that? Otherwise a nice, well-written article. Seems eminently A-worthy to me. FactotEm (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've removed the piped link to Pugachev's Cobra and explained what the Super Cobra is as per your suggestion. I've also reworded the phrase about the 180-degree pitch up. Thanks, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still a little confused about the Super Cobra. ...the aircraft pitched up 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position momentarily, which would theoretically allow the aircraft to fire a missile at a combat opponent. To me, "up" is around the 90 degree mark. 180 degrees means it flipped completely about, so that the aircraft travels tail first through the air. Is that what this manoeuvre is? Does it really end up flying tail first? And is it a flip, or more of a very tight loop? This doesn't affect the review, which I'm supporting. I'm just curious. FactotEm (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the book doesn't say that the aircraft travels tail-first through the air. The book also doesn't say whether it's a loop or a flip; I would think it's part of a tight loop (kulbit), since I can't imagine or have seen a fighter aircraft recovering to a normal attitude (forward level flight) after a 180-degree flip. Here's the passage from the book: "Piloted by Yevgeniy Frolov, the Su-37 stole the show at Farnborough International '96 in September - and with good reason, too. The Su-37 is capable of pitching up through 180° into a tail-first position and staying in that position long enough to fire a missile at a pursuing enemy fighter... The Super Cobra logically evolved into a 360° somersault...". So to me the missile firing at 180 degrees is an instantaneous thing–which is what the Super Cobra allows–rather than the phenomenon of the aircraft being able to fly tail-first. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that this is really the place for an extended discussion - I'll take it to article talk. FactotEm (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting little article. Small for an A-class article, but looks fine. Good work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil, great to see you back here. Comments:
- The decision was therefore made By whom? Try to avoid the passive voice when possible
- Y Removed the passive voice. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- However, critics have questioned "However" is a widely misused word and this one could easily be replaced with "although" or "nonetheless"
- Y Replaced "however" with "nonetheless". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the pilot notable enough that that red link is likely to turn blue in the foreseeable future?
- The article originally had the links to the Russian articles, but Dank had them removed; I've removed the red link to Yuri Vashuk but kept the one for Yevgeni Frolov. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the aircraft finally crash after the pilot ejected? Was there any damage or casualties on the ground?
- Y Added the location of the crash. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: only image is freely licenced and I verified the OTRS ticket (and yes, strange as it may seem, that is the licence specified in the ticket).
A nice little article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank for for the verification. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time (review period expired). EyeSerenetalk 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra"'
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think the article is pretty close to FA status after week of collaborative work among Fnlayson, Kyteto, myslef and a few others. I plan to (co-)nominate the article for FA status, eventually Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
- Be consistent in whether you include "(UK)" after British locations.
- Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put dates or years of publication inside publisher parameters.
- Half done ... or rather, I just fixed some of these, we'll need to recheck if they're all gone --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the bibliography but with no citations: Lehman (2001).
- In the citations you say "Eden et al 2004" but list no other authors than Eden in the bibliography. Eisfbnore • talk 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is because he's the editor - what's the best way to handle this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eden is listed as "General Editor" for that book. There may have been some authors that wrote the earlier text that was edited for the book though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've changed these footnotes to list only Eden to match what the book lists. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- External links check out [15] (no action required).
- Two dabs [16]
- CASA
- Subsonic
- Done both these disambiguations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Citation Check tool reveals a few errors with the consolidation of citations:
- "Wilson 2000, p. 39." (Multiple references contain the same content)
- "Wilson_p39" (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Done these refs have now been combined by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images all have alt text [17] (no action required).
- The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [18] (no action required).
- Images all seem to either be PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
- Minor inconsistency in the presentation of USMC. In the lead you write "United States Marine Corps (USMC)" and later "US Marine Corps (USMC)", probably best to pick one and apply it consistently (I note you use terms like US Army and US Navy in places so perhap US Marine Corps would be the consistent choice).
- Uncertain about this; the longer version seems more appropriate for the lead and for section headings etc later (where it's also used), but seems too clumsy to use in full in the text later on. I'll see what Phil thinks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sp33dyphil has replaced all occurrences of "US Marine Corps" with "United States Marine Corps" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain about this; the longer version seems more appropriate for the lead and for section headings etc later (where it's also used), but seems too clumsy to use in full in the text later on. I'll see what Phil thinks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the Defense Department in 1976." The wikilink for United States Department of Defence should probably be moved here.
- Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about this construction: "The Gulf War highlighted the effectiveness of night attacks. In 1985, McDonnell Douglas commenced work..." The proximity of the two sentences implies possible a causal link, yet the Gulf War happened in 1990/91. Maybe move the first sentence to the end of the paragraph and reword a little. For instance "The Gulf War later highlighted the effectiveness of night attacks by Harriers"?
- Half done I've removed the sentence entirely as it's out of place in the section about the development of the aircraft. I wonder if it's worth including in the Operational History if the sources do discuss the NA capabilities being of particular importance in that conflict - the Litening pod is mentioned for the later one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "hand-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control principle", shouldn't this be "hands-on-throttle-and-stick" (with an s)?
- Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You wikilink F/A-18 Hornet a couple of times, should only wikilink first mention (except in the lead) per WP:REPEATLINK.
- Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first combat sorties of the unit's AV-8Bs occurred two days later, with one aircraft lost..." do we know what caused this loss? Might be interesting to include that information if it is available.
- "The aircraft also saw service during the Iraq War..." maybe add the date for context?
- Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Marine service", perhaps reword to "The Marine Corps"?
- Done, also replaced another occurrence of "service" with "Corps" for consistency. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Spain, already using the US-manufactured AV-8S Matadors, became..." Is "Matadors" here correct, or should it be "Matador". I'm not sure to be honest but "Matadors" seems grammatically incorrect to me at least.
- Is this correct also: "first three Matadors II"? Or should it be "Matador IIs"?
- I puzzled over these two... I'm assuming the unusual plural is an artefact of translation (would Spanish consider the variant designation an adjective modifying the aircraft name, analogous with "courts martial"?) but I'd be interested to know what the sources use for the plural of these aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sp33dyphil has changed it to "Matador IIs" instead of "Matadors II" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I puzzled over these two... I'm assuming the unusual plural is an artefact of translation (would Spanish consider the variant designation an adjective modifying the aircraft name, analogous with "courts martial"?) but I'd be interested to know what the sources use for the plural of these aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- US Navy is wikilinked multiple times, probably need to reduce per WP:REPEATLINK.
- Done - only wikilinked twice, and at opposite ends of the article, but I've removed the second. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation # 118 " Epstein, David G. Making and Doing Deals: Contracts in Context (second edition). Newark, New Jersey: LexisNexis, 2006. p. 55. ISBN 9780820570440." is inconsistent with the style adopted through out the text. By and large you use short citations per WP:CITESHORT so this should also be used here IMO. That is the citation should be "Epstein 2006, p. 55.", with the full bibliographic entry listed in the Bibliography section.
- Done by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, this is quite well done IMO, just a few minor issues to rectify/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Most issues appear to have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Just squeaking in on this one ... I've learned a lot from recent aviation articles, and want to learn more. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II is ...": Wow, what a headache. If you look at for instance the bottom of this page, some list it as the "McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II", some as the "Boeing/BAe AV-8B Harrier II", and some as the "McDonnell Douglas/BAe AV-8B Harrier II". How do you guys generally make the call when the sources don't agree on a name? - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II is ...": I had to think about this, but I've decided I can't support the "(now Boeing)", because "The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II" either is or functions as a name, and we don't insert parenthetical comments in the middle of a name. Depending on how you answer the question above about what name sources use, you could start out for instance "The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II or Boeing AV-8B Harrier II is ...". I agree that you want to mention as soon as possible that McDonnell Douglas is "now Boeing" or was bought out by Boeing ... just not in the middle of what we're using as the name of the jet. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "McDonnell Douglas" in this case functions as the adjective for "AV-8B Harrier II", because it was the manufacturer. But, I'm happy with your suggestion above. BTW, "Boeing/BAe AV-8B Harrier" is wrong because the unaccompanied "Harrier" refers to the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which had been phased out. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, quite right, I've gone back and inserted the II's. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "McDonnell Douglas" in this case functions as the adjective for "AV-8B Harrier II", because it was the manufacturer. But, I'm happy with your suggestion above. BTW, "Boeing/BAe AV-8B Harrier" is wrong because the unaccompanied "Harrier" refers to the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which had been phased out. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly managed the program since the 1990s." What does it mean for a British company to "manage" a US Defense Dept program? Does this mean they have a contract to service some of the jets? - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Here's the answer, which is why [19] calls it the McDonnell Douglas/BAe AV-8B Harrier II. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Per User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Aviation_articles, Harry has just offered to take the lead on copyediting aviation and biography articles for A-class and FAC ... quite a relief. Still, call on me any time if I can be of use. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (part 1). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice the structure of the lead varies considerably form Hawker Siddeley Harrier—that article's opening paragraph deals primarily with lineage, whereas this one talks about the platforms from which it can be operated (which seems a bit off-topic to be given such prominence).
- Harrier GR5, GR7 and GR9 versions were used by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.—since this article is about the American version, what the RAF and RN do with their similar-but-not-the-same aircraft is a bit off-topic and certianly doesn't belong in the lead.
- Done removed by Sp33dyPhil. This leaves no mention at all of the existence of the BAe Harrier II in the lead, which seems slightly confusing for anyone trying to get a quick overview, but I guess it'll do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spain and Italy also use the aircraft, with the latter able to assemble them locally.—again, not really relevant in the lead (it notability stems from its use by the Yanks, not the Spaniards, the Italians, or the Brits) and the second half of the sentence is appallingly constructed.
- Done sentence shortened and reworded by Sp33yPhil to "The AV-8B is used by the United States Marine Corps (USMC), Spanish Navy and Italian Navy." I think it's still reasonable to have a brief mention of the Spanish/Italian use here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A dedicated two-seat trainer version is the TAV-8B—grammar: "The TAV-8B is a dedicated two-seat training version" (and if the TAV-8B is worthy of a mention in the lead, you need to elaborate a bit further than one sentence).
- Are you sure? The sources use trainer, for example "Italy was the first country to order the trainer version" in Jenkins. See Trainer (aircraft) (which perhaps should be wikilinked here?) which also talks about "trainer versions" in this context. I notice the RAF website (British English) refers to training aircraft not trainer aircraft, but many other online sources use "trainer aircraft", "trainer variant" etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I've now made it consistently "trainer" throughout, and wikilinked the first occurrence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The word order is Done by Sp33dyPhil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the AV-8B Harrier II shares the designation with the earlier AV-8A/C—??? If this is the 8B, how does it share a designation with the 8A? And what does that mean in plain English?
- I'm not sure why they didn't change the designation. The "AV-8" is retained, just the last letter that was changed. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point there is the basic designation, AV-8, did not change. The letter at the end are for the particular variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed this to "Although the Harrier II shares the AV-8 designation with the earlier AV-8A/C Harrier, the AV-8B was extensively redesigned" etc. Question: is this clear enough wording, and/or is it too clumsy now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- increased to six—from how many?
- Done Sp33dyphil has added/fixed this - actually it was increased from five to seven. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- , and the aircraft took part in combat in Iraq again during the Iraq War in 2003—I would split this from the preceding clause into its own sentence. Did AV-8B see service in Afghanistan?
- Sentence split Done by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the AV-8Bs weren't deployed to Afghanistan. If they did, who would the aircraft have fought against? I assume Al-Qaeda had no troops. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, we need to make sure you stay on aircraft articles and don't move onto covering military campaigns :-) There's definitely evidence of AV-8Bs deployed to Afghanistan, example here. (British Harriers were out there too, here's one on YouTube with some profanity --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I know there are/were British Harriers deployed there, which is why I asked. I wasn't sure about AV-8Bs, but that seems to suggest they were. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- US AV-8Bs have participated in Afghanistan, at least for the first few years. The Nordeen book has a short chapter on Afghanistan. I started adding text on it to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence split Done by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Italian and Spanish Harrier IIs participated in overseas conflicts, often in conjunction with NATO coalitions.—that sentence looks like it was tossed in to make sure a country other than the Us is mentioned in that paragraph. It should be removed or expanded.
- The Italian and Spanish sections of "Operations" combined total seven parapraphs, which is the same as the seven paragraphs (albeit rather larger paragraphs) devoted to USMC operations. So this is probably worth expanding rather than removing, particularly in view of your next point. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A fourth paragraph would be easily justified, and perhaps necessary even to comply with WP:LEAD, in an article that's well over 4,000 words.
- As the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force and United States Marine Corps—[when?]
- Done dates added by Sp33dyphil --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check my edit summaries for a few edits I've flagged for you to check
- Done Sp33dyphil has confirmed that this edit and this edit are indeed correct and what was intended. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time EyeSerenetalk 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to improve its quality. It passed the GA Review a while back, and had been copy edited prior to that. Therefore, I'd like to see how this article would fair according to higher standards.Canpark (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a number of errors in the lede alone (extraneous commas, spelling errors, sentence structure issues). I also feel that the lede itself is too long and doesn't really feel POV neutral to me. I was also surprised to see Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie" missing from the source list, as this is one of the few biographies of John Paul Vann and has a large section dealing with Ap Bac. I'd say it needs some more work to hit the A-Class mark.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw that the lack of Sheehan's work was mentioned on the article talk page. It's worth mentioning that there is a certain amount of bias in Sheehan's work (just as there is with Moyer's), but his discussion of Ap Bac is pretty good.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I don't have access to Sheehan's work at this point in time.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw that the lack of Sheehan's work was mentioned on the article talk page. It's worth mentioning that there is a certain amount of bias in Sheehan's work (just as there is with Moyer's), but his discussion of Ap Bac is pretty good.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the article appears to be very biased towards the Communist side, and on that point alone should be reassessed for GA. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide examples of this? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious to see what you mean. Are you saying the article itself is POV, or the accounts of the battle and/or the sources used are too heavily Viet? I originally thought the latter, which is an uncommon problem (normally, given that this is the English Wikipedia, we find articles that are biased toward the English viewpoint based simply on the available sources). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for book sources.
- Please do not include "Inc." in publisher informations
- There are "volume" and "edition" parameters in {{cite book}}, which could be useful for Halberstam (2008) and Truong (2010). Eisfbnore • talk 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Canpark, you have obviously put a lot of effort into this and I hope you are not discouraged. (In my experience maintaining a neutral POV when writing battle articles is difficult due to the way in which sources are written.) Unfortunately I don't have much time, so I apologise being able to do a full review for you. I have taken a broad look and have some comments. Please view these as thematic suggestions (i.e. pls look for similar issues and fix as you see fit). Unfortunately I will be out of contact for a month after tonight, so I won't be able to come back to this review (as such, to the closing co-ord pls do not consider this as an "oppose" or a "support"). As always, please feel free to ignore these comments if you so choose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, I think that this is awkward: "The Battle of Ap Bac was a major battle fought in the early stages of the Vietnam War, also known in Vietnam as the American War". Specifically it leaves the reader wondering if it is the "Battle of Ap Bac" or the "Vietnam War" that is known in Vietnam was the "American War". I suggest reorganising the sentence as follows: "The Battle of Ap Bac was a major battle fought in the early stages of the Vietnam War (also known in Vietnam as the American War);
- there are probably a few units and terms that could be wikilinked. I found one of the units (7th Inf Div), but please check if there are others that have existing articles. Also, you don't need to be afraid of red links for terms that you feel may be notable;
- I think it would probably be best to replace the citation to Globalsecurity.org if you can. I think in the past its status as an "RS" has been questioned;
- in the aftermath, please check this statement: "In blaming the South Vietnamese, Vann wanted to conceal the American's flawed intelligence and poor leadership. He hoped to pressure the South Vietnamese to accept future changes he favored". This currently being presented as fact, when to me it seems more likely that it is someone's opinion. As such, I think it would be best to attribute the source in text. For instance like this: "According to Moyar, in blaming the South Vietnamese..."
- "the battle proved that they could defeat the supposedly superior South Vietnamese forces" - I suggest removing "supposedly superior" as it sounds a bit too informal and creates the impression of a POV;
- this is slightly confusing to me: "He refused to acknowledge the flawed system under which..." Specifically, did he refuse to acknowledge that system itself, or that it was flawed?
- I think this is a tense switch: "Harkin’s evaluation of the battle's success was based" and then "in which two armies fight a conventional" (suggest changing "fight" to "fought");
- as per above, this is being presented as fact, but sounds like opinion: "Harkin’s optimistic and mis-directed doctrine negatively affected". As above, I suggest attributing the assessment to its author in text. Doing this helps to remove issues of potential POV bias;
- I'm not sure if "mis-directed" is correct for US English. User:Dank might be able to help with this one;
- "known as ‘Flying Bananas’ for their shape" - I think that US English prefers double quotation marks instead of single. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, AR. Also, "Harkin's" should read "Harkins'" when it appears, as that's the correct possessive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Grandiose
- I have a problem with quite a lot of the background section. This all uses a single reference work (Moyar). Whilst it's on the Cambridge Uni. Press, as a reader it really sounds like one man's view. If you take the paragraph beginning "However, South Vietnamese officers..." it reads like an opinion piece. I know from my own fields that it is entirely possible to have a well-respected author and yet feel like parts of it could do with toning down before publication to Wikipedia. I really must insist that a second author is added into this section if the article is to meet part of criteria A1 and A2 ('accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge' and 'presents views fairly and without bias'). It reads as a swinging criticism of the South Vietnam regime which surely must be supported better if it is going to stand at this level. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi mate, I have add a second author for the background section, but I will find some more sources for it.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why Sheehan's work has been mentioned. Moyar represents one interpretation, while authors like Sheehan represent another. Both need to be represented, as you've pointed out. I'd say this article needs a good re-write before it's ready for A-Class.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments about the lead section: - Dank (push to talk)
- "The stage for a major clash at Ap Bac was set": It generally doesn't work to insert words in the middle of an expression, because the reader will change their interpretation of "stage" when they reach "was set". Also ... it's not clear what "the stage was set" means here.
- "which situation south-east of Ap Tan Thoi": Something's wrong there. Also, it's "southeast" in AmEng, if you're trying for AmEng.
- "U.S. intelligence detected the presence of a radio transmitter along with a sizeable force of Viet Cong soldiers, reported to number around 120 in the hamlet of ...": Did they spot a sizeable force, or were they told about it?
- "three companies ... was committed": were
- "Than just before midday": Did you mean, "Then just before midday"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed / withdrawn by nominator -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, whilst I am not used to creating lists, I feel that the explanatory text and the list itself are comprehensive. This is made more difficult by the lack of a possible GA status to give me some indication. I would welcome your thoughts: the explanatory text is quite short, but I cannot think of what more to add. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) before I can approve
table should be sortable for columns Name, Rank and Unituse the {{Sortname|first|last}} template on the first namethe lang-de tamplate should be used on the first occurance of a German phrase, which is in the very leadI think you need to present a page for the Fellgiebel and Scherzer references (I will look them up for you)- The lead is very short so far (only one sentence)
- I think it would be good to mention who received the Medalla Militar
- Thanks for your comments. The source I have doesn't mention which won the Medalla Militar, nor does there appear to be any sort of list online (I will try to find one, though). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the claimant count to the lead, but I can't think what else would be suitable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion since some of the links are still red. You could change Kampfgruppe 88 (K/88—88th Combat or Bomber Group), Jagdgruppe 88 (J/88—88th Fighter Group), Aufklärungsgruppe 88 (A/88—88th Reconnaissance Group), Aufklärungsgruppe See 88 (AS/88—88th Sea Reconnaissance Group), Flakbteilung 88 (F/88—88th Anti Aircraft Artillery Group) and Nachrichtenabteilung 88 (LN/88—88th News or Signals Department). MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also remove the Ref. column and put the citation in the "Name" header column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to keep the references column because that reference is for name, rank, and unit and this becomes unclear if it used in one column only. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image of the Spanish Cross in Silver in the upper right hand corner, the article is about recipients of the Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds. I think you should mention that the Award for the Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds is similar in appearance to the Spanish Cross in Silver. Of course it would be better to use the correct image but this may be difficult to find with appropriate license criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]You need to categorize the article. Maybe under "Recipients of the Spanish Cross" ? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- "It was instituted on 14 April 1939, in a document called the Statute of Spanish Crosses (Satzung des Spanien-Kreuzes) which defined the three levels of Spanish Cross (gold, silver and bronze) and the requirements to meet each."
- I think the translation for Satzung des Spanien-Kreuzes could be improved to "Statute of the Spanish Cross". There is no plural in the original German wording.
- What are the requirements? I read the law just now and it states that Hitler reserved the right to bestow the Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds without telling us what the criteria are. This differs from the other grades of the Spanish Cross
- Changed the translation. My German is a bit ropey, but I assumed the Hitler was merely a 'catch all' phrase; that it wasn't important over all to the story of the Spanish Cross (given also that this is a list of recipients); that it was, in writing, what was already de facto the case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by GraemeLeggett (talk · contribs)
repetition in table ref column - why not apply ref to table as a whole, then other points not covered by general ref are picked up by specific refs?grammar could use polishing- wikilinks need checking over, several are going via redirects
italics for ranks- why pictures of the recipients? I'm not saying they are wrong per se but why?
- notes column, why mention later awards and not some point relevant to their activity in the Spanish civil war or to subsequent activity as a result of Condor Legion role (eg von Thoma not being an aviator)?
- Could I have an update? I've changed one thing so it doesn't redirect, the other two (names of the medal itself) are deliberate, in case such an article is ever written. The referencing has been moved to the three relevant column headers. I included the pictures because there was a reasonable number of them and was following the "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients" style. I was worried including details of service in the war might open a kettle of fish, but I've done some which I think is appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck a couple of points, as they've been addressed. I've added some Spanish civil war info to the entries and qualified some later awards by way of example. I don't know if its worth indicating how long they were active. For instance Molders only did about 6 months. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A very short source review: Be consistent in whether you include countries in location information for book sources. Eisfbnore • talk 04:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aiming to use them only when it was otherwise confusing or unknown, but have followed the suggestion of using them in all cases anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No dabs [20] and external links check out [21] (no action required).
- Images lack alt text [22], although its not a requirement you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
- The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [23] (no action required).
- Where possible we are meant to avoid using citations in the lead of an article (as long as the information appears in the body with a citation). As such I would suggest adding the infomation about the Condor Legion to the body and expanding it a little to provide context for the casual reader who may know little about the Spanish Civil War and German involvement in it.
- This isn't a good way to start a sentence IMO: "It was instituted on 14 April 1939". Perhaps "The Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds was instituted on 14 April 1939..."
- Inconsistency in the presentation of isbns. Some have hyphens and others dont. Probably best to pick a style and apply it through out. Anotherclown (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in a document called the Statute of the Spanish Cross (Satzung des Spanien-Kreuzes)": Normally, a "document" would have to have the "officialness" and length of a small book to earn the italics; otherwise, quote marks would be better. The italics on the German translation are right.
- "the three levels of Spanish Cross": of the Spanish Cross, for consistency
- "... Jagdgruppe 88 (J/88) with three squadrons of Heinkel He 51 fighters. They were supported by the reconnaissance Aufklärungsgruppe 88 (A/88), its maritime division, the Aufklärungsgruppe See 88 (AS/88), an anti-aircraft artillery group, the Flakbteilung 88 (F/88), and a signals group, the Nachrichtenabteilung 88 ...": Opinions differ on how much untranslated German is too much ... but that's too much. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator (if a coord could possibly effect that for me, I'd be grateful). I've got other things coming up and I'm not particularly happy with the list. I've taken the comments here into consideration, and acted on most. They haven't been wasted, and I might be back again with it, I'm not sure. Thanks for you input, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-nomination. Has since been through an unsuccessful A-class and successful GA reviews. The article still contains one flaw, in that the term "relief", while technically correct, sounds like a sculpture of the General. In the end, no better wording has been suggested, and the contradiction between common misconceptions and technical and historical correctness lies so very much at the heart of the article that I gradually came to like it this way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Research coverage: As I was composing a Chinese Korean War orbat in my own personal workspace, I can't help but notice that MacArthur issued his March 23 public statement at the exact time when the Chinese lost 4 field armies out of 6 deployed on the front...did this development affected (or impaired) his judgment in issuing the public statement? I know in the peer review you said that this is a political article, not a milhist article, so forgive me if I over step my bounds. Jim101 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Added explanation to the Public statements section. I regard this as a military article; I just wanted the politics people to have a look over it, which would not otherwise occur until it went to FAC. Something that set MacArthur apart from soldiers of the mid-20th Century like Bradley, Clark and Ridgway was that where the latter saw soldiering as fighting the best army in the world in Europe, MacArthur took an expansive in which soldiers gave equal importance to military government, peacekeeping, civic disturbances and civic assistance. In the 1950s, few professional American soldiers would have agreed with MacArthur; in the 2000s, few would not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- No dabs [24] (no action required).
- External links all check out [25] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text [26] (suggestion only).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
- "...the Far East Command initiated a program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered...", consider "...the Far East Command initiated program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered..." (remove "a" for "initiated a program").
- You might consider rewording this: "North Korea invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War, on 25 June 1950...", perhaps: "North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950, starting the Korean War..." (suggestion only).
- "...officers like James H. Doyle, the commander of Amphibious Group One, and Oliver P. Smith...", do we know their ranks?
- Done Yes, I do. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "That being the case, then operations would be necessary...", perhaps more simply: "That being the case, operations would be necessary..." (suggestion only).
- "General Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", should more simply be "Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", per WP:SURNAME.
- Is there a word missing here: "House Minority Leader Joseph William Martin, Jr. slammed Truman for following Attlee's to "slavery to government and crippling debt..."?
- "This was seen as the result of too many years of being stationed in the orient...", should "orient" be capitalised?
- "...at 2000 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 1000 on 12 April Tokyo time...", should be "...at 20:00 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 10:00 on 12 April Tokyo time..." per WP:MOSTIME.
- Typo here: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasing far apart from one another...", perhaps: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasingly far apart from one another."
- Not sure about the chronology here: "The increasingly unpopular war in Korea dragged on into 1953, and the Truman administration was beset with a series of corruption scandals. Truman eventually decided not to run for re-election. Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate in the 1952 presidential election attempted to distance himself from Truman as much as possible." Specifically you jump from 1953, back to 1952. Could this possibly be reworded?
- Missing word here: "During 2004 presidential election...", perhaps: "During the 2004 presidential election." Anotherclown (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Excellent work on a very difficult subject. My comments:
- Made a few minor copy edits. Let me know if you object to anything.
- All photos check out as far as I can tell (no action required)
- Many of the photos are missing alt text.
- Done Alt text added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd lead graph: "President Truman" should just be Truman, right?
- Done right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "General Omar Bradley, doubted that there would ever be another large scale amphibious operation." - What year was this testimony? I think it's important to the context given the mention of the Revolt of the Admirals.
- Done Added date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times opined..." I assume they did so after the fact. In that case, this graph is a little confusing, as it seems to switch from before the act to after. Maybe add another bit of context, or move it to after the "Relief" section?
- Done Moved paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 5 April, Martin read the text of a letter ... " - was this letter intended to be public or secret? That should be specified.
- It was not marked not to be made public. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government ... " - for some reason, this quote and the proceeding quote graphs are not indenting correctly. Probably something to do with the placement of the left-aligned image. My screen is very wide and this might not be an issue for others, though.
- I resized the window on my 30" monitor to 2560px but it is still okay. What browser and OS are you using? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you didn't include any numbers as to how this affected Truman's approval ratings. Yes, it is mentioned that he did not seek re-election, but there have to be a few polls out there to more strongly tie these together.
- Done Added a paragraph about Truman's approval rating. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few minor details. —Ed!(talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My highest complements. I visited the Truman Library and spent a lot of time in its Korean War section last year, this coverage is superior to what even they had on the topic. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThis is a very well written and comprehensive account of these events - well done. I think it needs a little bit more work to reach A class though, and would benefit from further expansions before it goes to a FAC. My comments and suggestions are:- Saying that MacArthur was only a 'a popular war hero' in the first sentence is under-selling things a bit: this should note that he was also commanding the UN forces in Korea in a very hot war
- Done I hope it is not too long winded now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second para of the lead should briefly note MacArthur's status in World War II and the occupation of Japan
- "So too was the principle of civilian control of the military, but the rising complexity of military technology, and the consequent creation of a professional military class, coupled with the cumbersome constitutional division of powers, made this increasingly problematic." - this could be split into two sentences, I think
- "MacArthur had to deal with draconian cuts in the defense budget which had seen his troop numbers decline from 300,000 in 1947 to 142,000 in 1948" - the major cutbacks in the occupation force in Japan were also related to how peaceful the country was.
- Have to look into this. Four of the Army's ten divisions were still based in Japan.
- Where did MSTS Sgt. George D Keathley sail from? (Japan I assume)
- Done Yokohama. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "MacArthur, faced with a desperate military situation, was forced to commit his forces in Japan to what he later described as a "desperate rearguard action."" - this is a bit repetitive
- Done. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Truman was dismayed by a statement MacArthur made to the 51st National Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on 26 August," - this implies that he spoke to them in person, which seems unlikely. I'd suggest replacing 'made' with 'sent' or similar.
- Done.
- "Within days, MacArthur encountered the Chinese in the Battle of Onjong and the Battle of Unsan." - I'd suggest tweaking this to 'The forces under MacArthur's command' or similar
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Communist antiaircraft gunners" - replace 'Communist' with 'Chinese and North Korean' or similar
- That would imply that we knew which country they were from. There was a tendency at the time to attribute everything that worked properly to the Russians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'nuclear weapons' section needs a stronger link to the material which precedes it, as the transition at present is a bit jarring. You could do this by changing the first sentences to something like 'Despite the deteriorating situation in Korea, MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons. However, on DATE Truman stated that the General had proposed using these weapons on Chinese positions.' or whatever the situation was.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The ethics of a system under which serving generals were compelled to publicly support policies that they felt were potentially ruinous for the country," - 'compelled' seems a bit strong given that these officers can resign in protest, and this has actually happened (including in the lead up to the Iraq War).
- If they do though, then they are no longer serving officers. Changed to felt compelled. Of course Donald Rumsfeld would tell you that they should support it in private as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While not essential for A class, I'd suggest expanding the material on MacArthur's pre-Korean war experience, conduct and political connections as they're under-played at present and are important in understanding the conduct which led to his dismissal (as well as how this is now perceived). It's not surprising that someone who'd operated at the highest levels of the US Army and Philippines government and had strong political connections before World War II, hugely influenced the government of Australia (including manipulating the requests for reinforcements it sent to the US government to his advantage) and seriously considered running against FDR during World War II before going on to become the de-facto leader of Japan for five years would be impossible to control by 1950. His links with the Republican Party should also be fleshed out a bit more. You could also expand upon his wheeling and dealing over grand strategy in the Pacific in 1943-44, which led to both the probably unnecessary Philippines Campaign and this campaign then being prolonged for no clear purpose in 1945, as this was an example of MacArthur being willing to, in effect, negotiate directly with the President and fight his own war rather than fully consider the 'big picture'.
- Expanded the bios of Truman and MacArthur, but did not want to go into too much detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While possibly being even less relevant to this article, I'm pretty sure that I've read that the command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons also contributed to major changes to the Post-MacArthur relationship between the President and military (eg, as the President alone has authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, and may need to do so at no notice while under enormous stress, it became more important for military officers to act in accordance with his wishes and not undermine his authority). If this is the case, it might be worth adding to the last section. The material on Lincoln is also a bit simplistic; from what I've read, he was willing to put up with his generals political ambitions during the first years of the war because he lacked knowledge of warfare and knew that they couldn't make good on their (amazingly frequent) bluster about overthrowing him. By the middle of the war he was exercising direct control over the military (generally quite successfully and sometimes by personally sending orders to individual units) and making firm decisions about grand strategy, and this continued until the apolitical Grant was appointed to head the Army and did a good job of it. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons is a very complex issue, worthy of an article in its own right. (Which does exist: National Command Authority) However there were few weapons in Truman's time. The issue was really one for the Eisenhower administration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Lincoln, I don't know much about that period. It was particularly relevant though because Truman consulted books on Lincoln's handling of McClellan. He should have drawn the lesson that McClellan was not just bluffing; McClellan did indeed run against Lincoln in 1864, and Truman was afraid that MacArthur or Eisenhower would run against him in 1952. But after reading a bit more I think I have misconstrued the conflict between them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking about the nuclear weapons issues more in terms of the discussion of the current expectations of, and limitations on, senior officers in the 'legacy' section. But as I said, it's not necessarily relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that MacArthur was only a 'a popular war hero' in the first sentence is under-selling things a bit: this should note that he was also commanding the UN forces in Korea in a very hot war
- Support My comments above have now been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on sources very happy with citation quality, very impressed with source quality, source reliance, variety, etc. fixits: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dingman 1988–1989 compare to the other multi year short citations that are 19XX-XX?
- Switched to that form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider if Annapolis and Canberra are sufficiently well known publishing cities?
- I usually regard a well-known city as one where you type the name into the Wikipedia and it comes up. My experience with foreigners is that they are more familiar with Canberra than the ACT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something appears slightly wrong with the volume number? Strout, Lawrence N. (1999). "Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950–1954". Journal of Political and Military Sociology 2001 (Summer). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact you seem to have cited the book review here: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=4138226
- Which is by Hackley, CA; not Strout? Which did you read? Strout or Hackley? Given the page numbers it looks like someone has mucked this citation up, and you actually mean to cite Strout 1999 published by Greenwood Press in Westport, CT if you used the Google Books version?
- More likely, it comes from Harry Truman's article, and predates my involvement. Yes: it comes from this edit in April 2010. Replaced with a cite to McCullough (p. 1008). Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dingman 1988–1989 compare to the other multi year short citations that are 19XX-XX?
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed, no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the first in a series of articles on German V-weapons sites (see also La Coupole and Fortress of Mimoyecques, which I also wrote); I'm hoping to get them up to featured standard in due course. It has recently appeared on DYK and easily passed a B-class review. The article is pretty comprehensive - I visited the site itself and also obtained numerous contemporary photographs, plans and reports, which are quoted and shown in the article. I feel that it meets the A-class criteria and would like to know whether others believe that it has reached that standard. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Per WP:ENDASH, avoid dashes after certain prepositions, such as "between". I fixed the first one.
- Per WP:BADEMPHASIS, quote marks around italics are generally discouraged ("Wunderwaffe").
- "in 1941-42": Some would change the hyphen to an en-dash; I prefer "in 1941 and 1942" when you are talking about two particular years, rather than an event that spanned two years. Same goes for "1940-41", etc.
- We're generally not italicizing "en route", but feel free if there's a dictionary you like that says otherwise.
- "a greatly expanded Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force": Some readers will wonder if you mean that the USAAF was greatly expanded too (even though there's an argument that it can't mean that ... people read fast), so better is: "the United States Army Air Force and a greatly expanded Royal Air Force". It's often better to put a complex element in a series last; see WP:Checklist#series. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've made those changes. Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Retrieval dates for your web references are inconsistent. Pick one format and stick to it.
- Done.
- Titles of your English-language books are inconsistent. Properly capitalize them.
- Done, though I should note that not all the titles are capitalised in the originals.
- I understand about the French capitalization rules, and you need not worry about them. But all English-language sources need to be properly capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all the English-language sources are properly capitalised now. Did I miss any?
- What's the deal with the Aug 6 '44 entry in your table? Are they the s/n's for the aircraft lost or not? It doesn't appear that they are give the differing fates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this was confusing, so I've removed the number. The content is actually something that was added by a previous editor but I don't think it works. Prioryman (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just delete the bit about the aircraft s/n's and fates as one still doesn't match the text immediately above.
- Agreed, and done.
- All refs need place of publication, and fix capitalization in Boog's title and Zaloga's publisher.
- Done.
- Why are block quotes used in the refs section instead of in the notes section?
- I assume you mean the two italicised quotes? I agree they're not necessary; I've taken them out.
- Fix the dead link at Baugher.
- I gave up on Baugher and replaced that source.
- Sometimes your page # have a space between them and sometimes they don't, notably Dornberger and Irving. Ensure that they all do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- refs -- In refs but not cited: Comparative test, hinsley, king, lavenant, morgan, nichol. Cited but not in refs: zaloga. – Ling.Nut 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure to understand. Zaloga is in ref (Zaloga, Steven J. (2008). German V-Weapon Sites 1943-45. Oxford: Osprey Publishing). Comparative test, lavenant, morgan are cited with, respectively, ref #39, 42, 44. Please advise
- nichol: was removed during an intermediate edit. Restored. Thanks
- king: Missing but needed to understand chronology. Discovered in April-May, Sanders recommended to bomb Watten on August 6 but was finally bombed on August 27. Added the info + citation. Thanks for pointing this out.
- hinsley: to account for the role of the Belgian and French Resistance in the assessment of Watten. Joseph Dubar had Watten infiltrated by members of the Network Ali-France. This combined with the unusual escape rate from the concentration/work camp of Watten brought a lot of information back to London, triggering the attack on August 27. Added information. This information will be incorporated at a later stage as finding sources is not easy. Added Hinsley as reference for "Allied agent" in the text. Please keep in mind that Hinsley is a primary source, official historian of the British gvt, but that's all what I have for the moment.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed, no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
In a break from the generals' biographies you're more used to seeing me write, I bring you this. A list of every officer to hold (earned or otherwise) the highest and most prestigious rank in the British Army. That they've all held this rank is about the only thing these 138 men, whose careers span some 300 years and who have fought in almost every engagement the British Army has been involved in from the Nine Years' War to the Gulf War, have in common. Thus, this list provides a fascinating snapshot of the history of the British Army and I think it's good enough for A-class. I'm hoping to take it to FLC, so feedback geared in that direction would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at a quick glance you have missed out Prince Edward, Duke of Kentstrike that just found him
- I know they now like lists to be sortable Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's the second to last of the professional soldiers, I think. How well-earned the promotion was, I don't know, but he wasn't just anointed field marshal like some. I keep hearing the word "sortable", but I've yet to hear what it means and how I make the table "sortable". Perhaps you could explain it in terms that a simple copy-editor would understand? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- French should be listed as 19th Royal Hussars as that was the Regt he commanded, only commissioned in the 8th. Same with some others they should be listed by their own Regiments which is the ones they were the commanding officer of.
- Also not sure about all the British Indian Army entries as they were two separate armies
- Its hard to explain how to make list sortable, but if you check List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall you can see how its done. With a lot of trial and error I might add. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've very deliberately stuck to the regiment into which they were commissioned, because some of the, particularly from the early 19th century to the end of WWI moved around between regiments, militia units and sometimes branches so often it became difficult to keep track.
- Heathcote includes the Indian Army officers, and he's the expert, so I'm inclined to follow his lead. I think Indian Army FMs were on the British half-pay list or something.
- I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do. Fun, fun fun! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortability is now mostly there, thanks entirely to USer:Courcelles. Just a few wrinkles to iron out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment Is all the data in the main table sourced to 'Heathcote, Table 1, pp.320–326.' and the data in the secondary table sourced to three different pages of this book? At present the sourcing is inadequate and not what's expected for an A class list (every entry should have a specific reference). I'm a bit surprised to see the Australian officer Thomas Blamey on the list - he was always an Australian Army officer and was promoted to field marshal by the Australian Government. I've never seen any suggestion that this was a promotion to a rank in the British Army, though I don't really pay much attention to those kind of details. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the data in both tables is from the same pages. Heathcote does it chronologically, but I extracted the FMs who were appointed rather than promoted to the rank. I can put an inline citation next to every list entry, but the content of the citation would be the same, so that would just be silly.
Sir Thomas was given the rank honorarily in the British Army, the same way as Ferdinand Foch (also a foreign [French] officer), but Blamey also holds the rank of FM in the Australian Army. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ is correct. Blamey always appears in the British Army lists. In return, we awarded the rank to Prince Phillip. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for that Hawkeye Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ is correct. Blamey always appears in the British Army lists. In return, we awarded the rank to Prince Phillip. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments for now. It is looking good but there are a few issues for me at the moment, mainly with the sorting in the tables. Woody (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting issues
Date sorting: you should use {{Dts}} (eg. {{dts|1858|03|1
}}) for the sorting of the dates or do it manually (eg<span style="display:none">1858-03-01</span>
), either way, that column should sort by specific date.- It does sort. On a long list like this, using the dts template wastes a lot of your conditions towards the template limit, especially when you have to sort some other columns. For the hidden span sorting, you only need the full date if there were multiple promotions in a year, if there was only one in a particular year, or all were promoted on the same day, the full date in the sort key won't actually change the output. Courcelles 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know about the condition limits, that's why I always use the manual versions in my lists. In terms of it not making a difference to this article, fair enough, it was something that annoyed the inner pedant in me when in editing mode I suppose. As the reader doesn't see anything different, fair enough. Woody (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does sort. On a long list like this, using the dts template wastes a lot of your conditions towards the template limit, especially when you have to sort some other columns. For the hidden span sorting, you only need the full date if there were multiple promotions in a year, if there was only one in a particular year, or all were promoted on the same day, the full date in the sort key won't actually change the output. Courcelles 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do Stanier and Strathnairn not have dates of promotion?- Good question. I'll fetch my copy of Heathcote later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adde now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I'll fetch my copy of Heathcote later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Regiment column isn't sorting properly, ie in numerical order. The way I get round it in the VC lists is to use
<span style="display:none">006</span>[[6th Gurkha Rifles]]
It is important to have the leading zeroes. - The naming column doesn't sort as it should do either, use {{sortname}} (eg.
{{sortname|Alan|Brooke|Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke}}
)- Sorting issues are known. I'll get them fixed. Courcelles 16:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other issues
"...the abolition of the rank of the five-star ranks." I would use "the abolition of the five-star ranks." the rank of ... ranks is redundant.- Agreed and done.
- With the "Four field marshals..." paragraph, personally I'm not a fan of having all the citations at the end of the paragraph, I prefer to have them at the end of the sentence to which they relate.
- I've struck the comments that have been fixed or explained away as per the timestamp. (And I know how annoying and tedious sorting issues can be to fix so take your time. ;) Woody (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any progress on the sorting issues? I can take a pop at them later today when I've got some time if you like? Woody (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed, no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ma®©usBritish (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... article has undergone expansion, improved lead section, new support sections, higher amount of citation added, with detailed referencing. Following PR article attained B-class. Pushing for more feedback to attain A or FL quality. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could please conclude this ACR it would be appreciated; I am confident that it sufficiently meets all A1–A5 requirements. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Fifelfoo
Extended content
|
---|
1. Rothenberg, pp. 24–30. Peninsular War. Might just be me who thinks that looks over-indulgent especially amongst other texts without editors/chapter titles - but if it is practice I'll go with the flow. Would be interested in knowing the theory behind how adding the chapter title just for edited texts helps anyone, though - the page number is still a fixed place in the book, regardless of chapter number or name.
In your final point, are you saying "London" does or does not need to be displayed as "London, UK" or "New York" as "New York, USA", or is it good either way as long as it's consistent? NB: This is my curious morbidity, for future practice, more than anything not an attack on your review - it helps my accuracy if I know the theory behind things rather than thinking "oh, just do it". Once you settle my minor conflictions per note, I can complete the clean-up better understanding the purpose behind them. Thanks in advance for your time and patience! |
- Intothatdarkness
Extended content
|
---|
Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- AustralianRupert
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Woody
- (Please don't hide my comments under a collapsible header, they get on my nerves)
- Sorry, did this because the assessment was getting very lengthy with review comments and discussion - and as it copies itself onto the Projects current ACR Assessments page also, amongst other ACRs, I didn't want it imposing.Ma®©usBritish (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments (near support) First off, you can see a lot of effort has gone into this article, particularly as there isn't any precedence for an article of this kind at FL or above. It is a trail-blazer in that sense as there is no article to compare it to. I think it is A and almost FL ready bar a couple of minor issues I have.
- I know that the standard rule of thumb is to link only on first instance, but in sortable tables this can be ignored as the first instance can be any number of variations. The tables I have worked on wikilink all instances in the tables but that is a personal preference. Some reviewers at FLC like to see all linked, some don't like "seas of blue" so as long as you have a reasoning for how you have you done it, you will be fine.
- Yes, I noticed your VC table had all the ranks linked - personally, I did not like the "sea of blue" either - I prefer first instance linking as this is what will show first during default sorting, and shouldn't really bother anyone.
- To avoid the citation/covers whole row issue, you can have a notes column with the citation inside. This is the convention at FL. Personally, my first instinct when I see the table as is, is that the citation only relates to contents of that particular box and not the column.
- Funnily enough I tried this in my Sandbox a couple of weeks ago, to see if a separate Citations column would work, but decided against using it as I was worried it would be less acceptable due to the citations not being inline. It also caused some problems cramping the table width (one reason I use "aka" instead of "also known as" in alt. battle names was to reduce Action column width considerably after the Sandbox test).
Do you think I should apply it again with the live article table?Ma®©usBritish (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've gone ahead and added a Citation column whilst awaiting your response to my comments on your review. Let me know if you think it works - if not, I'll revert this edit back to the previous inline citation version before any other edits are required. I've used this method before in lists, but normally the citied column contains links to external Maps and/or PDFs rather than referenced sources (SSSI articles). Ma®©usBritish (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some wording issues/tweaks from me:
The sentence in the second paragraph of "Military career" (beginning with "Although this is easily contested...") is far too long (88 words, 5 lines on my screen). It isn't very easy to read and digest, it needs to be broken down.Done - edited."Wellington was gazetted an Ensign" Is that right grammatically? Should it not be "Wellington was gazetted as an Ensign?"Done - changed to Holmes wording "was gazetted Ensign" with no word in between."In September 1794, Wesley" Who is Wesley? Is he related to Ron Weasley?Done - Wesley was the family name at this time, but it is not appropriate to to into depths regarding family history in this article, so have used the popular name they adopted to avoid confusion.I don't like the WP:EASTEREGG link in the third para of "commissions..." You should say "...supported by government and the Prince Regent George IV. I would expect Prince regent to link to an article describing what a Prince Regent is, not to a particular example of a Prince Regent.
- Done - Sorry, I wasn't aware of the "Easter Egg" policy until now, as I have seen many on Wiki.
- A few areas, particularly DYK, actively encourage them but EASTEREGG is there for a reason and will be picked up on at Featured content reviews. Woody (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, a few issues from me, but I think it is nearly there. Regards,Woody (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes look good, I'm happy that it meets the A-Class criteria now. Woody (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time EyeSerenetalk 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have been working on it for about two years now and I think it is ready for review. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from hchc2009:
It's definitely improved over the period!
- (and support now by the way). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting points:
On the formatting side, it needs to have the citations put into a consistent format. At the moment the style varies from:
- Stow, John, Generale Chronicle of England, quoted in Masson, Rosaline, ed (1912). In Praise of Edinburgh, an Anthology in Prose and Verse.
- Harris, Stuart (2002). Place Names of Edinburgh. London: Steve Savage. p. 11. ISBN 9781904246060.
- Potter, p.12
- it really needs to be consistent.
- Referencing points:
There are a few gaps in the bibliography - e.g. Oldrieve, W. T. (1914). "Account of the recent discovery of the Remains of David's Tower at Edinburgh Castle". Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 48: 230–270; Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. X. 1913. pp. lxxv–lxxvi, 367; Grant, James. Old and New Edinburgh. I. Cassell and Co. p. 15. etc.
Second half of "Early Middle Ages" paragraph is uncited.
First section of "Description" is probably under cited (first paragraph has no reference at all).
Second half of "National War Museum of Scotland" paragraph doesn't have any citations.
Most of "Tourist attraction" paragraph is uncited.
Last sentence of "Symbol of Edinburgh" paragraph is uncited.
- Content:
There's probably more you could say about the castle's role in manufacturing military equipment - there are some references to this in Castles in Great Britain and Ireland which might be useful.
Hope that's helpful, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Hchc, thats useful. I've gone through the refs and I think they are now consistent. I will need to look for some additional refs - but I'm not sure all the areas you highlight need them? For example, "Second half of "Early Middle Ages" paragraph", just describes what happens in the poem; and First section of "Description", is just a basic description of the castle - do these need detailed refs? I'll have a look at the refs on Castles in Great Britain and Ireland you mention. Thanks again, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to be a bit OTT myself in terms of referencing absolutely everything to ensure an audit trail; my personal advice would always be to cite (even if just citing the standard guidebook to explain where the layout description comes from), but you've a perfectly valid counterpoint that the material may not be contentious enough to require a reference. 16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Coordinator note: I've pinged a castle editor, Nev1 (talk · contribs), to see if he can take a look at this article, but you may want to try finding other potential reviewers too. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Nev1
I've had this article on my watchlist for a long time and have watched it develop with interest. I kept meaning to ask Jonathan Oldenbuck what plans he had for the article as it was clearly in good shape, but never got round to it. I guess this answers the question I never got round to asking.
- Lead
- It seems to summarise the article well, mirroring the content of the article. The only thing that stands out is the statement that "From the later 17th century the castle became a military base with a large garrison". Wasn't it a military base before then? I think this may need a little rephrasing.
- Changed the lead around slightly to address this. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Geology
- "But just as its location has rendered the castle all but impregnable": might want to tweak this slightly as the lead already stated that there had been some successful sieges. Maybe make it clear that the location make it difficult to assault? Otherwise, I feel much better informed about Castle Rock after reading this section.
- Reworded and added another ref for this. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Earliest habitation
- Is there any particular reason for presenting the earliest written mention of habitation at Castle Rock before the archaeological evidence?
- Initially, no, because that was the way it was written before I came to the article. But having thought about it, I think its useful as it means the inaccurate legends can be dealt with before the more reliable archaeology. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's interesting to find out that an early name for the castle was a variant of Maiden Castle; you might want to add Edinburgh to the Maiden Castle dab page.
- I'll consider this.
- Early Middle Ages
- "in the brythonic epic Y Gododdin, we find a reference to Din Eidyn": this could probably be changed to "in the brythonic epic Y Gododdin is a reference to Din Eidyn". I don't know which part of MOS is relevant here, but "we" is probably frowned upon somewhere.
- Agreed, fixed. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- General
- How does the castle relate to the World Heritage Site of "Old and New Towns of Edinburgh"?
- Good point, it is central to it - added a ref to this after the listed building bit. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead "Castle Rock" appears without the definite article, but elsewhere it is "the Castle Rock". If Castle Rock can be referred to without "the" it might be simpler to drop the word, but at the moment it's a little inconsistent. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its usually given the definite article, at least in speech. I've checked through and its consistent now - in the lead its "the volcanic Castle Rock". Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments Nev. Hchc, I've added some more on artillery manufacture. Sorry i've taken a while to respond - the 'real world' keeps getting in the way just now. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coordinator note: this review has been open for about 32 days now. The usual ACR period is 28 days. As such, it needs to be closed shortly (probably in the next 48 hours). Currently the article does not have the required three explicit "supports" needed for promotion. In the interests of possibly achieving a successful outcome I believe that it should be left open a bit longer and I will leave a message on the main talk page asking for more reviewers. I will list it on the co-ords page for consideration after 48 hours (I won't be available then, though, as I have to work Sunday (Australian time)). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working my way through it. Should be done in 6-7 hours (as free time pops up after kids go to bed). Hobit (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It's great to see a high quality article on this important topic. I'm close to supporting, but have the following comments:
- "During the reign of Malcolm III, Dunfermline rather than Edinburgh was the primary royal residence. This began to change though during the reign of his youngest son, King David I (ruled 1124–1153)." needs a citation
- "Grange's unpopularity with the townsfolk was further increased after his men made a sortie to set fires, burning 100 houses in the town, and then firing on anyone attempting to put out the flames." reads a bit awkwardly
- Much of the first two paras in the 'Description' section needs to be referenced
- "Below it are the Western Defences, where a postern gate gives access to the western slope of the rock." needs a ref
- Ditto "and gives access to the Argyle Tower. The eastern end of the Upper Ward is occupied by the Forewall and Half Moon Batteries, with Crown Square to the south." and "The square is formed by the Royal Palace to the east, the Great Hall to the south, the Queen Anne Building to the west, and the National War Memorial to the north", "The museum later moved to the Middle Ward, and the building now houses a function suite and an education centre." and the para which begins with "The most significant section, added to the remodelled North Barrack Block"
- "As of 2006, the current District Gunner, the 27th man to fill the post, is Sergeant Jamie Shannon, nicknamed "Shannon The Cannon" - can this be updated? Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article looks good and I am almost ready to support. However, the last sentence at the ends of a few paragraphs are uncited now (like Nick-D mentioned). Also, an uncited paragraph was recently added to the "Scottish National War Memorial" section. Try to to cite some or all of that if possible. Or it could just be removed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- No consensus to promote at this time AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this aircraft topic has been well covered, it is compliant with the five A-class criteria, and would benefit from this level of review and evaluation. It is my intention to respond to comments to drive further improvement, and take note of what factors are praised, both for the benefit of this article on the first-generation Harrier and other articles that are being overhauled as of now. It is my opinion that this is currently a sound example of how to layout articles focused on aircraft and developed to an extent suitable to satsify the curiousity of both idle readers and more dedicated followers of aviation. Putting it shortly; an iconic aircraft, which has been covered well. Kyteto (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ
Oppose: an iconic aircraft indeed. I'm better with biographies, but this is quite special, so I'll depart from my comfort zone a little.I've only got as far as the P.1154 heading, but I've come up with a fair few issues, which suggests the article is under-prepared. Most of the issues are fairly basic things—look at my copy-editing, MoS compliance, consistency and read the whole article aloud to yourself because parts of it don't make sense. Since the issues are mostly not to do with content, I think they can be addressed within the course of the ACR, so let me know when you've done that and fixed the specific issues below and I'll complete my review.- "Substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". You have 26 headers and sub-headers in the TOC—perhpas it might be worth getting rid of a few?
- I've managed to send some away, down to 22. I could make it 21 by making the Popular Culture section redirect vanish, but I imagine people would complain, and it would likely get recreated in all its messy glory from scratch with nothing there. Kyteto (talk)
- Defence Minister needs explaining. In fact, you should give his exact title (eg Secretary of State for Defence) and link it if there's an appropriate article.
- The bloke's name is Duncan Sandys, though is it really relevant who came up with the white paper?
- Name's gone, sentence changed. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- VTOL is a specific and quite technical term. I know what it means, but I know a bit about RAF aircraft. I'm not sure a casual reader would know. I know it's linked in the lead, but I would link and/or explain the acronym in the origins section as well.
- I've added a short something, tell me if it is good enough though. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "This may have been encouraged" according to whom?
- This name has now been added. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Design work on the P.1127 formally began in 1957 by Sir Sydney Camm..." doesn't make sense. Do you mean "was begun", perhaps?
- I am dyslexic, my grammar is an unfortunant stumbling point on occasion. Your improvement has been substituted. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The close cooperation between the airframe company, Hawker, and the engine company, Bristol, is viewed as one of the key factors that allowed the development". I'm sorely tempted to stick a [by whom?] on that.
- The person has now been named. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "overcome many technical obstacles and political setbacks" is a touch POV
- Tried "allowed the development of the Harrier to continue in spite of technical obstacles and..." instead. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As is "barely a year and a half ". A more exact time would be better, such as 18 months.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A total of 960 sorties were made during the trials, including 1,366 take offs and landings" Wait, what? I'm no mathmatician, but I'm fairly sure 1366 is a bigger number than 960, so how can 1366 of X be included in Y if there were only 960 Ys?
- I am unable to provide greater insight firmly. But as this was a training/testing/evaluation setup, perhaps multiple landings/take offs were committed within a single sortie; as a testing process or to train the pilots to handle the aircraft. The number is confirmed and sourced correctly, the content being taken directly from the accounts of RAF senior officers. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BE CONSISTENT: US, U.S., USA, United States... you're all over the place. In encyclopaedic language, United States is preferred and US (without those weird dots because they're generally only used in American English articles) thereafter.
- Exacted now, I believe. Kyteto (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "One aircraft was lost and six of the remainder were transferred". I assume by lost, you don't mean misplaced? Why were the others transferred? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lost was the exact wording used in the document, exchanged for destroyed (It may not have been 'physically oblitorated' and may be a static display today; it did not fly again thus I guess that counts as destroyed). The others were tranferred to the US as several branches of the US Military wanted to trial the aircraft's performance, which is in the continuing sentence. Kyteto (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Part two I might just review this in chunks and let you get on with things one chunk at a time. I'm still seeing some of the kind of issues one would expect to be ironed out before an ACR, but not as many as there were in the first quarter of the article. Did you read it a loud to yourself? I've found that helps me when I'm going back over my writing. FWiW, I'm not posting these fairly minor points to be pedantic—the point of the exercise is not just to improve the article but to help you improve your writing (and everybody's wrtiting has room for improvement).HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If a sentece starts with "however", that should be immediately followed by a comma (I got one of these, I don't know if there are more.)
- Abbreviations: don't use an abbreviation and then a full name in the smae sentence. E.g. The RAF and the Royal NAVY—the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy is preferable.
- The RAF and the Royal Navy then planned... when?
- What does issuing ASR 384 mean?
- Be careful with your use of with to connect two halves of a sentence, e.g. with the first of these making its maiden flight... (I've fixed this one)
- Does an aircraft take or make its maiden flight? It doesn't really matter which one, but you use both—pick one and stick to it
- Why does Kingston upon Thames get a link but not Dunsfold?
- Watch your linking ("ol" in my edit summaries is shorthand for overlinking)
- ...the United States Marine Corps were mainly similar to the RAF's Harrier GR.1.[38] In 1979 the USMC started upgrading their Harriers as the AV-8C.[39] A total of 102 AV-8A and 8 TAV-8A Harriers were ordered and received by the US Marines Corps can you guess what I'm going to say about that?
- "In addition" is not a great way to start a sentence (and it should be followed by a comma)
- It was powered by the more powerful Pegasus 6 engine, which required new air intakes with auxiliary blow-in doors to give the required airflow at low speed, while the aircraft's wing was redesigned again with more area, and the aircraft's undercarriage was strengthened. That's a bit of a run-on sentence.
- What does more area mean?
- It was believed in a high intensity conflict airbases were vulnerable and likely to be quickly overrun and knocked out,[N 7] the ability to scatter Harrier squadrons to dozens of small "alert pads" right on the front lines that were unable to accommodate other aircraft was seen as highly prized to military strategists, the US Marines were highly enthusiastic about this capability and soon procured many aircraft for their own purposes. You try reading that aloud in one breath! Also, "for theor own purposes" seems redundant.
That's as far as the Controls and handling header. I'll watchlist this page and come back when you've got through that. While these are specific points, the general principles can be easily applied to the rest of the article, so please don't confine yourself just to fixing the issues I'm bringing up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have effectively responded to your comments. I shall continue my reading in advance of your return. Kyteto (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that do you mean you've fixed all the problems I've raised? Sorry to sound like I'm berating you (I'm really not), but more specific responses would be helpful if possible. Have you been through the remiander of the article to look for relatively straightforward issues that are easily fixed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I have checked over your points multiple times, including just prior to making this reply, to ensure I have taken actions and evaluations on every option you have raise. In addition, the edit log will attest that I have spent in excess of five hours trying to piece things together better, resolve commentry issues, and add more detail where I've tapped a few more searchs successfully. I am trying, and am going beyond the obvious/straightforward and easy routes to improvement in order to achieve what is sought. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you most certainly have my continued attention. I'd like to see this make A-class and eventually FA almost as much as you. I'll try to get to the end of the article over the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I have checked over your points multiple times, including just prior to making this reply, to ensure I have taken actions and evaluations on every option you have raise. In addition, the edit log will attest that I have spent in excess of five hours trying to piece things together better, resolve commentry issues, and add more detail where I've tapped a few more searchs successfully. I am trying, and am going beyond the obvious/straightforward and easy routes to improvement in order to achieve what is sought. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that do you mean you've fixed all the problems I've raised? Sorry to sound like I'm berating you (I'm really not), but more specific responses would be helpful if possible. Have you been through the remiander of the article to look for relatively straightforward issues that are easily fixed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ part three (controls and handling to United States Marine Corps) If it's not too much trouble, could you make replies under each bullet point, either along the lines of "done" or a query or dispute. This makes it easier for everyone (especially me) to see where we're making progress. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The general rule is one ref per paragraph, so the first paragraph of "controls and handling" needs an inline citation.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "considerable" seems very wooly to me. Is that the wording used by the source?
- I think most people know what a helicopter is, so it shouldn't be linked.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if some of these notes might not be better of in the prose?
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency: zero degrees [...] and 98°.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Following standard flight is probably superfluous—We're not writing an instruction manual.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If ypu're going to include the tidbit about the trnasatalantic flight, it would be nice to know how long it took
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive my ignorance, but what was going on in Belize that mandated the presence of fighter jets?
- Neighbouring Guatemala had become an extremely chaotic place, as well as a genocide against a faction of their own people, they also decided to proclaim lordship over Belize. Strangely enough, Belize was not particularly thrilled by its new self-appointed owners, and feared a military invasion would occur to stamp Guatemala's authority on the country. Several nations spoke out against the aggressive stance and Britain deployed the Harriers there to deter the military buildup and keep the status quo. It would have been a similar situation to Iraq and Kuwait, but the invasion never took place; perhaps more because of the mess Guatemala was in rather than anything to do with the power of the Harrier! But yes, it was there with the objective to cool regional tensions and deter aggression. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is far from how I'd like it to be, but it was a compromise with other editors to see it included at all. I could either remove all reference/linkage to the Operation name; or elaborate it. Please advise on the course of action preferred.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is far from how I'd like it to be, but it was a compromise with other editors to see it included at all. I could either remove all reference/linkage to the Operation name; or elaborate it. Please advise on the course of action preferred.
Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How did the RAF aircraft fare from being launched from ships? Were any modifications necessary? How did they perform in relation to Sea Harriers? This seems quite significant, so I'm surprised it only has a throwaway sentence.
- Quite an extensive story actually, a whole new navagation system had to be invented and produced in under two weeks, which normally would have taken years, so that the RAF Harriers would have carrier landing navagational aids, the Sea Harriers had a more extensive system built into them but that had not been an option. I'll dig this up. The Sea Harriers and Harriers mainly did different things, the RAF Harriers would have been far inferior in the air to air role and typically stuck with providing close air support for the ground forces, the Sea Harrier normally stuck to keeping the fleet safe, but did perform ground attack missions as well. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A figure for Sea Harrier losses in the Falklands would be an interesting addition.
- Is it known how many Harriers were deployed to the Falklands?
- I'll do what I can to find reliable numbers for these two.
- Dealt with. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do what I can to find reliable numbers for these two.
- Part four (United State Marince Corps to end)
- Did the USAF procure any Harriers?
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is currently note 20 would be better off incorporated into prose.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are Spain and Thailand the only other countries to have operate Harrier Is? In which case "including" should eb removed.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think the variants section might be suitable for spinning out into List of variants of the Harrier Jump Jet or something similar?
- I would have though List of Harrier variants, or just Harrier variants (as per Hawker Hurricane variants would be more preferrable a name, simpler. I would have to coordinate this with the variants sections of five other articles all on the same aircraft, which shouldn't be amazingly hard but a pile of work to cite up and shunt along. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the "opertaors" sectiion redundant to the sections above it? Could the infomration on squadrons be incorporated into those sections? Or it could even be spun out into a separate article.
- The Operators section has always been a little odd, but it is strongly urged by standard WP: Aviation aircraft article layout; I can raise it on the project page to see what can be done if this is sought. Kyteto (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also needs trimming—anything linked in the body should be removed, which will leave you with only a small linkfarm
- I cannot do much with this, my reductions are now being reverted: OTher editors disagree with the need for reduction. That is something I cannot do much to overcome. Kyteto (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the end of the world. I won't insist on it her, but others might at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot do much with this, my reductions are now being reverted: OTher editors disagree with the need for reduction. That is something I cannot do much to overcome. Kyteto (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sold on the usefulness of all four ELs, but I'll leave that with you because it's not like it's an enormous link farm.
Well part four was easy! We got there in the end, so once all my concerns above have been addressed, I see no reason not to support. Excellent work on getting the article so detailed (though some of it might need to be spun off into daughter articles) and well done for sticking with the review despite my long list of criticisms—you've done a true service to free human knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How are we doing? Do you think it's nearly ready or is there more to do? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is nearly ready, if you want to give it another look over that would be great. The commentry is often sending me down avenues I hadn't considered, and is creating positive changes/traffic/discussions over content, which is perhaps the best outcome of all. Kyteto (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm glad the exercise is proving productive. I'll have another read through it when I can, which might be tomorrow evening (UTC) or Thursday afternoon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is nearly ready, if you want to give it another look over that would be great. The commentry is often sending me down avenues I hadn't considered, and is creating positive changes/traffic/discussions over content, which is perhaps the best outcome of all. Kyteto (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-read the article and checked to make sure my comments have been addressed and, well, I'm impressed. Amazing what a difference a bit of polish can make to an article. I'm happy to give it my full support and I hope you'll take it to FAC once any other issues have been ironed out here. Excellent work. Truly excelent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick-D
Oppose While this is a fairly comprehensive and nicely written article, I also agree that it's not at the level of polish which is the norm for A class articles. I agree with HJ Mitchell's suggestion that the article could do with a copy edit to tighten the prose further. My specific comments are:
- The article seems to have an excessively strong focus on the Harrier's British service. Coverage of USMC service is much more limited, even though it seems that the USMC operated a roughly comparable number of aircraft. For instance, it's not stated where the USMC aircraft were based, how they were used and whether they saw combat.
- The problem is, in the 40+ books I read for the redevelopment of this article, I didn't find much more information on the USMC. The majority of the RAF's operational history focuses on the Falklands War, which is kind of a bummer for the USMC as they didn't have an equivilent chapter of history, there's no similar event. The reason there's not more stuff on them, is that even sources like Norden couldn't think of that much to say about the USMC's service. I could have missed a few things, but I think I (and other editors) gave it a reasonable bash of the wheel to see what had happened. For the USMC, the Harrier was a sideshow, while the RAF and especially the RN found the Harrier as their first, last, and only option to operating at all, and it just so happened that it became crucial in a major conflict for one and not the other, exacerbating things unhelpfully. I'll see what I can pick up though; I'll never go so far as to say I've read everything to do with something. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I find it ironic/bizarre that now the USMC, in spite of fighting no major conflicts with their Harriers, now have a bigger Operation History then the RAF does, in spite of the Falklands War. If anything, I'd be expected the RAF fans to be irritated that the USMC is getting a bigger share of the pie. But orders are orders. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could spin those sections out into separate articles. The artilce probably is a little long and so a few daughter articles might be beneficial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a couple of good books on the air war in the Falklands Islands (the British official history and the rather good Osprey book Air War in the Falklands 1982) which should provide more detail on the RAF Harriers if that would be helpful (though the general emphasis in both books seems to be on the Sea Harriers) Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be interesting to create dedicated subarticles to RAF Harrier Service and USMC Harrier Service, I had always worried it would be too much of a duplicate of existing information, and infringe upon other articles (Sea Harrier, Harrier II ect). I suppose if I completely the refitting of the MD Harrier II article next month, I could make the changes and read up enough on that Harrier version to give an effective history from the 70s up to the present day. Also, I've always foun more information to be helpful, feel free to add some if you notice anything particularly pertinent. Kyteto (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a couple of good books on the air war in the Falklands Islands (the British official history and the rather good Osprey book Air War in the Falklands 1982) which should provide more detail on the RAF Harriers if that would be helpful (though the general emphasis in both books seems to be on the Sea Harriers) Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could spin those sections out into separate articles. The artilce probably is a little long and so a few daughter articles might be beneficial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I find it ironic/bizarre that now the USMC, in spite of fighting no major conflicts with their Harriers, now have a bigger Operation History then the RAF does, in spite of the Falklands War. If anything, I'd be expected the RAF fans to be irritated that the USMC is getting a bigger share of the pie. But orders are orders. Kyteto (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, in the 40+ books I read for the redevelopment of this article, I didn't find much more information on the USMC. The majority of the RAF's operational history focuses on the Falklands War, which is kind of a bummer for the USMC as they didn't have an equivilent chapter of history, there's no similar event. The reason there's not more stuff on them, is that even sources like Norden couldn't think of that much to say about the USMC's service. I could have missed a few things, but I think I (and other editors) gave it a reasonable bash of the wheel to see what had happened. For the USMC, the Harrier was a sideshow, while the RAF and especially the RN found the Harrier as their first, last, and only option to operating at all, and it just so happened that it became crucial in a major conflict for one and not the other, exacerbating things unhelpfully. I'll see what I can pick up though; I'll never go so far as to say I've read everything to do with something. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of technical detail in the 'Development' section is probably excessive given that the final state of the engine, etc in the production aircraft (which is the topic of the article) is described well in the 'Design' section.
- Section thinned and daughter'ed off; is this sufficiently resolved? Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Section thinned and daughter'ed off; is this sufficiently resolved? Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptions of the aircraft vary between past and present tense - this gets a bit confusing
- http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=609 seems to have turned into a link farm, and doesn't reference the claim that 718 Harriers were built (was that figure for just these initial variants? It seems a rather high number for aircraft which equipped only about 10 squadrons for 20 years)
- This is now removed for good. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "their amphibious assault ships" - the amphibious assault ships are operated by, and belong to, the US Navy, not the Marines
- Huh, okay. I blame the book's wording. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harrier squadrons saw several deployments to deter aggression in times of regional tension." - this is rather POV wording
- It has been removed, a context has been added in its place. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "both the Sea Harrier and the Harrier would be a crucial element of the 1982 Falklands War" - 'would be' should be replaced with 'were'
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " the field of VTOL aircraft;[N 1] VTOL standing for Vertical Take Off/Landing aircraft, which wouldn't need runways" - this is an awkward way of introducing this acronym - why not replace it with something like "Vertical Take Off/Landing (VTOL) aircraft, which did not need runways"
- Rewritten. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's meant by "The United States was also a valuable source of investment for engine development"? - did American investors (private or Government) provide money to help fund the development of the engine, or were they providing technical advice or some other resources? (or all of the above)
- Government body that provided some funding for the engine, either out of curiousity or the want for partner nations to be strengthened in capability: possibly both. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Experience onboard the commando carrier HMS Bulwark in 1966 convinced project officers that less reactive materials would be substituted for all uses of magnesium in the Kestrel's airframe, in any further prototypes and production aircraft." - this is really vague - what was this experience and why did magnesium need to be totally ruled out?
- Magnesium + the sea environment = quickly wrecked magnesium components. It is a highly reactive substance. Some say that magnesium was kept in the design as long as possble to spite the navy and keep them away from the Harrier; treat this as hearsay. This experience was basically ship board testing, to judge how suitable/unsuitable a Harrier aircraft would be upon the deck of an aircraft carrier. No doubt the test influenced later choices to move to the Invincible 'Harrier carriers' and the Sea Harrier. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the R in "NATO Requirement" need to be capitalised?
- Not particularly, change enacted. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage of the Sea Harrier left me confused about whether this simply a variant of the basic Harrier design or a significant development of the design - the Sea Harrier isn't really described in detail, but when it is it seems to have quite different capabilities.
- How different/similar it is has been a political and academic arguement for decades; it really depends on who you ask. We aren't really supposed to be covering too much into the Sea Harrier as it has its own article, hence a section was created to discuss the family differences overall, and talk of the Sea Harrier kept to where it belongs for the most part. It operated under a different command, designed from the same prototype models, but crafted for different purposes and outfitted significantly differently in its avionics and weapons capability. It didn't help that it could perform normal ground attack missions like the RAF Harriers did. Destinct, but interchangable, and rarely does anybody bother to make the destinction; is an overlooked destinction still destinct? Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following the Falklands War, the RAF Harriers would not see further combat" - you should specify that the this is the GR1/GR3s and that later variants saw action over Yugoslavia and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are "convincing officers"?
- That is a human grammatical error. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Due to the display of usefulness of the Harrier on small carriers" - this is rather awkwardly worded
- "the navies of nations such as Spain and later Thailand" - were there others, or just Spain and Thailand?
- Depends on how you define 'Harriers'. If by the specific first generation models (non-Sea Harrier), just those two. If you count the Sea Harrier, also first generation and specifically dedicated to carrier operations, India comes into the picture. If you define it as 'what people commonly point at and call 'Harriers and operated on carriers, then Italy joins in too. Kyteto (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's meant by "in support of Sea Harrier training."? - were these aircraft used to train Sea Harrier pilots (in which case something like "as part of of Sea Harrier training" would be clearer), or for some other purpose? Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (I think) I changed/simplified that to "Operated the Harrier T.4 for Sea Harrier training". -Fnlayson (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, I don't think that the statement that "Following the successful conclusion of those tests 'ski-jumps' was added to all RN aircraft carriers at the end of their flight decks" is correct - HMS Ark Royal wasn't fitted with a ski jump. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of the trials concluding, Ark Royal had been sentenced to 'death' for a while, and was on the verge of standing down for good. There'd be little point in heavily refitting the carrier (not to mention boning up the catapults, and the planes that needed them) when it would be retired a few months later. And to be fair, the conclusions of 'what was the best angle of ramp' weren't established as firm until 1980-1981, while the old Ark Royal was gone in 1979. I can adjust the wording, with a clarification on dates. Kyteto (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be helpful - without dates, this reads like the trials took place in the late 60s. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, satisfactory? Kyteto (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, are there any other comments? Kyteto (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, satisfactory? Kyteto (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be helpful - without dates, this reads like the trials took place in the late 60s. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of the trials concluding, Ark Royal had been sentenced to 'death' for a while, and was on the verge of standing down for good. There'd be little point in heavily refitting the carrier (not to mention boning up the catapults, and the planes that needed them) when it would be retired a few months later. And to be fair, the conclusions of 'what was the best angle of ramp' weren't established as firm until 1980-1981, while the old Ark Royal was gone in 1979. I can adjust the wording, with a clarification on dates. Kyteto (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My comments have all been addressed - great work Kyteto. I'd suggest further copy editing before this goes to a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Overall a good article but there are a large number of prose issues, some of which I have listed below. I hope these comments aren't too discouraging as a lot of good work has clearly been done to this article so far:
- The citation check tool reveals multiple errors (all "Multiple references contain the same content");
- I am unfamiliar with this tool, could you elaborate on it? Kyteto (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gday. This tool can be accessed by hitting the 'edit' button at the top of the page, then click 'Cite', then 'Error check'. Tick all three check boxes and click on the 'Check button'. You should then recieve a report on the citations in the article. This tool should highlight any duplicated refs (which you can reduce by naming them) and any duplicated named refs. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I have learnt something, and it appears to read as all clear now. Kyteto (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gday. This tool can be accessed by hitting the 'edit' button at the top of the page, then click 'Cite', then 'Error check'. Tick all three check boxes and click on the 'Check button'. You should then recieve a report on the citations in the article. This tool should highlight any duplicated refs (which you can reduce by naming them) and any duplicated named refs. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unfamiliar with this tool, could you elaborate on it? Kyteto (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I really see the point of the "Popular culture" section. Its a single unreferenced section. To be honest I would ditch it and include a link to the article in the body of the text;
- Done, but to See Also section, I could not see a relevant place to link it into in the main body. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but to See Also section, I could not see a relevant place to link it into in the main body. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "including 1,366 take offs", AFAIK this should be hypenated to "take-offs";
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "had additionally undertaken", could this be more simply worded as "had undertaken"?;
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should formally introduce NATO before using the abbreviation, and it could also be wikilinked;
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "partnership between Hawkers Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas", should this be "Hawker Siddley" not "Hawkers"?;
- This has also been done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Harrier's role was typically that of an attack against ground targets", could this just be reworded as "The Harrier's role was typically that of ground attack"?
- Done, your version is substituted. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was believed in a high intensity conflict", missing word here I think, perhaps "It was believed that in a high intensity conflict"
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked this a little further. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The water injection function had originally been added at the behest of Colonel Bill Chapman of the United States Air Force." Who was Chapman and what was his involvement?
- There did not appear to be a Wiki article on him, he was an individual working at one of the joint US-West Europe military development aid organisations, with the organisational mission of helping along promising military programs to counterbalance the significant impact Soviet military provisions were having on Eastern Europe's military capability. I have added some detail, but there is neither an article on him or the Mutual Weapons Development Team; and he was a relatively small peice of the puzzle. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy with your addition. Seems adequate to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There did not appear to be a Wiki article on him, he was an individual working at one of the joint US-West Europe military development aid organisations, with the organisational mission of helping along promising military programs to counterbalance the significant impact Soviet military provisions were having on Eastern Europe's military capability. I have added some detail, but there is neither an article on him or the Mutual Weapons Development Team; and he was a relatively small peice of the puzzle. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 90° place is generally", to me this seems badly worded I'm afraid but I'm not sure of how you might fix it;
- Wording changed, please notify if this is not resolved. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats good now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording changed, please notify if this is not resolved. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe wikilink dog fight?
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dog fight is used inconsistently, sometimes you write "dog fight" and in others "dog-fight" with a hyphen;
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "United States Marine Corps" should be abbreviated after first use (in the lead). In places you use the abbreviation without having formally introduced it, and only do so half way through the article;
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "more than 2000 Harrier sorties", should be "2,000" per WP:MOSNUM;
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Marine Corps were enthusiastic" should this be "the Marine Corps was"?
- Done. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to change between past and present tense quite abit, so you might consider reworking it. Past tense would seem more appropriate for the bulk of the article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the primary reason why am opposing at this stage. I think this article needs a thorough copy edit so you might consider requesting one from the Guild. Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to change between past and present tense quite abit, so you might consider reworking it. Past tense would seem more appropriate for the bulk of the article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed a request with one of MilHist's most experienced copy editors to look over the article, I await his response. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Too easy. Good work so far improving the article to this point so I'm happy to remove my oppose. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed a request with one of MilHist's most experienced copy editors to look over the article, I await his response. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I was asked to take a look at this one, but I don't think it's ready yet. Please read it carefully, checking for simple things like whether you're saying what you mean to say, and not mixing singular and plural. I've made some changes to the lead, but there's a lot left: "arose from the 1960s" (in?), "A derived supersonic aircraft" (not appropriate for the first paragraph, since it never happened), "their Harriers ... as a naval aircraft" (plural, singular), "to deter aggression in times of regional tension" (to deter regional aggression), "Both the Sea Harrier and the Harrier were a crucial element of the" (plural, singular ... better would be "were crucial to the"), "extremely" (remove adjectives that don't add information), "a long term interest" (in formal AmEng and I think BritEng, drop the "a"; a hyphen is optional), "Similar V/STOL aircraft, in operational role" (plural/singular), "the in-development" (more of a German than an English construction). - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes in work. But I do not agree with the supersonic aircraft comment. The sentence in the Lead on it summarizes a whole section and is background to the Harrier. Maybe shorten it, but simply removing it is not appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine to put it in the lead; I was saying it's not appropriate for the first paragraph because it doesn't tell us anything about the Harrier per se, and this article is about the Harrier. The best place for it would be the beginning of some kind of narrative (i.e. chronology). - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The last part of the paragraph already reads as a chronology. Maybe Kyteto or another of the article's regular editors can help.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think it says something important about the origins of the Harrier; that it was a second-choice fallback option to the real production item that the supersonic version was supposed to be, and it only came into service following that design's collapse. The Harrier is a basic reilliteration of the Kestrel prototype series, modernised and advanced to production quality. It'd seem odd to mention it later on, when chronologically it was an early development. I had built the first paragraphy mostly around two priniciples, describing the aircraft and summarising the development section below. I'll think on a different way to twist it out. Kyteto (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's important to keep it in the first paragraph, I don't object. I'd prefer if it the mention were shorter, something like: "A replacement for the cancelled Hawker Siddeley P.1154, ..." - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've shortened it down, opinions? Kyteto (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, with a tweak. I'm still looking for a writing guide I can link to that deals with the subject of over-explaining. In scholarly writing, it's often enough just to put two ideas side by side and let the reader draw the reasonable conclusion. If the Harrier was developed after a more advanced plane was canceled, that probably means the Harrier was meant to take its place, so I removed that clause. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've shortened it down, opinions? Kyteto (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's important to keep it in the first paragraph, I don't object. I'd prefer if it the mention were shorter, something like: "A replacement for the cancelled Hawker Siddeley P.1154, ..." - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine to put it in the lead; I was saying it's not appropriate for the first paragraph because it doesn't tell us anything about the Harrier per se, and this article is about the Harrier. The best place for it would be the beginning of some kind of narrative (i.e. chronology). - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is headed to FAC, you'll need to lose the italics that aren't supported at WP:MOSTEXT, such as Harrier Jump Jet, Harrier GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A Harrier. Also, WP:SLASH recommends against slashes unless they're an established part of the name, which I don't think applies to "Harrier GR.1/GR.3 variants" ... that should probably be "Harrier models GR.1 and GR.3" or "Harrier GR.1 and Harrier GR.3". - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the result of which being": wordy.
- "Vertical Take Off/Landing": Vertical Take Off and Landing, per WP:SLASH.
- All your thrust figures need conversion, probably to kN.
- "Six prototypes were built in total; three of them crashed": Of the six prototypes built, three crashed
- "made a tripartite agreement for the purchase of": jointly agreed to purchase
- "by the time evaluations finalised": by the end of evaluations
- "One aircraft was destroyed in an accident, six of the remainder were transferred to the United States for evaluation by the Army, Air Force and Navy, while designated as XV-6A Kestrel.": One aircraft was destroyed in an accident, and six of the remainder were redesignated as XV-6A Kestrels and transferred to the United States for evaluation by the Army, Air Force and Navy. (Comma splice, and always consider moving the more complicated element in a series to the end of the series.)
- "experimentation work": experimentation
- "... assigned for further trials and experimentation work at RAE Bedford, one was modified to ...": comma splice.
- There's still a bit too much left here for the poor copy editor. I'll check back in a week. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more of a general note (to myself and to any coordinators eyeing this up for a close) than a reply, but I'll take a stab at this over the next few days. I'm a little busy at the minute, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe "take-off" is usual in BritEng (for the noun); "takeoff" is AmEng. Please check all of the text.
- Some units need converting just before Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions; I'm forgetting which ones at the moment, but they should be easy to find.
- I stopped halfway, at Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions. These are my edits. If anyone wants to check my edit summaries and take it from there, I'll be happy to look again and see if I can support. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Check for references that are not cited, forex Gunston 1983, Mason 1971, Polmar, and Scott. • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mason 1971 has been replaced by the 91 edition of the same book.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the unused sources, and was reverted by another editor, on the basis that they may be used in the future. Should they remain in place, is it necessary to bin them? Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bzuk has reinserted the unused refs. I strongly suggest creation of a "Further reading" section for those. It's in MOS at WP:FURTHER ... • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by Kyeto. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bzuk has reinserted the unused refs. I strongly suggest creation of a "Further reading" section for those. It's in MOS at WP:FURTHER ... • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the unused sources, and was reverted by another editor, on the basis that they may be used in the future. Should they remain in place, is it necessary to bin them? Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mason 1971 has been replaced by the 91 edition of the same book.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to cross all the t's and dot all the i's w/respect to images. I'm far from an expert, but forex I see no link to a source for File:RR-408 Pegasus.jpg. Are there more probs? • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check them all now, but I believe I uncovered the source for the image listed, I have added the URL to its own discussion page. Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All images seem to be sourced fine by my clicking across. If you wish, double-check nonetheless. Is the mentioned image now sufficiently sourced? Kyteto (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check them all now, but I believe I uncovered the source for the image listed, I have added the URL to its own discussion page. Kyteto (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-ord comment: this review has been open for 28 days now and as such is due to be closed. As it appears that there are currently two supports and some comments that may or may not have been addressed, the article doesn't quite have the support required to promote it. However, as it is close, I ask if reviewers who have commented but not supported, please take a moment to look at the article again and state whether or not your concerns have been adequately addressed (preferably with a support or oppose). This will help determine consensus. I will then close accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I would prefer to be rejected by editor objections rather editorial apathy. I believe I have tried to answer everybody's concerns, I shall now re-read and check. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not too much trouble to you guys, I'd appreciate a little wiggle-room. Although I'm explicitly supporting, there are still a few issues that need to be worked out but I don't have the time right now. If it could be left open another few days, I'd be grateful—at least that way, if it fails, it won't be through lack of effort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it can stay open a couple more days (there is precedent for keeping reviews open a bit longer than 28 days). I happen to know that Anotherclown won't be able to re-review within the timeframe, though, because he is "out bush" for another week or so, but hopefully one of the other reviewers will be able to support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not too much trouble to you guys, I'd appreciate a little wiggle-room. Although I'm explicitly supporting, there are still a few issues that need to be worked out but I don't have the time right now. If it could be left open another few days, I'd be grateful—at least that way, if it fails, it won't be through lack of effort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I would prefer to be rejected by editor objections rather editorial apathy. I believe I have tried to answer everybody's concerns, I shall now re-read and check. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I've added a couple of tags that need to be dealt with. One is for a particularly awkward sentence and the other concerns political issues with using USMC Harriers in the short-range air defense role or somesuch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to answer the political issues quiery. It was the opinion of a senior officer of the USMC that there were political hinderances to the procurement of Harriers, but made no specific allegations against person or issue, only that the practicality/usefulness was a far better arguement than the generic political ney-saying in Congress. I did seek out another work, identifying that there was specific scepticism over V/STOL aircraft as a catagory at that time, and how the future of the entire field swung on how the Harrier was perceived as performing. Kyteto (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also rewritten the akward statement, give it a whirl. Kyteto (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better, but it's still not clear what political issues were involved. It might be simplest to delete that part of the sentence unless you can clarify what issues were involved.
- It niggles me, but it is gone. Sadly we'll never know as to what the officer knew in this regard. Kyteto (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better, but it's still not clear what political issues were involved. It might be simplest to delete that part of the sentence unless you can clarify what issues were involved.
- I've also rewritten the akward statement, give it a whirl. Kyteto (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the bit about the Big Wing Harrier to flow better and to reduce the redundancy. See if it suits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The version used in the initial production Harriers was the Pegasus 6, the majority of Harriers were powered by the later Pegasus 11 needs rewriting—not only is at a comma splice, but I'm struggling to work out what it means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten it. It basically means that the Pegasus 6 engine was the original powerplant the plane came out of the factory with in its first year of production, but quite quickly the superior Pegasus 11 arrived on the scene and the RAF upgraded all operation planes to use that engine at the double; since then the Pegasus 11 has powered all other Harrier variants, with tweaking, kiboshing, and changes to suit the naval environment, or to exploit the greater room allowed for the engine in the Harrier II's airframe. Pgasus 5 was the original but short lived engine that went out at day one, the Pegasus 11 is in effect the definative engine powering all Harriers in service today, and most of the retired first generation ones at that, if the frames on static display still had their engines it'd be likely that they would have these engines inside as well. Kyteto (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. For the benefits of co-ords looking to close this and for my own sanity, I'm posting this here! I believe (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) the main issue left is prose and MoS compliance. I've been through the article head to toe and fixed most things. What we really need is a fresh pair of eyes to proof read it and fix any remaining issues. Dank has done great work with the top half and I've asked Malleus to cast an eye over it. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed for this to meet the criteria? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear this article is now destined to fail, we have asked much of the patience of the A-level coordinator, and sufficient support has not come forward. This has not been a failure in terms of article refinement, but this status does not look like it will be awarded this time. Thank you all for your efforts. Kyteto (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing comment: I have closed this review now as it has been open for 33 days, which is five days beyond the usual 28 days; as the article only has two clear supports, it unfortunately doesn't have the required support at this stage (minimum three without offsetting opposes). You are able to renominate the article for another ACR as soon as you feel it is ready (there is no minimum wait time), although it might be best to undertake a peer review before doing so to ensure success next time round. I trust that you won't be discouraged from further improving this article and as a personal note, I think that the article is looking quite good and you are to be commended for your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Not promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by me from a recent FAC, but I have addressed most (close to all) the issues raised there, and therefore think it is suited to A class with a view to a second FA nomination once the issues are sorted out. I've opened a tandem request at the copyeditors' guild, if there are any people here willing to do that. Hopefully we can get any remaining issues sorted out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Welcome to the Military History project. I generally copyedit after other things have been dealt with, but feel free to ask on my talk page if something needs dealing with sooner. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I've noticed Grandiose has map-making skills, I'd like to ask if we can count on the map for the entire war? While it is not required, it would be very useful. As for the other issues, some of those I raised during FAC have been addressed, but not all. Please let me know, Grandiose, when you feel you've addressed them all and I'll revisit them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to find a source for the map. On the Oliva mentioning from the FAC, I'm struggling to distinguish the Treaty of Oliva from the Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) and would welcome input on that. Whilst we're here, the commenters in the FAC were unclear between them whether Battle of Ula is the Battle of Czaniki, and, if it is, whether there were battles three years apart or just the one. my sandbox has a version of the FAC where I've deleted issues I believe I've covered, so you can check to see if you disagree with my assessment of the issues from the FAC remaining. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pl wiki article on the battle matches with the en wiki article. I am not sure what you find confusing about Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) and Treaty of Oliva; they share the same year, but have articles developed sufficiently to make it clear they were different? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit (by User:Skäpperöd) is confusing, because, judging by the articles, Livonia was a consideration at Oliva and not Copenhagen? Perhaps we could say it was kept after both. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a ref that mentions Oliva and Livonia. Hope that helps, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, will the map now in the Truces section suffice? I think it's the situation from that time onwards, but that's guesswork - the original uploader said c.1600. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit (by User:Skäpperöd) is confusing, because, judging by the articles, Livonia was a consideration at Oliva and not Copenhagen? Perhaps we could say it was kept after both. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pl wiki article on the battle matches with the en wiki article. I am not sure what you find confusing about Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) and Treaty of Oliva; they share the same year, but have articles developed sufficiently to make it clear they were different? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the article was copyedited by User:Philg88 on behalf of the Copyeditors' Guild. This should mean the review can start in earnest when the times comes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref comments:
- There are three citations without page numbers (marked as such)
- There is ref to "Stone 1991, p. 123" - is it the same as Stone 2001?
- "Peterson 2007, pp. 91–93" should be broken down into page-by-page ref
- Refs to public domain books: would provide info & links to the first publication as it is fully accessible in the U.S.
- Renata (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work, Renata. I've done the page numbers, and will look into the Stone and Peterson issues. I'm afraid I don't understand what you want to happen with public domain works, but I have now filled out Solovyov to a paper copy, so they are now effectively identical to any other book. Could you elaborate? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [
"Stone (1991)" looks like an error, but I have asked Skäpperöd about it[it was]; Peterson I have managed to split into 91 and 92-3 sections, since I don't have access to the second two pages. I hope this suffices, it's a 4/4 split on use. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]
I'm going to get a lot more time over the Bank Holiday weekend than I usually would to edit, and would therefore like to ask for comments now, if you've been holding back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: An interesting article. If I were going to propose any additions, they'd be around:
- The geography of the area - a few early sentences describing whether the region was (perhaps) wilderness, farmland, tundra, forest etc. would give the casual reader a clearer sense of what kind of territory the campaigns were fighting over.
- The sorts of military technology of the period. Again, for the casual reader, was this a war fought with muskets, pikes, bows, etc.?
Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is that of scope. There is little - but some - on those topics (the weather problems for one siege; and Russian tactic and army constituents), and nothing else seems to have been written about the field conditions or armies in the sources. We do not, though, leave the reader without options on Wikipedia as a whole. I'll do my best to find some information if people do want to see it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've had time to check the sources, and there is little mention of either of these things, and I am reminded also of what is in the article, which amounts to a couple of paragraphs on these things. (The first and third paragraphs of "Russian invasion of Livonia", and fourth of "Swedish and Polish–Lithuanian alliance and counter-offensives" for the weaponry and army details). In essence, I think the article gives them an appropriate weight bearing in mind the relatively low importance their coverage in the RS would suggest. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-ord comment: this review will be due to be listed for closure in about two days. As such, would reviewers mind taking a look at the changes that have been made and stating if they support or oppose promotion to A-class? This will make it easier for the closing co-ord to make a decision about the outcome of this review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, this review has been open for more than 28 days now, and unfortunately has not gathered the required three supports, so I will have to close it as unsuccessful. Please feel free to nominate the article again for ACR when you feel it is ready. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class because it recently passed a GA review, and I've added some references so that it meets or is close to meeting the A-class criteria. Since I think coverage vs. unnecessary detail is going to be an issue; I've tried my best to use sources which broadly cover the subject rather than details, and Sweetman's timeline nicely highlights things he considered more significant than others which I'll probably use as a benchmark. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Review by Ancient Apparition
I'll be reviewing this article, after reading through the article I'll post suggestions below. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:56pm • 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion A1
The article is very well referenced for a GA, however, Criterion A1 asserts that an article needs references for statements that can be challenged. I'll list examples below
In History of the United States Navy#Disarmament (1785-1794):
- "After the American Revolutionary War the brand-new United States struggled to stay financially afloat. National income was desperately needed and a great deal of this income came from import tariffs."
- "American merchant shipping had been protected by the British Navy, and as a consequence of the Treaty of Paris and the disarmament of the Continental Navy, the United States no longer had any protection for its ships from pirates. The fledgling nation did not have the funds to pay annual tribute to the Barbary states, so ships who flew the stars and stripes were targeted for capture after 1785. By 1789, the new Constitution of the United States authorized Congress to create a navy, but during George Washington's first term (1787–1793) little was done to rearm the navy."
- this paragraph did need more citations. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In History of the United States Navy#Establishment (1794–1812):
- "At the same time, tensions between the US and France developed into the Quasi-War, which was entirely fought at sea. The conflict originated in the Treaty of Alliance (1778), which had brought the French into the Revolutionary War. The United States preferred to take a position of neutrality, which put the nation at odds with both Britain and France. After the Jay Treaty was authorized with Britain in 1794, France began to side against the United States and by 1797 they had seized over 300 American vessels. The newly inaugurated President John Adams took steps to deal with the crisis, working with Congress to finish the three almost-completed frigates, approving funds to build the other three, and attempting to negotiate an agreement similar to the Jay Treaty with France."
- I redid this slightly, double checked citation. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In History of the United States Navy#Continental Expansion (1815-1861):
- "After the war, the Navy's accomplishments paid off in the form of better funding, and it embarked on the construction of many new ships. However, the expense of the larger ships was prohibitive, and many of them stayed in shipyards half-completed, in readiness for another war, until the Age of Sail had almost completely passed. The main force of the Navy continued to be large sailing frigates with a number of smaller sloops during the three decades of peace."
- added a citation
There are more, since local libraries in my area don't have the book I'm not sure if the references at the end of paragraphs covers these statements.
- The references at the end of paragraphs cover the statements - you don't need to have a citation after every sentence.
- Criterion A2
The article is written from a neutral point of view, especially where the article deals with the American Revolutionary War and following events, that would be a big target of nationalistic bias. All sections are written with the appropriate amount of detail, significant events and important details aren't ommitted and sections don't go off-topic or into unnecessary detail.
- Criterion A3
Good use of headings, concise lead section that summarises the information in following sections. Table of contents is not overwhelmingly long and the article is easy to navigate overall.
- Criterion A4
I could find no problems with prose, the article is written very well, is clear to understand and the article meets the relevant style guidelines.
- Criterion A5
Images used are appropriate and do not take up much space within the sections they are located which is good. The article itself is not overwhelmed with images to the point where it's no longer an article but moreso a gallery. No issues with Fair use or Copyright.
- Summary
The article doesn't meet A1, which in my view is the most important of all the A-Class Criterion, at this time I cannot support the article's promotion to A-Class article until these issues are fixed as they exist throughout the article. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:36pm • 04:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, let me know if you have more questions. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work on the article Kirk, I support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:54am • 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Buggie111
From first glance, everything looks great. However, as stated above, there are some A1 problems and maybe some A3 or A4, for me, at least. Buggie111 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy". Do others recognize a different date? I sugesst changing to " 13 October 1775 was the date when Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy, the precursor of the U.S. Navy."
- There are many 'establishment' dates one could pick; 13 October 1775 (above), 1789 (Constitution), the Naval Act of 1794, creation of the Navy department, the dates the first ship after 1794 was commissioned or the first captains were commissioned so the Navy officially picked that date as the 'establishment' date. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if you want to read more, footnote #1 is the official USN History of the 'birthdate' [29] Kirk (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many 'establishment' dates one could pick; 13 October 1775 (above), 1789 (Constitution), the Naval Act of 1794, creation of the Navy department, the dates the first ship after 1794 was commissioned or the first captains were commissioned so the Navy officially picked that date as the 'establishment' date. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the War of 1812 section, "reduced to a hulk" and "Demolished" seem slightly POV.
- I was more specific about their fate; this section missed some wikilinks for the ships which I added. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the section on the Baltimore attack, I don't think the Star Spangle Banner should be mentioned. Buggie111 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its in bold in Sweetman's timeline, so I'm leaving it in. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good to me.
- Great job! I Support Buggie111 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now). It's great that so much effort has been put into developing this important article. However, I've got some concerns about whether it meets the A class criteria:
- My main concern is that the article is heavily dependent on a single reference (The U.S. Navy: a history) - by my rough estimate, about three quarters of all the article's references are to this book. Given that there's a vast and very diverse literature on the US Navy, I don't think this is at all justifiable.
- I can tweak the citations but it would be easier if you tell me the 'Miller ratio' number to earn your support. The 'dependence on single source' rule I don't think applies here; all the high level histories I read kind of tell the same story and while the Navy provides a bilbliography of recommended sources [30] there aren't all that many '1775 - today' monographs, and Miller is the most recent one I could easily get at the library, and its a tertiary source with hundreds of citations of its own. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No more than 25% would be good, and lower levels than this would be better still. It might be a good book, but the heavy dependence on it is unacceptable given the huge number of books, journal articles and reliable websites on this topic (many of which are more recent than 1997). I don't want to come across as being harsh here, but I do think that the level of sourcing isn't appropriate for an A class article on a topic such as this and many of the issues I've highlighted below might be the result of over-dependence on this source. As some suggestions, Lisle A. Rose's Power At Sea trilogy is a well reviewed (though not by people on Amazon.com!), critical and recent overview of the USN and other major navies from 1890 onwards, Clay Blair's Silent Victory is probably still the definitive work on the US Navy's submarine force in World War II, Samuel E. Morrison's writings on the USN in the lead up and during World War II remains well regarded (though outdated in some points), Ian W. Toll's book Six Frigates was very well reviewed and seems to have become a standard work on the early years of the USN and the US Naval Institute has produced excellent works on most aspects of the navy (the chapter on the USN in the recent book On Seas Contested provides a good overview of its preparations for World War II, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its less than 50% now, I'm still working on this. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the distribution is close to 25% now.Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The range of sources is still pretty narrow considering the topic, but OK for A class in my view. FA reviewers will be expecting to see specialist works on elements of the Navy's history. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the distribution is close to 25% now.Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its less than 50% now, I'm still working on this. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No more than 25% would be good, and lower levels than this would be better still. It might be a good book, but the heavy dependence on it is unacceptable given the huge number of books, journal articles and reliable websites on this topic (many of which are more recent than 1997). I don't want to come across as being harsh here, but I do think that the level of sourcing isn't appropriate for an A class article on a topic such as this and many of the issues I've highlighted below might be the result of over-dependence on this source. As some suggestions, Lisle A. Rose's Power At Sea trilogy is a well reviewed (though not by people on Amazon.com!), critical and recent overview of the USN and other major navies from 1890 onwards, Clay Blair's Silent Victory is probably still the definitive work on the US Navy's submarine force in World War II, Samuel E. Morrison's writings on the USN in the lead up and during World War II remains well regarded (though outdated in some points), Ian W. Toll's book Six Frigates was very well reviewed and seems to have become a standard work on the early years of the USN and the US Naval Institute has produced excellent works on most aspects of the navy (the chapter on the USN in the recent book On Seas Contested provides a good overview of its preparations for World War II, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tweak the citations but it would be easier if you tell me the 'Miller ratio' number to earn your support. The 'dependence on single source' rule I don't think applies here; all the high level histories I read kind of tell the same story and while the Navy provides a bilbliography of recommended sources [30] there aren't all that many '1775 - today' monographs, and Miller is the most recent one I could easily get at the library, and its a tertiary source with hundreds of citations of its own. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the prose is repetitive (as some examples: "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy.", "by 1785 the Continental Navy was disbanded and the remaining ships were sold. The frigate Alliance, which had fired the last shots of the American Revolutionary War, was also the last ship sold", "National income was desperately needed and a great deal of this income") - this occurs all the way through the article.
- I fixed some of these. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still prose like "During the 1990s, the United States naval strategy was based on the overall military strategy of the United States which emphasized the ability of the United States to engage in two simultaneous limited wars along separate fronts" in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed some of these. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some over-linking; for instance, USS Constitution is linked three times in the 'Establishment' and 'War of 1812 (1812–1815)' sections and Confederate States of America is linked twice in the 'American Civil War (1861–1865)' section. Some of the links highlighted as main articles are also directly linked in the body of the prose, and so should probably be removed from the main article sections
- I fixed many of these; I'll keep looking for more. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is almost entirely focused on ships, battles, officers and politicians. There's almost nothing about important topics such as how the navy was manned (did the 'old navy' use conscription or press gangs like the Royal Navy did at the time?), the social composition of its sailors (for instance, who joined the navy, the removal or racial barriers, low morale at various points in time, etc) and its support infrastructure and bases.
- I'll see if I can expand how the navy got sailors; I'm not sure why you think the social background is an important missing detail. I took a cue from Sweetman that individual bases weren't that important unless they were being attacked by someone.
- Given that the US Navy wouldn't be able to put to sea without sailors or support bases, they're of central importance. The USN's excellent dockyards and training programs are a key factor in its dominance since World War II, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a section for enlisted men in the old navy;I'm going to add a sentence for the removal of racial barriers.Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That helps but could be carried further, and there still isn't anything on the Navy's bases Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back and I added a little more on this, also more sources. Kirk (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you end up adding the coverage of the removal of racial barriers? - I can't see it. There's still very little on the navy's sailors and bases. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back and I added a little more on this, also more sources. Kirk (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That helps but could be carried further, and there still isn't anything on the Navy's bases Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a section for enlisted men in the old navy;I'm going to add a sentence for the removal of racial barriers.Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the US Navy wouldn't be able to put to sea without sailors or support bases, they're of central importance. The USN's excellent dockyards and training programs are a key factor in its dominance since World War II, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can expand how the navy got sailors; I'm not sure why you think the social background is an important missing detail. I took a cue from Sweetman that individual bases weren't that important unless they were being attacked by someone.
- Given that the USMC was an integral part of the Navy for much of its history and still remains an administrative component of the Navy, I was surprised at how little coverage it received (when was it formed, for instance?)
- I considered this but the Corps has its own history article for details like that; I can cite the creation date.
- Done Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered this but the Corps has its own history article for details like that; I can cite the creation date.
- As some specific comments about elements of the article:
- "World War II began for the US with the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - what about the USN's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic which began much earlier in 1941?
- I can reword that sentence.
- DoneKirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can reword that sentence.
- It's a bit confusing to label the USN the "first navy in the Western Hemisphere" - the European navies had been operating in the Americas for hundreds of years by this point, and had significant numbers of warships and considerable support infrastructure.
- Reworded Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy" - do you need the proviso that this is the date the navy recogises? - are there other possible dates?
- Yes, at least 5 other dates so they officially picked one.
- I'd suggest including a note to this effect. Is the date the USN selected supported by historians, or do they prefer other dates? Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the note in this case; one of the citation is a weblink from the navy which explains the above.
- I'd suggest including a note to this effect. Is the date the USN selected supported by historians, or do they prefer other dates? Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, at least 5 other dates so they officially picked one.
- "On 13 October, the Congress started commissioning its own ships" - I think that you mean 'ordering' or 'authorizing' rather than 'commissioning'
- Commissioning has a specific meaning in this case.
- Could you please explain it? In naval terms 'Ship commissioning' is placing a ship in active service, which doesn't seem to be what took place here. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I expanded this slightly to split out the resolution, purchase and commission. Kirk (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain it? In naval terms 'Ship commissioning' is placing a ship in active service, which doesn't seem to be what took place here. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commissioning has a specific meaning in this case.
- It would probably be worth mentioning the important role the French Navy played in support of the United States during the revolutionary war
- Huh? They did their own thing; they didn't form combined fleets or something significant.
- The section on the ARW stresses the inadequateness of the US naval forces (which isn't surprising in the circumstances), yet through its alliance with France the US was able to access very powerful naval forces which played a critical role in their eventual victory. I think that's worth a sentence or two. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Kirk (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on the ARW stresses the inadequateness of the US naval forces (which isn't surprising in the circumstances), yet through its alliance with France the US was able to access very powerful naval forces which played a critical role in their eventual victory. I think that's worth a sentence or two. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? They did their own thing; they didn't form combined fleets or something significant.
- Some of the paragraph which begins with "The American naval victories..." isn't written in the past tense (eg, "the USS President is captured" and "the Constitution captures HMS Levant and Cyane")
- FixedKirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on the Civil War doesn't really capture the scale of the navy's expansion and the implications of this - during the war the USN became one of the largest navies in the world, as well as one of the most modern and experienced
- I haven't read that particular tidbit, are you sure about that? Do you have a source I can use?
- Done - added text, citation. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks good, but you haven't included any bibliographic details for the reference (Naval Encyclopedia 2010) Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bern Anderson's By Sea and by River: The Navy History of the Civil War is quite good on the expansion of the Union Navy, though I'm sure there are more recent works. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - added text, citation. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read that particular tidbit, are you sure about that? Do you have a source I can use?
- "The standard of living fell even as large-scale printing of paper money caused inflation and distrust of the currency." - the 'even as' is a bit confusing here - why would standard of living increase at the same time as the currency collapsed?
- There doesn't seem to be a reason for ship identification numbers (eg, USS Puritan (BM-1)) or other disambiguations to be included in the article's prose, and this isn't done consistently
- Done - I'm trying to use the ship/class templates which hopefully should fix this. Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The tensions of the late 1890s finally broke" - these tensions haven't been previously mentioned in the article
- DoneKirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article refers to the United States as both 'U.S.' and 'US'
- Done
- "President Wilson ordered the Navy to the port of Veracruz" - this implies that he ordered all of the navy to this port
- Done
- The coverage of the post-WW1 naval treaties should note that these formally established the USN as the equal to the Royal Navy, which had historically had the world's largest fleet
- Done
- "This would, in effect, be the opening shot in the Pacific War, but at the time it was viewed as ongoing strife in China going back to 1927" - given that this formed part of the Japanese invasion of China (an act which was hugely unpopular in the US), it seems unlikely that the attack on USS Panay was regarded as being just part of 'strife'.
- The paragraph which begins "On 7 December 1941" is a bit confused - due to the international date line passing through the Pacific the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December local time actually occurred at almost exactly the same time as Japanese forces were attacking in South East Asia on 8 December local time. The para is also a bit wordy and repetitive - a lot of its links could be piped
- This still hasn't been addressed. The destruction of the Asiatic Fleet in the months after Pearl Harbor would probably also be worth mentioning; this was obviously much more relevant to the USN than the Japanese invasion of Malaya. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - in the long list I forgot this one - how's it look now? Kirk (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This still hasn't been addressed. The destruction of the Asiatic Fleet in the months after Pearl Harbor would probably also be worth mentioning; this was obviously much more relevant to the USN than the Japanese invasion of Malaya. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "After this success, the Allies went on to the Mariana and Palau Islands" - only US forces were involved in this operation
- Done Kirk (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following their defeat at the Battle of Saipan,the Imperial Japanese Navy's Combined Fleet, with 5 aircraft carriers sortied to attack the Navy's Fifth Fleet during the Battle of the Philippine Sea" - the Combined Fleet wasn't involved in the the Battle of Saipan, which was still underway during the Battle of the Philippine Sea
- Yes it was.
- Given that the main body of the Combined Fleet was spread between anchorages across Asia during the early stages of the battle, this seems a bit confusing. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was.
- "The first kamikaze missions are flown during the battle, sinking USS St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaging several other US ships; these attacks were the most effective anti-ship weapon of the war" - 'are' should be 'were' and the Australian heavy cruiser HMAS Australia was also badly damaged. Were the kamikazes really the most effective anti-ship weapons? I would have thought that either dive bombers or submarines were more effective.
- Regarding most effective anti-ship weapon; I've read this more than one, and its cited.
- On the topic of submarines, the World War II section doesn't mention them at all, despite the US Navy's subs sinking most of the Japanese merchant fleet and much of the IJN.
- Done Kirk (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "but Allied forces reached the summit of Mount Suribachi" - only US forces took part in this battle
- Done Kirk (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Total U.S. casualties were over 12,500 dead and 38,000 wounded, while the Japanese lost over 110,000 men, making Okinawa the bloodiest battle in history" - the claim that this was "the bloodiest battle in history" isn't correct
- Again, I've read this more than one, and its cited.
- It's not accurate. As a single example, far more people were killed in the Battle of Verdun and the List of battles by casualties article gives lots of examples of battles which had higher numbers of casualties. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That article misses a lot of bloody battles and Okinawa has slightly more military + civilian casualties than Verdun especially if you take the high end of the civilian casualty estimate; I qualified this as 'one of the bloodiest'.Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not accurate. As a single example, far more people were killed in the Battle of Verdun and the List of battles by casualties article gives lots of examples of battles which had higher numbers of casualties. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I've read this more than one, and its cited.
- "Fleets were stationed strategically around the world, and their maneuverings" - the US Navy's post-war fleets were responsible for set geographic areas, so they didn't maneuver. Task Groups within those fleets did all the moving ;)
- Done Kirk (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meanwhile the Soviet fleet had been growing, and outnumbered the US fleet in every type except carriers" - it's worth mentioning here that the quality of both the ships and their crews was far inferior to those of the US Navy (and the USN also operated alongside other major naval powers)
- I found a citation that said the opposite - the soviet Navy was pretty good by 1980. Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " Several of the old battleships" - there's no need to be imprecise here as only four battleships were in reserve, and all were returned to service
- Done Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was Operation Praying Mantis really the " largest surface-air naval battle since World War II"? I would have thought that this was the Falklands War.
- Sweetman says something similar, 'Largest purly naval action fought by the Navy since World War II', maybe I should use that wording? Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The falklands war was not a battle, it was a war lol. There were only minor clashes between the argentine and royal navies. Sweetman specifically states that it was the largest action fought by the US Navy since world war two rather than the largest naval action fought by anyone.XavierGreen (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweetman says something similar, 'Largest purly naval action fought by the Navy since World War II', maybe I should use that wording? Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no mention at all of the 1991 Gulf War, which involved much of the USN, or its roles in the various wars in the former Yugoslavia
- DoneAdded a little on this. Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "All the world's oceans are dominated by the United States Navy" - this seems an overstatement. The USN doesn't operate in the Southern Ocean, and probably can't operate very close to China these days
- Done Kirk (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "United States naval power, as evinced by its 11 aircraft supercarriers and their supporting battle groups, is a guarantor of freedom of the seas" - for the United States and its allies. It's also an important and very effective instrument of blockade and other forms of sea denial.
- This still hasn't been addressed. Given that the USN spent all of the 1990s with ships blockading Iraq and has taken part in many similar operations since then, it's a bit misleading to claim it's a "guarantor of freedom of the seas". Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - sorry another one I missed. Kirk (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This still hasn't been addressed. Given that the USN spent all of the 1990s with ships blockading Iraq and has taken part in many similar operations since then, it's a bit misleading to claim it's a "guarantor of freedom of the seas". Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The United States Navy's "core values", of Honor, Courage and Commitment, were formally adopted by Admiral Frank B. Kelso II in 1992." - I'd suggest cutting this, as it's basically PR gumph - presumably the US navy was doing these things beforehand!
- Done Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 2005" - this should be updated to 2011
- DoneKirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the 'A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower' strategy really deserve most of a paragraph when most of the other high-level strategies which have been adopted by the USN aren't even mentioned? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of this article I just cited the prose; that last section specifically needs some work. I put some quibbles above and the rest of the details you mentioned I'll review the article and report back. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "World War II began for the US with the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - what about the USN's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic which began much earlier in 1941?
- Support
Comments:mainly just some consistency/style comments from me:- at five paragraphs, the lead is possibly too long. Per WP:LEAD, I think that it should only be four paragraphs. Is there a way that something could be consolidated;
- Done
- in the lead "in the Mediterranean sea" - should this be "in the Mediterranean Sea" as it is a proper noun?
- Done
- in the lead "modern armoured cruisers" - should this be "armored" for US spelling?
- Done
- in the lead "Nimitz-class supercarriers" and "Ohio class submarines". For consistency, should it be "Ohio-class"? Also, should the names be in italics?
- Done - I'm trying to use templates for the ships/classes hopefully this helps.
- in the Continental Navy section: "On 26 August 1775, Rhode Island General Assembly passed a resolution that there be a single Continental fleet". I think this should be tweaked to be something like this: "On 26 August 1775, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a resolution that there should only be a single Continental fleet";
- Tweaked
- in the American Civil War section, please check the spelling of "torpedos". Should this be "torpedoes"?
- Done
- in the Decline of the Navy section, "four Amphitrite class monitors". Should this be "four Amphitrite-class monitors " (per above)? There are possibly other instances of this throughout the article that might need attention depending upon what style you choose;
- Done
- in the Decline of the Navy section, "Nine sailors and six marines received Medals of Honor in this engagement; the first for actions in a foreign conflict". Should this be: "received Medals of Honor for this engagement..."? The awards probably were made after the fighting ceased;
- Done
- in the Post-Cold War section watch the spacing of the emdashes, i.e. they shouldn't be spaced;
- in the Notes some of the page ranges have endashes but others have emdashes. My understanding is that they should all be endashes;
- I checked this but I didn't see any issues...
- I've fixed the ones I could see. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked this but I didn't see any issues...
- in the Notes section there is some inconsistency in presentation. For instance compare: "Howarth 1991, pp. 206–207" with "Sondhaus 2001, pp. 126–8" (the page range style is inconsistent);
- Done (I think it was just that source)
- in the Notes section, Note # 124: can publisher and accessdate information be added to this for consistency with other web citations;
- Done
- in the References section, are there location details for the Hornfischer, Howarth, and Swann works?
- Done. Who put Hornfischer in there?
- in the References check the capitalisation of the Sweetman work. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles it should probably be: "American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I chaged this but for clarity its not a composition title its a subtitle and according to the Chicago Manual of Style you can do it either way.
- at five paragraphs, the lead is possibly too long. Per WP:LEAD, I think that it should only be four paragraphs. Is there a way that something could be consolidated;
- Let me know if you have more questions. Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Please check the accessdate format on Citation # 119, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendly reminder: this ACR is due to be listed for closing in two days (28 day rule). Could reviewers please take a look at the changes that have been made to the article and state if their concerns have been addressed or not? This will help the closing co-ord make their decision to promote or otherwise. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is coming along well, but some of my concerns are still to be addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you would summarize what's left to fix for your support. Thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed everything on the Nick-D list. Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you would summarize what's left to fix for your support. Thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is coming along well, but some of my concerns are still to be addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. It's going to take more time than I've got to work with the writers to get it up to a point where I'd be comfortable supporting for A-class. A lot of problems would require discussion rather than a quick edit, which is what tips it over the edge for me. Comments on the lead:
- "history of the United States Navy": descriptive title or not? See WP:LEAD.
- "divides into two major periods:" Everything can be subdivided, but that's generally not what the lead sentence is about.
- "the "Old Navy", a small ...": I can't tell whether the quotes mean that that's the official or best name for it (but we always try to choose the best name), or whether they mean that's a nickname or uncommon name (and if it's not the best name, why is it in the lead sentence?)
- "eventually made the US Navy the most powerful in the world.": Depending on what date you set for when this happened, "them's fightin' words", so the date is not something you want to leave out.
- I removed the wikilink; its an explanation of the sectioning and a nickname. More accurately, the modern navy nicknamed the sailing/monitor navy the "Old Navy"; I don't think "New Navy" is very common. Also, its an old part of the article and I never changed it. I'll look into this.
- "The US Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy. Soon after the Revolutionary War the ships of the Navy were sold off and the Navy was disbanded.": You don't need "navy" 5 times in 2 sentences (with more in the following sentences). "its official establishment", for a start.
- Ok. Note the Continental Navy is not the same thing as the US Navy.
- "the Civil war": "the Civil War", or (better here) "the war"
- "the Navy shrank to only 6,000 men": the navy is more than the men, so say for instance "only included"
- "ships designs": ship designs
- "had moved from twelfth place to fifth place in terms of numbers of ships.": "had the fifth largest fleet", and when did it have the twelfth largest fleet?
- Changed those.
- "Spanish-American War": We'll have to keep an eye on the Arbcom WP:DASH case.
- I switched to ndashes; is that what you meant?
- I meant we don't yet know the result of the RFC and the Arbcom case; it may be that we need to switch it back to a hyphen after those are done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched to ndashes; is that what you meant?
- "Nuclear power and ballistic missile technology led to new weapons and ship propulsion including the Nimitz-class carriers and Ohio-class submarines.": "including" dangles.
- Ok.
- "600 ship Navy": hyphen
- "the world's undisputed naval superpower with the ability to engage": comma after "superpower"
- - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; the review is overdue for closing so I assume the rest will be for next time. Kirk (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, we'll get it next time. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; the review is overdue for closing so I assume the rest will be for next time. Kirk (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after months of work and many good suggestions from a many different people I have judged that the majority of the article's issues have been addressed, either entirely or to some greater or lesser extent. At this point then it seems reasonable to me to move the article into the realm of the A-class articles, and to place before the editors of our great project these Iowa-class battleships for consideration of a promotion to A-class. I am of the opinion that the newer version and the adjustments made to the article in the wake of the PR have made this a stronger, more reliable sourced article than it was a year ago when it demoted from FA-class. I am open to further suggestions for improvement, and should be able to move to address any such issues in a timely manner. The previous ACR is here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I may be biased here, but I think I'm detached enough to offer a good opinion. I'm just barely short of supporting here.
- A1: None of the citations themselves seem to be in error, with one possible exception. Since this is ACR and not FAR, I'd advice you to be a bit more consistant in the use of wikilinks in citations (i.e. NVR and DANFS are linked to thier articles a few times, but some of the authors, publishers, and a few titles have articles that aren't linked to). Nothing seems to jump out as lacking a citation; and while I have been able to verify only a tiny fraction of the references, I firmly believe virtually all of them to be reliable. One odd thing though: the Camp book (which seems to be about the 2004 battle in Fallujah) is a citation for an event that happened in the Gulf War? It's possible, but seems unlikely to me without being able to grab the book myself.
- Here's an electronic copy of Camp's book with the page cited, it opens with a rehash of the first gulf war and the UAVs that fought in it, citing the famous Pioneer battleship surrender, which I in turn cited here. As far as uniformity is concerned, should I put all the links related to the citations in the bibliography section? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would probably be better, so you only have the link once.
- Got it. I'll see to this soon.
- That would probably be better, so you only have the link once.
- Here's an electronic copy of Camp's book with the page cited, it opens with a rehash of the first gulf war and the UAVs that fought in it, citing the famous Pioneer battleship surrender, which I in turn cited here. As far as uniformity is concerned, should I put all the links related to the citations in the bibliography section? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A2: I believe we are about as good as we can get here. The only possible exception could be that teh "background" section may be a tad long, but the only part that jumps out to me as unnecessary is the Bureau of Ordnance/Bureau of Construction and Repair mismash (there are other places that could be tightened). No bias I can see, but that's just my perspective.
- What can I say? I like background information on the subject material. Perhaps its a part of me that came out during the years I spent as a historian in training at UTEP :) I can trim it down, or remove it, but I think I'll take a wait and see approach for this one at the moment and see if others have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. I will trim and/or remove the material if consensus emerges that the reduction of background material would be the best move for the article, until then I am going to keep it in.
- Nick noted that it could use a trimming. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted a sizable percentage of the background section, with an extreme degree of reluctance. If the absence of legitimate information somehow helps the article advance then I suppose I'll learn to love it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick noted that it could use a trimming. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What can I say? I like background information on the subject material. Perhaps its a part of me that came out during the years I spent as a historian in training at UTEP :) I can trim it down, or remove it, but I think I'll take a wait and see approach for this one at the moment and see if others have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. I will trim and/or remove the material if consensus emerges that the reduction of background material would be the best move for the article, until then I am going to keep it in.
- A3: Structure is good. All of the work we did during the peer review paid off here.
- A4: No major stylistic issues. There are a couple of spots where British English inexplicibly popped up (WP:ENGVAR), and a couple of measurements that ought to be using {{convert}}. Usage of {{USS}} and the like should be consistant (there are plenty of links with manual italics), though this isn't a deal-breaker. Some of the date formatting is a bit inconsistant, especially in the references (recommend you use {{use dmy dates}} and use month names instead of numbers). There are also a couple of the many redirects that ought to be fixed, like the degree symbol in Battle 360° (I thought most of the redirects were fixed during the PR?). There are also some redlinks that are unlikely to be made into articles any time soon and can probably be removed.
- Would another copyedit pass by a different user help? I've had a couple of people volunteer to copyedit articles I've been working on, and I am sure if I asked an outside editor would be happy to look through and correct the issues.
- I've taken a stab at removing the redirects in the article, and the result is a roughly 90% reduction of these links across the article. I've also fixed the battle 360 degree link. I'll take as stab at the redlink issue at some point this week. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects look better, but your template use is still a random grab-bag. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a stab at removing the redirects in the article, and the result is a roughly 90% reduction of these links across the article. I've also fixed the battle 360 degree link. I'll take as stab at the redlink issue at some point this week. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would another copyedit pass by a different user help? I've had a couple of people volunteer to copyedit articles I've been working on, and I am sure if I asked an outside editor would be happy to look through and correct the issues.
- A5: File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg needs a fair-use rationale for this article as well. There are a couple of images that should be staggered left-right, like File:USS New Jersey BB-62 salvo Jan 1953.jpeg to avoid excess whitespace at different resolutions.
- I'd forgotten about the fair use rational, but it should be fixed now. On the matter of image staggering: I've staggered the images pretty consistently so that they are about 50/50 for the left and right, unless I miss my guess the only places where the white space issues would be an issue would be in the ship description section or in the spot about half way down in the article where two images are arranged one on top of the other which could be a white space issue. I'll look into it using the computers here at UTEP to see if there are any other white spacing issues that need to be addressed.
- FUR is good, but there are still images crowding text and each other in some spots. Adjust your resolution and see for yourself. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, that quote box in the background section was being pushed by the infobox and causing whitespace like it's cool. I floated that sucker left, and swapped a couple image alignments that were wtill problematic (I almost wonder if you're not sure what I mean when I say "whitspace", or if you're not checking at different resolutions). Just keep that in mind if you add/change any more images. Also, the quote box needs an author! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FUR is good, but there are still images crowding text and each other in some spots. Adjust your resolution and see for yourself. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd forgotten about the fair use rational, but it should be fixed now. On the matter of image staggering: I've staggered the images pretty consistently so that they are about 50/50 for the left and right, unless I miss my guess the only places where the white space issues would be an issue would be in the ship description section or in the spot about half way down in the article where two images are arranged one on top of the other which could be a white space issue. I'll look into it using the computers here at UTEP to see if there are any other white spacing issues that need to be addressed.
- Should be a few minor fixes and I can support. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two outstanding issues from me: the template usage ({{sclass}}, {{USS}}, etc.) is still inconsistant, and that quote needs an author. Then I can support. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A1: None of the citations themselves seem to be in error, with one possible exception. Since this is ACR and not FAR, I'd advice you to be a bit more consistant in the use of wikilinks in citations (i.e. NVR and DANFS are linked to thier articles a few times, but some of the authors, publishers, and a few titles have articles that aren't linked to). Nothing seems to jump out as lacking a citation; and while I have been able to verify only a tiny fraction of the references, I firmly believe virtually all of them to be reliable. One odd thing though: the Camp book (which seems to be about the 2004 battle in Fallujah) is a citation for an event that happened in the Gulf War? It's possible, but seems unlikely to me without being able to grab the book myself.
Comments
- Don't abbreviate caliber. It's almost always going to be hyphenated because it's a compound adjective. Standardize your gun designations; sometime its 16-inch/50 other times it's 16-inch / 50.
- cite # 66, Friedman, p. 190 has nothing to do with what you're using it for.
- If I recall correctly the source material is supposed to cover one of two aspects of the citation: A) that there were originally only four Iowa's planned, or B) the ships were subject to conversion proposals. In either case it looks to have been intended as a broad cite, not a specific cite. I can remove since there are multiple cites for the material, I just wanted your input on why it was a bad source for the material.
- Page 190 covers the reconstruction of the WWI-era BBs! Double-check that this isn't a typo or delete it. And the next time somebody makes a very specific criticism like this, please examine the page in question, don't just think that "I put this in there for a reason". That sort of thing does your credibility no credit.
- I think I have found the typo that was put in as 190 (I'm kind of thinking I put that citation in, so it's my job to fix it.) Page 390 in Battleships deals with Iowa's and other ships post war, but nothing on Essex. I suggest checking Aircraft Carriers to see what pg. 190 has there.. Buggie111 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Page 190 covers the reconstruction of the WWI-era BBs! Double-check that this isn't a typo or delete it. And the next time somebody makes a very specific criticism like this, please examine the page in question, don't just think that "I put this in there for a reason". That sort of thing does your credibility no credit.
- If I recall correctly the source material is supposed to cover one of two aspects of the citation: A) that there were originally only four Iowa's planned, or B) the ships were subject to conversion proposals. In either case it looks to have been intended as a broad cite, not a specific cite. I can remove since there are multiple cites for the material, I just wanted your input on why it was a bad source for the material.
- Consolidate the propulsion section into a couple of paragraphs. We don't care what watchstanders were required.
- Redlink the radars as a reminder to get to them eventually. You're also being redundant by telling us their function each time their mentioned. Formerly, not formally. Tell us what kind of radars are in the photo. Add WWII electronics to the infobox.
- Not sure that the Iowas could literally support the various helos as it didn't have a hanger, nor any repair parts, AFAIK. I'm not even sure that it could refuel them, so that whole bit should probably go unless you want to talk about the size of helicopters that could be landed on its helipad. When was the crane and catapults removed?
- The catapults were removed in the 1950s, when the first of the helicopters used were introduced. By support, I think the authors are trying to infer that the ships could serve as landing and refueling points for the helos they operated. I can look into this point if you wold like it researched further.
- Please do.
- The catapults were removed in the 1950s, when the first of the helicopters used were introduced. By support, I think the authors are trying to infer that the ships could serve as landing and refueling points for the helos they operated. I can look into this point if you wold like it researched further.
- Link mothball.
- No bullets in infobox.
- Just out of curiosity, how would separate the data if not by bullets? I like to think that the bullets help keep things organized, but I will remove the bullets if consensus emerges that it would be the best course of action in the game.
- Breaks work just fine. I find bullets a distraction and think that they're redundant since you've bolded the headings.
- Just out of curiosity, how would separate the data if not by bullets? I like to think that the bullets help keep things organized, but I will remove the bullets if consensus emerges that it would be the best course of action in the game.
- Not fond of combining WWII and 1980s data in the same infobox. I'd prefer to have one as built with a smaller one listing all the other changes.
- I seem to recall I attempted to do something like this and the result was an infobox that was ridiculously large. I'll take another crack at it though and see what I can do.
- There were reloads for the missiles? Where and how many? Provide a cite, please. Tell the # of missiles in the main body as well as in the infobox. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at sea, but the ABLs could be reloaded in port. By port, I've always assumed a friendly port; as to the number of missiles, the max 32: each ABL holds four missiles total, and there were 8 ABLS installed on the Iowas in the 1980s.
- Everything is reloadable in port and shouldn't be mentioned in the article as it implies at sea from an internal magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at sea, but the ABLs could be reloaded in port. By port, I've always assumed a friendly port; as to the number of missiles, the max 32: each ABL holds four missiles total, and there were 8 ABLS installed on the Iowas in the 1980s.
Comments It's great to see so much work has gone into getting this important article back towards FA status. I think it needs a bit more work to get back to A class though, and my comments are:
- "They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but recalled for action during every major U.S. war in the latter half of the 20th century" - no they weren't. Only one of the ships was activated for the Vietnam War and none of them took part in the various campaigns in the former Yugoslavia.
- If you want to get real technical then its two wars - we never declared war in Korea, it was a war fought in the name of the United Nations, and the Vietnam War was fought without a declaration of War from Congress. Moreover, if you count the Cold War as a war then the number jumps. As to Yugoslavia: According to our source material the US only brokered peace between the two sides without a declaration of war, and it appears that the military muscle for that conflict seems to have come from NATO. I'll concede that the paragraph that you cite here may need some tweaking, and I am open to the idea of rewriting it to more accurately reflect the politics of conflict, but if we do we'll need to reach a consensus on how to go about rewording it.
- I'm not sure what the relevance of arguing the definition of a 'war' is here. My concern with the wording is that it's over-stating things as not all of the ships took part in the Vietnam War and none of them were involved in the war in Yugoslavia (in which the US provided most of the air assets during the NATO-led air campaign). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but ships of the class were reactivated during every major U.S. war until the early 1990s' Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a stab at rewording, let me know what you think. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the relevance of arguing the definition of a 'war' is here. My concern with the wording is that it's over-stating things as not all of the ships took part in the Vietnam War and none of them were involved in the war in Yugoslavia (in which the US provided most of the air assets during the NATO-led air campaign). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but ships of the class were reactivated during every major U.S. war until the early 1990s' Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to get real technical then its two wars - we never declared war in Korea, it was a war fought in the name of the United Nations, and the Vietnam War was fought without a declaration of War from Congress. Moreover, if you count the Cold War as a war then the number jumps. As to Yugoslavia: According to our source material the US only brokered peace between the two sides without a declaration of war, and it appears that the military muscle for that conflict seems to have come from NATO. I'll concede that the paragraph that you cite here may need some tweaking, and I am open to the idea of rewriting it to more accurately reflect the politics of conflict, but if we do we'll need to reach a consensus on how to go about rewording it.
- The background section is too long and filled with superfluous detail about the various naval disarmament conferences - this belongs in the articles on these conferences (or a central article on all of them if this exists), and only material which is directly relevant to this class of battleships belongs in the article. I'd suggest significantly trimming the background section, or spinning it out into a separate article.
- I've reluctantly removed about 50% of the information in the section. I hate it when I have to do this, but if its what you guys want then so be it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " Based on hard-learned lessons in the Pacific theater concerns were also raised" - when were these concerns raised?
- I think that the authors are referring to the inability of the allied ships to fend off or withstand air assaults from the IJN. Take the case of HMS Prince of Whales, and the disposition of US ships lacking the ability to counter IJN air assaults do to insufficient AA. Its a fact that during World War II battleships adhering to the dreadnought philosophy of all big guns abruptly started packing mixed gun batteries again due in large part to the evolution of the attack planes and dive bombers. In addition, the armor carried by shipping was largely intended to withstand assaults from other ships, not from planes, and we have established that the Iowa class battleships had sacrificed a little armor in order to A) get through the panama canal, and B) to maintain a speed advantage. I could expand this if you like to better cover the point being raised, though that would add to the size of an already large article.
- I was more interested in the date these concerns were raised given that this information is presented in the context of the ships' construction. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Approximately 1942/1943, when the IJN air arm was at its best. I'd have to check the source, but at the moment I'm out of town so that will not be possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was more interested in the date these concerns were raised given that this information is presented in the context of the ships' construction. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the authors are referring to the inability of the allied ships to fend off or withstand air assaults from the IJN. Take the case of HMS Prince of Whales, and the disposition of US ships lacking the ability to counter IJN air assaults do to insufficient AA. Its a fact that during World War II battleships adhering to the dreadnought philosophy of all big guns abruptly started packing mixed gun batteries again due in large part to the evolution of the attack planes and dive bombers. In addition, the armor carried by shipping was largely intended to withstand assaults from other ships, not from planes, and we have established that the Iowa class battleships had sacrificed a little armor in order to A) get through the panama canal, and B) to maintain a speed advantage. I could expand this if you like to better cover the point being raised, though that would add to the size of an already large article.
- Is there a reason why the material on the ships' main guns is written in the present tense?
- "the Japanese Kamikaze attacks used during the latter half of World War II" - the Kamikaze attacks began in October 1944, which was well past the halfway point of the Pacific War, much less World War II
- Exactly. The latter half of World War II, meaning anything after the midway point. If we count the intro of the states as 1941 and the end of the war as 1945, then the middle of the war would be 1943, so the latter half to my reckoning would be anything after 1943.
- The generic paragraph on the Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft gun seems out of place and, in this context, is confusing. This should be removed.
- "When the Iowa-class battleships were launched in 1943 and 1944 they carried twenty quad Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun mounts" - the section on the ships' careers states that they were launched between 1942 and 1944, and this implies that they were fitted with their AA armament before being launched, which seems unlikely
- Noted and addressed.
- "By the time of the Korean War, helicopters had replaced floatplanes; At the time of the Korean War" - one too many 'time of the Korean War' here!
- Did 'Naval Institute Proceedings' publish an editorial calling for the ships to be converted to paragraphs (on behalf of the magazine and/or the USNI), or publish an article by a writer calling for this?
- Did Arleigh Burke-class destroyers really serve along side Iowa class BBs? According to the article on the destroyers, only Arleigh Burke had a period of service which crossed over that of any of the Iowas, and this was only for a few months (when the destroyer was probably involved in trials and training and the battleships preparing to be decommissioned)
- Was there any criticism of the decision to reactivate and modernise these ships in the 1980s? (this seems likely to have occurred given its expense and their questionable combat value)
- There was some controversy over the decision to reactivate the battleships. I am going from memory here, so this may not be 100% accurate, but I seem to recall that the controversy was situated over the age of the ships, their ability to withstand the impact of modern anti shipping missiles, the cost of the reactivation, and the intended role of the battleships. I recall that replies were that the ships were old but still considered combat worthy, that the class B armor plate should withstand any soviet missile (and it was alleged that the the armor would hold up against soviet torpedoes as well) packing a conventional warhead, that the cost of reactivating and modernizing the ships was small considering the cost of programs like the B2 then under development, and that the ships would be operating in low air threat environments that would allow the ships to function without the presence of air cover or conversely, given the ability of the ships to operate with carriers at a comparable speed, to cruise with carrier battle groups to provide additional support for the CBG. If you like, I can go fishing form the material and see about building a paragraph or two on the subject for the article.
- The coverage of the ships' World War II service is troublesome; a key feature of their time in the Pacific during 1944 and 1945 was that they all operated as part of Task Force 38/58, and so participated in the same operations, yet these aren't always identified (for instance, three of the BBs took part in Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II during July and August 1945, but only Missouri and Wisconsin are identified as having done this).
- I assume your talking about the individual ships part of the article. I'll confess that these descriptions are holdovers from the previous version of the article, and that they are intended only to highlight major events of the history of the ships. Still though, I'd be willing to look through and amend the material as necessary.
- The 'ships' section also suffers a bit from DANFS-syndrome. For instance, the key feature of the Iowa class battleships' experience in the Battle of Leyte Gulf was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time as they were used to screen the carriers instead of guarding the San Bernardino Strait, and when Halsey belatedly detached them they were unable to get in place in time to block the Japanese retreat, but this isn't mentioned.
- Note that the ships section is intended just to highlite the major events of the history, so the section does emit certain details of their operational history.
- This is a wise approach, and I would continue to keep the summaries as brief as they are currently. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the ships section is intended just to highlite the major events of the history, so the section does emit certain details of their operational history.
- The paragraph which begins 'Initially, proposals were made to complete these two battleships as aircraft carrier' duplicates earlier material and could be cut.
- There's nothing at all on the conditions the ships' crews experienced (or even the make-up of the crew and how this changed over time, etc). It would be interesting to know how the US trained sailors in the 1980s to operate these elderly vessels and how successful this was.
- It happens that we had a presentation by the USN here on campus a week or so ago, and I asked a female lieutenant where I could go and get this kind of information and she suggested a few places to check. In the mean time though this information remains elusive.
- The article still doesn't have any photos of the ships during World War II
- Technical point: the ships make up in WWII and Korea is 99% similar, so the Korean War images do capture the ships in their WWII format. I've been working on WWII images that will fit in the article and not be so small that they omit all the important details but thus far haven't had much help.
- I've marked some material as needing citations Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted.
As a few more comments:
- There are two tags at the end of the Bibliography saying that the article contains text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - this should be re-written if it's still in the article
- To be brutally honest, if there is any material from DANFS still in the article, its going to be in the section covering the service histories of the ships. I'll look through the section and see about removing the DANFS material from the article, but as a comical side note since DANFS covers the ship's histories any attempt to rewrite the ship's histories is going to be covered to some greater or lesser extent by DANFS :)
- Some of the books in the 'Further reading' section appear to be of limited relevance (eg, The Navy, whatever the Comment and Discussion article in Proceedings is, Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
- I consulted the books there and they were of very limited help in the rebuilding of the article. Other sources covered in better detail the info I got from the books, but since conventional wisdom is to list all sources used in the article I thought it best to include them.
- What makes http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm worth including as an external link? It's just someone's personal assessment of World War II battleships
- There have been two separate and rather long edit wars concerning this article and the inclusion or exclusion of comparison related material to place the capabilities of the Iowa class battleships in relation to the Yamato, Bismark, and other battleship classes of the day. Part of the solution involved in ending the edit wars was the inclusion of this off site link so that others could read on somebody else's page the way the battleships stacked up against each other. Its a holder over from years gone by, and at this point it could probably be removed without inciting a riot, but I thought it important to give the history behind the link. I'll get to this later today, assuming nothing unexpected comes up. I have some answers to other questions you've raised here as well, but as before this I will get to this evening. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 1 is irrelevant and should be removed
- Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 5 seems speculative. The BBs could have not fired all their cruise missiles because it was difficult (impossible?) to reload them at sea and there was a desire to keep some missiles in reserve onboard these ships. More to the point, it's also of relatively little importance to the article and should probably be removed.
- Impossible to reload. I added this only to note that the battleships did have unfired missiles and to that it was theoretically possible that one reason they were not fired is due to the warheads being nuclear. That said, it does seem speculative, but by WP:V criteria the note seems to be legit. I'll wait for additional input before I move to address this issue so I can better gauge where consensus on the matter lies.
- I've removed it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Impossible to reload. I added this only to note that the battleships did have unfired missiles and to that it was theoretically possible that one reason they were not fired is due to the warheads being nuclear. That said, it does seem speculative, but by WP:V criteria the note seems to be legit. I'll wait for additional input before I move to address this issue so I can better gauge where consensus on the matter lies.
- The CPI inflation conversion should be removed from note 8 Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hatnote. Maybe there ought to be a hatnote, because there was a previous Iowa class battleship. This was the USS Iowa, which was in a class of one. I do not think that there is no need for disambiguation in the title though.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just a scan of the article turns up some questions:
- I've long been of the opinion that articles trying to achieve A and FA class should not contain text copied from public domain sources. Article claims to contain text from DANFS and the NVR.
- I am reluctant to remove the NVR material since it serves a purpose in the article. By chance would you be in position to suggest an acceptable substitute for the NVR cites in the article?
- For NVR citations I've been using the simple {{cite web}} when needed. There isn't a whole lot of material in an NVR listing that can be copied verbatim since the data is only specifications. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctant to remove the NVR material since it serves a purpose in the article. By chance would you be in position to suggest an acceptable substitute for the NVR cites in the article?
- I don't understand why the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is never used as a source on battleship articles. You'd think that a 15 volume series would contain much detail of WWII operations.
- It wasn't a book I had access to here at UTEP. I could see about including the material in the article.
- It would be nice if you'd stop playing this game. I don't know if this link will work correctly but apparently there are two of the 15 volume series plus a few extra volumes available at UTEP. I found them in about two minutes of searching. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brad, that's rather rude of you to say. An editor of your caliber shouldn't need to be reminded of AGF. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want a source in the the article then I will go looking for material from your source to add to the article, but this time do me the favor of listing every source you want in the article so that after this fails I can go looking and add all the sources you want to see in the article. I'd say that sounds fair to both of us, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider ''History of United States Naval Operations in World War II about the worst possible source to use in any article. It was published between 1947 and 1962, at a time when the US and UK kept quite a bit of information classified. Recent publications are almost always better than older ones, and this case is certainly no exception. I for one would oppose the promotion of an article that relied heavily on horribly out-of-date sources like this. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised at how many "modern" books rely on "outdated" information were that information still applies. Toll in Six Frigates relies heavily on Roosevelt and Cooper. Even Ty Martin in A Most Fortunate Ship uses sources that are over 100 years old. A "modern" book will usually contain updated information where it applies. That's what happens when you take a few minutes to read your source's bibliography. If Tom had simply said he didn't consult the series I would not have cared but I highly dislike being lied to. Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider ''History of United States Naval Operations in World War II about the worst possible source to use in any article. It was published between 1947 and 1962, at a time when the US and UK kept quite a bit of information classified. Recent publications are almost always better than older ones, and this case is certainly no exception. I for one would oppose the promotion of an article that relied heavily on horribly out-of-date sources like this. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want a source in the the article then I will go looking for material from your source to add to the article, but this time do me the favor of listing every source you want in the article so that after this fails I can go looking and add all the sources you want to see in the article. I'd say that sounds fair to both of us, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brad, that's rather rude of you to say. An editor of your caliber shouldn't need to be reminded of AGF. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if you'd stop playing this game. I don't know if this link will work correctly but apparently there are two of the 15 volume series plus a few extra volumes available at UTEP. I found them in about two minutes of searching. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a book I had access to here at UTEP. I could see about including the material in the article.
- Sturmvogel found one reference not backing up what it is citing. This was a severe problem in the past and apparently it still continues. I would hope that an editor could compare the source with the cites and make sure everything is correct.
- There shouldn't be any issues with the citations, I've been through the source material and it should be all plugged in and correctly cited. I think the instance Sturmvogel cited is a case of differing opinions for the idea of a citation than it is an incorrect cite, though I need to play the waiting game and see if that is in fact the case.
- I still believe that an uninvolved editor should check these. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Buggie found another (Polish) source that was wrong could there be others? Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There shouldn't be any issues with the citations, I've been through the source material and it should be all plugged in and correctly cited. I think the instance Sturmvogel cited is a case of differing opinions for the idea of a citation than it is an incorrect cite, though I need to play the waiting game and see if that is in fact the case.
- Currently citation [5] is some sort of a Polish source but it's difficult for anyone to verify the source unless they understand Polish and happen to have a copy at hand. The source isn't online so it could be verified easily. Brad (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...yeah, that was here when I started rewriting and its apparently reliable. All the same, I have been looking into replacing it or at the very least ensuring that all information cited to the source is double cited to another source. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My advice is that the Polish source should be supplemented not replaced.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would an article about a capital ship of the US Navy written in English need to source its information from one written in Polish? Are there no other English sources that can cite the information? Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I need to go to a confession). I added that ref in good faith when I sort of spontaneously started to help Tom with the FAR. I also forgot to put in a page number. I've removed the refs. Buggie111 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confess nothing, Buggie! There is absolutely nothing wrong with Polish, be it a name or a source. As a man whose name ends in "szki", my ethnicity is often confused with my ancestor's neighbors to the west. Like Toddy said, it doesn't neev to be removed entirely if you can verify it (it seems rather cynical to suggest that only English sources are worth offering as references). Alas, I can only speak a bit of Russian, and only curse words in Polish. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had the time, I'd be able to hack through the Polish ref, using my knowledge of Russian (Polish being slightly altered romanized Russian, at least some of the time), but, from a first glance I took, none of the refs were actually in the source. Buggie111 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confess nothing, Buggie! There is absolutely nothing wrong with Polish, be it a name or a source. As a man whose name ends in "szki", my ethnicity is often confused with my ancestor's neighbors to the west. Like Toddy said, it doesn't neev to be removed entirely if you can verify it (it seems rather cynical to suggest that only English sources are worth offering as references). Alas, I can only speak a bit of Russian, and only curse words in Polish. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I need to go to a confession). I added that ref in good faith when I sort of spontaneously started to help Tom with the FAR. I also forgot to put in a page number. I've removed the refs. Buggie111 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would an article about a capital ship of the US Navy written in English need to source its information from one written in Polish? Are there no other English sources that can cite the information? Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My advice is that the Polish source should be supplemented not replaced.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: just a few stylistic comments from me (I made a couple of tweaks to the article also, please check my work):
- in the lead, there is a little repetition here: "Three of the four battleships currently function as museum ships, while the fourth is awaiting donation to become a museum ship." (the second "museum ship" might be redundant);
- I played with that a little to see if I could alternated phrases, let me know what you think about the changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World War II and Second World War - both terms are used in the article, it should probably be consistent;
- I've actually had trouble with this on Wikipedia. When I was in middle and high school, I was taught that the repeated use of the same phrase was a bad thing in a research paper, and the the term should be alternated with other synonyms relevant to the material being present in order to hold an audience without boring them with the repeated use of one phrase. That particular part of my education is what is speaking to me here, and it tells me that it would be better to the reader for the phrases World War II and Second World War trade off with each other so as to avoid the article becoming overly saturated with one particular version of the war. Speaking just for myself, I've always preferred that similar terms be moved in and out written works so as to avoid over reliance on one particular phrase. I know the reason for the suggestion is uniformity in the article, but I personally think that using only one term would only hurt the article in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Tom, I understand your point about varying the language, however, I don't believe that this applies to using interchangable proper nouns for events. Doing this could create confusion among lay readers who might be led to believe that it refers to two different conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with AR here. While I take Tom's point about varying language to me this argument is incorrectly applied here. Proper nouns, such as Second World War/World War II, really do need to be used consistently in an article. This has arisen in a number of ACRs and FACs that I have read. IMO a failure to use this language consistently is only likely to cause problems at a later date. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Tom, I understand your point about varying the language, however, I don't believe that this applies to using interchangable proper nouns for events. Doing this could create confusion among lay readers who might be led to believe that it refers to two different conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually had trouble with this on Wikipedia. When I was in middle and high school, I was taught that the repeated use of the same phrase was a bad thing in a research paper, and the the term should be alternated with other synonyms relevant to the material being present in order to hold an audience without boring them with the repeated use of one phrase. That particular part of my education is what is speaking to me here, and it tells me that it would be better to the reader for the phrases World War II and Second World War trade off with each other so as to avoid the article becoming overly saturated with one particular version of the war. Speaking just for myself, I've always preferred that similar terms be moved in and out written works so as to avoid over reliance on one particular phrase. I know the reason for the suggestion is uniformity in the article, but I personally think that using only one term would only hurt the article in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Conversion proposals section, the last part of the first paragraph probably should have a citation;
- I'll cite the material, but to be fair to the statement everything mentioned in the last two lines of the paragraph is explored in much greater detail in the body of the section in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there are a couple (three, I think) "citation needed" tags that should be dealt with;
in the References, Willmott is listed but doesn't apppear in the Bibliography;- in the References, the web ref at # 96 probably needs publisher and accessdate information;
- in the References and in the Bibliograph there is a slight inconsistency in the presentation of retrieval dates. For example compare # 94 to # 95: "Retrieved 10 January 2011." and "Retrieved 2011-01-12." (there are a number of examples of this);
- slight inconsistency in style "Miller and Miller" v. "Noris & Arkin" ("and" v. "&") probably should be consistent for FAC;
- in the References "Noris" but in the Bibliography "Norris" - inconsistent spelling, please adjust;
- the Bibliography and the Further reading section fonts are different sizes, which looks a bit strange, perhaps it should also use the Refbegin and Refend templates?
- in the Bibliography, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Camp and the Gardiner works?
- in the Bibliography, "Muir, Malcom (1989)" - is this the correct spelling? Should it be "Malcolm"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, is anyone able to address these comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on them, I'm just taking things very, very slowly. Believe me when I say that I will get to it, but it may take a while before your comments are properly addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, this ACR has been open for 28 days now and as such will need to be listed for closing shortly. Tom, do you think that you will be able to address these concerns within the next few days, or do you think it best to list it for closing now? I'm happy to wait a few days if a successful outcome is deemed likely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on them, I'm just taking things very, very slowly. Believe me when I say that I will get to it, but it may take a while before your comments are properly addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, is anyone able to address these comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, there is a little repetition here: "Three of the four battleships currently function as museum ships, while the fourth is awaiting donation to become a museum ship." (the second "museum ship" might be redundant);
- Tom left a note on my talk page that he'd like to have an "open nominations list" at FAC, so I'd like to encourage anyone who wants to join in to get started now and help us finish up this ACR. If we don't get enough help to finish it up, I'll jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress and a lot of reason to close this now so it can be brought up again once all of the relevant issues have been worked on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you have my blessing to close this so that it can be reopened when the above issues have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress and a lot of reason to close this now so it can be brought up again once all of the relevant issues have been worked on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- No consensus to promote at this time (after 28 days). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Alexandru Demian (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because: I believe that this article meets all the criteria for A-class. I think that it is an in-depth and quite comprehensive biography of one of the foremost cavalry commanders of the entire Napoleonic Wars. The article has also recently successfully undergone a Good Article review. Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- no dabs, links all work. auntieruth (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning toward support of this article. Its subject is among Napoleon's finest cavalry commanders and successfully made the multiple transitions from Ancien Regime to Napoleon to Restoration, which attests to his abilities. The editor has covered the subject's life, from childhood to death. In terms of content, at first read it seems complete, although as this review progresses, I'll make more comments. The bibliography needs a more consistent presentation, including dates on all the sources, not just a few of them: easily fixed, though. The article's primary problem is the grammatical style, which is old-fashioned, reflecting the sources. I've gone through the first few sections, including the lead, and smoothed out some of these anachronistic style issues, but perhaps Alexandru could do that for the rest. I'd like to see some other editors take a look/"pen" to this. auntieruth (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work on the article and comments. I'll start working on it soon. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'll review this soon. Also see our A-class checklist; if that makes sense, good. If it doesn't, please ask, or I can point out problems as I go. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first sentence, I'd prefer "Count Étienne-Marie-Antoine-Champion de Nansouty (30 May 1768 – 12 February 1815) was ..." because it gets to the point faster, and I agree with WP:LEAD that tight first sentences are important. OTOH, I have to admit that I'm not completely up on the preferences of the relevant wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vauchamps or Craonne": Shouldn't that be "and"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Replaced "or" with "and" --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "élite": Is this French word used in English sources (other than in the sense of "elite")?
- Done replaced with the plain English "elite" --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "14th arrondissement": The French word is used often enough in English that it's not a problem, but I'm wondering if it's capitalized in English.
- Checked. On e.wiki it is not capitalized. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Single quote marks (' ') will probably get shot down at FAC per WP:MOS#Quotation marks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "sub lieutenant": "sub-lieutenant", since "sub" isn't a word (at least, not this word).
- "Chasseurs à Cheval": English sources generally say "light cavalry", right?
- Not really. Chasseurs à Cheval are just one type of light cavalry of the French army during the reign of Napoleon. The other type are hussars.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm not qualified to make the call, but it's possible that this and other French words and phrases, such as chef d'escadron and chef de brigade, may be more suitable in a note or in a glossary article (we've got one for German words common in military articles). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the Fr for Chasseurs a Cheval probably should stay in, or a note could explain what it is. A parenthetical explanation could also suffice (after the first mention). auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.I've made sure that there is a link to the chasseurs-a-cheval article, where I've explained that hey were light cavalry. Also included the fact that they were light cavalry in the text.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the Fr for Chasseurs a Cheval probably should stay in, or a note could explain what it is. A parenthetical explanation could also suffice (after the first mention). auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm not qualified to make the call, but it's possible that this and other French words and phrases, such as chef d'escadron and chef de brigade, may be more suitable in a note or in a glossary article (we've got one for German words common in military articles). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Chasseurs à Cheval are just one type of light cavalry of the French army during the reign of Napoleon. The other type are hussars.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:MHCL#commas. I'm fixing them for now; I'll stop if there are a lot of them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found more, see if you can spot where the second comma should go in each:
- The disorganization triggered by a night march, as well as a lack of coordination between the different manœuvres led to total failure of the action of May 17.
- ... Nansouty took part in several successful cavalry skirmishes around Strasbourg, in November and December of 1793 and then took part to the Battle of Geisberg.
- OTOH, there are too many commas in this one, try to reword so that it doesn't need so many: "During this action, the corps cavalry, with the 9th Cavalry included, charged and were initially successful, taking a number of enemy guns, before being countercharged and having to retreat in disorder, spreading panic among the ranks of the infantry that was just coming up."
- Done--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The American spelling is perfectly acceptable, if he uses American spelling throughout. Alexandru, just pick one, though, and stick to it. I would also say the Cavalry corps, which included the 9th Cavalry, charged, and took a number of enemy guns. A Habsburg counter-charge forced them back in disorder, which spread panic among the ranks of oncoming infantry. (something like that). auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check throughout for "maneuver"; that's the AmEng spelling, not BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. British throughout. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "he was not bothered at any time during the radical phase of the French Revolution": "bothered" isn't the most apt word, considering the times. Maybe "threatened".
- During this stage of the Revolution, many commanders were subjected to attacks, ranging from attempts to dismiss them (the case of d'Hautpoul, for example) or just harassed (the case of Davout, for example). Sometimes it went as far as to threaten a commander's life, but this was not typical. I've opted for disturbed. Is that ok for you? --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with your word "harassed". - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "He reportedly became extremely attached to his unit": Either you personally believe that he became attached, based on the sources you read, or you aren't sure. If you believe it, drop "reportedly". If you aren't sure, then you might say who said that he became attached, and what others say that contradicts that.
- "extremely" is unnecessary. On the other hand, using the word attached is ambiguous here. He can be attached (militarily) to a unit, but not be emotionally attached. According to contemporary accounts, ..... auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Rephrased: "He became very fond of his regiment..."--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "extremely" is unnecessary. On the other hand, using the word attached is ambiguous here. He can be attached (militarily) to a unit, but not be emotionally attached. According to contemporary accounts, ..... auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "where laid Lannes's communications with the rest of Napoleon's army.": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Rephrased to explain that the village had to be held, because it was crucial for Lannes's communication with Napoleon.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "so he decided to fall back, with a cavalry combat taking place": In theory, "with ...ing" can work, but you'll be better off if you get rid of it in every case and use an active verb instead that better describes the sequence of events.
- Done Rephrased to make it sound more natural.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After you have a chance to respond to these, I plan to offer limited support per standard disclaimer down to where I stopped, at the beginning of Étienne_Marie_Antoine_Champion_de_Nansouty#The years of peace. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I'm happy with the responses to the above, and I've resumed copyediting, more tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the following edits unless I asked a question or made a request. Feel free to revert.
- In general, it's a good idea to avoid ligatures (œ) when another spelling is more common.
- "This cavalry reserve included Nansouty's 1st heavy cavalry division, a 2nd heavy cavalry division under Jean-Joseph d'Hautpoul,": I went with "This cavalry reserve included Nansouty's heavy cavalry division, another heavy cavalry division under Jean-Joseph d'Hautpoul,". I have no objection if someone wants to repeat the names of the units, but at some point, it makes the text unreadable to repeat too many words that most English readers won't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Chasseurs à Cheval de la Garde Impériale begins: "(in English: Horse Chasseurs of the Imperial Guard)". What would be lost by replacing 4th Chasseurs à Cheval with "4th Horse Chasseurs"?
- I'd really leave this one as it is. You can find "Chasseurs à Cheval" in several history books in English. Plus, we have "Carabiniers à Cheval", "Grenadiers à Cheval" etc. If they don't know what it is, let them click it, I say. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "best serviced": What does this mean? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced with "administered".--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were 3 different spellings of "sublieutenant" (with a hyphen and a space). I standardized the spelling to "sub-lieutenant", but "sublieutenant" throughout would also be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not in a position to make the call, but check the capitalization on "battle" throughout. Per WP:MILMOS, when you lowercase "battle of X", what you're saying is, "This battle either isn't widely known, or is widely known under a different name". Otherwise, especially if we have an article titled "Battle of X", then "Battle" should be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Capitalised it, just like you suggested.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never noticed that any styleguide dislikes "10 o'clock", and I think it's fine ... but if you're headed to FAC, someone will probably ask you to standardize time formats, using "o'clock" everywhere if you use it once. That could get tedious, so I recommend a numerical format.
- Fixed--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If "in a move that proved to be uncoordinated with that of his Russian allies" doesn't mean anything more than what you say in the next sentence, then it would be better to delete it.
- "leave behind 2,000 casualties": Were there 2000 wounded, or 2000 dead and wounded? This might confuse the reader, who's going to assume that they wouldn't stop to pick up corpses while being overrun. If it's 2000 wounded, it would work to change "casualites" to "wounded".
- Clarified--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1st heavy cavalry division", "Piston's 1st brigade": Search the article for "1st" and "2nd", checking the capitalization of all units. Particular units are capitalized (but try to use a common name for the unit; approximate names for a specific unit wouldn't be capitalized, but in general, they aren't recommended). "Piston's brigade" is descriptive, so it wouldn't be capitalized, even though it refers to a specific unit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "blitz": It's true it can mean "fast and overpowering", but it usually refers to mechanized, 20th century warfare. I removed it, since you talk about the speed of the attack in the next sentence.
- "With the enemy blocked in the city,": barricaded? surrounded? - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Trapped in the city.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed "with the battle won in brilliant fashion by the Emperor's timely arrival,". My thinking was that we shouldn't say "brilliant" too often, and the Emperor had already arrived, but if I'm not representing it correctly, please fix it.
- "such as Italian Viceroy Eugène, Marshals Davout or Lannes or Generals Rapp and Legrand also acquiring residences there." I don't understand; did one of these men live there, or all of them?
- Clarified All of them had acquired residences there.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nansouty acquired quite a reputation for excessive mockery, even regarding the daily aspects of his service." I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Deleted phrase, as I am explaining the entire event in the "Considerations" section.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for half of it. Okay, this time I got a little more than halfway, down to Étienne_Marie_Antoine_Champion_de_Nansouty#War of the Fifth Coalition. Support is per standard disclaimer. It would be really helpful if the nominator and others could finish up; I think reviewers will respond well to this article at FAC if we can get it polished up. If anyone wants to know what needs fixing, here is a diff showing some of the changes Ruth and I have made. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says that Nansouty was born in Bordeaux (Aquitaine), while his grave indicates he was born in Burgundy. This apparent contradiction is not explained in the article. What is the truth ? UltimaRatio (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The birthplace issue is something that I will have to phrase differently. The only actual source saying that he was born in Bourgogne is the statement to that effect on his gravestone. Yet, I am almost certain that this is because of tradition (his family has a long history linked with the region). All the biographers that I consulted and the two specialised dictionaries say that he was born in Bordeaux.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've explained that the gravestone states that he was born in Bourgogne but his biographers and contemporary historians note that he was born in Bordeaux.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The birthplace issue is something that I will have to phrase differently. The only actual source saying that he was born in Bourgogne is the statement to that effect on his gravestone. Yet, I am almost certain that this is because of tradition (his family has a long history linked with the region). All the biographers that I consulted and the two specialised dictionaries say that he was born in Bordeaux.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One quick comment
- I've only really glance at this, but MOS:BIO advises that places of birth and death shouldn't be in the lead unless they're relevant to the subject's notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I should have mentioned MOS:BIO above too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding work
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone involved for their comments so far. I think that I've addressed most, if not all the issues identified so far. However, some things are yet to be done:
- I did note Auntieruth55's comment that I need to improve the prose at times, to make it sound more modern and less reflective of the one hundred-year-old main sources. I've already done that for most of the article and will do the rest during the next few days.
- I will add the dates of all books in the "Sources" section
- I will also double check to see if there is any more improper use of commas (likely)
- I will check if there are any unclear phrases left. I do need help here, though, because, having written the article, it all makes perfect sense to me so I'm bound not to realise when some phrases are obscure or unclear.
Also, please do keep comments coming on any other outstanding issues. Thanks,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I keep re-reading this article, and each time it improves, based on comments and collaboration from reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments, though:
- The battle of Raussnitz is also called Battle of Wischau, probably its more commonly used name (at least modern name). I've created a stub on that and linked it.
- Could you check your sources on the capitulation at Erfurt? Smith, who is more recent, and possibly more balanced than the early 20th century source you're using, says that it was about 12000 captured-- some of the cavalry units escaped--and only 65 guns (not 120). He also lists the standards and colors. In the comment, he says that 9000 prisoners were escorted by one battalion and were freed a short time later by a squadron of Prussian hussars.
- Done, used Pigeard (very trustworthy, as a military specialist).--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've said this before, I think: your sources (listed) need dates. It's inconsistent.
- Also, I've said this before, I think: your sources (listed) need dates. It's inconsistent.
- Done.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article keeps improving. Keep up the good work! auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-ordinator comment: this review is due to be listed for closure in about 12 hours (having been open for 28 days). In order to be closed as successful the article requires a minimum of three full supports. So that the nominator has a chance of success and to make it easier for the closing co-ord to make a decision, could reviewers with comments please check to see if they have been addressed and then state whether or not they support the article's promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two of us have been looking at the article, and I believe that both of us have only gotten through half of it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, unfortunately it doesn't seem like the required support will be achieved this time round as there seems to be a shortage of reviewers. As such I will close the review as "no consensus to promote at this time" as the 28 day period has now passed. Please note that the article may be renominated for an ACR at any time, although it would probably be best to nominate for a peer review beforehand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two of us have been looking at the article, and I believe that both of us have only gotten through half of it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted at this time. EyeSerenetalk 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after two years in a sandbox the article has passed GA class assessment and I'm hoping to take it to FA class soon. I'm hoping that the process of achieving A-class will identify any weaknesses and/or areas that require improvement or expansion in the meantime.
(You may note that the article is also technically undergoing A-Class review over at WP:AVIATION. Unfortunately that assessment department is rather dead at the moment, but should anyone care, the link for that review is here.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And for those wondering why this is in the purview of WP:MILHIST -- the incident in question is a collision between a commercial airliner and a US Marine Corps F-4B Phantom II. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you can simply link to this page from Aviation and drop the dedicated Aviation assessment -- there's an arrangement between the two projects whereby common articles are granted Aviation A-Class if they pass MilHist A-Class Review (similar to an arrangement between MilHist and the Ships project)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Hiya Mukk ... great to see another outstanding contributor at our humble A-class review. I'm going to do some copyediting; if I change something, it's less likely to mean "you're wrong" and more likely to mean that I can cite a style guide or dictionary for a different way of doing it, or we've been able to get a different way of doing it through FAC before. I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "DC-9-31": "DC-9-31". The text should answer questions faster than it raises questions (such as: what's a DC-9-31?). - Dank (push to talk) P.S. To get this to work, I had to fix a problem in the linked article: see the second bullet point at WP:MOSHEAD. Subsection names in an article should be unique; otherwise, you can't reliably link to them, and bugs in the edit interface put you in the wrong subsection after you finish editing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "en route": "en route". Some write it with italics, but I can't find support for that in the usual dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Funny you should mention that. There's been an open request over at the Guild of Copy Editors for someone to give this a look over, and one member gave it a quick once-over and italicized en route throughout. I think it has something to do with it being of French origin, but it's a common enough word and we don't go around italicizing Lieutenant, eh? I don't care either way, just find it vaguely amusing. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good dictionaries (Merriam-Webster and Webster's New World Collegiate enjoy wide support in the US) are generally good for answering questions about words, although this particular question is frustrating because neither dictionary will italicize the term in the main entry on the term. Sometimes the trick is to find another entry that mentions the term you want to check. I found "en route" non-italicized in the "travelling" entry of the thesaurus section of my CD-ROM WNW. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny you should mention that. There's been an open request over at the Guild of Copy Editors for someone to give this a look over, and one member gave it a quick once-over and italicized en route throughout. I think it has something to do with it being of French origin, but it's a common enough word and we don't go around italicizing Lieutenant, eh? I don't care either way, just find it vaguely amusing. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reno, Nevada": "Reno, Nevada,". Please see WP:MHCL#commas or User:Dank/MIL#commas. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport": "Seattle–Tacoma International Airport". Note that the article title uses the en-dash rather than the hyphen. A lot has been said about en-dashes vs. hyphens ... the bottom line is, no one cares except for just a few folks, those folks want to see an en-dash here, and it probably won't get through FAC with the hyphen. Chicago does give some support for an en-dash here, but doesn't support all the en-dashes that WP:DASH asks for. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "livery": I linked it to livery. - Dank (push to talk)
- The link you just substituted is better than mine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The ... aircraft was operated by Hughes Airwest, and had accumulated 5,542 airframe hours since entering service in 1969. ¶ The aircraft was operating under the livery and name of Air West, the airline that had been recently purchased by Howard Hughes and rebranded Hughes Air West. While the flight's official name was Hughes Airwest Flight 706, it also did business as Air West Flight 706.": "The ... aircraft had accumulated 5,542 airframe hours since entering service in 1969. The aircraft was operating under the livery and name of Air West, the airline that had been recently purchased by Howard Hughes and rebranded Hughes Airwest." See WP:MHCL#repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency is needed on "US" vs. "U.S.". Chicago recommended "U.S." in the previous edition but now recommends "US", FWIW. - Dank (push to talk)
- "F-4B-18-MC Phantom II, Bureau Number (BuNo) 151458, coded '458'": I left this alone, but I'm wondering how many readers will have a burning desire to know the Bureau Number, the acronym for the Bureau Number, and the shortened form of the Bureau Number, but would be too lazy to click on a link to that plane that would give details like that. What's the most common way that, say, newspapers would refer to this model? - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary newspapers generally referred to the jet as "the Marine fighter" or "F-4 jet" or "F-4 Phantom" or something of that nature. The official NTSB Aviation Accident Report, however, consistently referred to it as BuNo458, so I stuck to calling it BuNo458 throughout the article. I don't know of any other way to introduce that information however. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I misunderstood. Was that bureau number assigned by the NTSB? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No from what I understood it was assigned by the military. That was just the way the NTSB decided to refer to that particular aircraft in their report. And seeing how it was the official accident report, I figured I should probably follow that style of reference. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll think about this while I'm shopping. I'll be back in an hour, in case you want to work on the article without edit-conflicting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COMMONNAME isn't decisive (because we're not talking about an article title), but it's relevant. I would prefer "the Phantom" and "the military jet" for one, and "the DC-9" and "the Airwest jet" for the other, but I'll wait and see if anyone else has a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going with WP:MOSFOLLOW to comply with the NTSB source, but I suppose that works too. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No from what I understood it was assigned by the military. That was just the way the NTSB decided to refer to that particular aircraft in their report. And seeing how it was the official accident report, I figured I should probably follow that style of reference. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I misunderstood. Was that bureau number assigned by the NTSB? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary newspapers generally referred to the jet as "the Marine fighter" or "F-4 jet" or "F-4 Phantom" or something of that nature. The official NTSB Aviation Accident Report, however, consistently referred to it as BuNo458, so I stuck to calling it BuNo458 throughout the article. I don't know of any other way to introduce that information however. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the time of the accident, VFR procedures included a "see and be seen" doctrine that dated back to early aviation. The "see and be seen" formula required pilots of all planes, VFR and otherwise, to be on constant lookout for all aircraft flying in their vicinity, regardless of navigational aids.": I didn't make the edit because there are judgment calls here, but this should be shorter.
- "While near": "near".
- "the aircraft impacted from the mountain.": This appears to be repetitive (see WP:MHCL#repetition), since you mention collisions with mountains for both planes in other sentences. I didn't make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the word "from" shouldn't be there. But that part was referring to the witness statements. Witnesses reported that they heard/saw two explosions -- one when the two planes collided in the air, and the other when the DC-9 hit the ground. But yes, that paragraph is something of a jumble, I'll see what I can do about cleaning it up when I get back from class. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first time we're told about witnesses is in Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Collision: "Witnesses in nearby Duarte described hearing a loud noise and seeing two flaming objects falling from the sky." The next section says "News reports indicated that these bodies had apparently been thrown clear on impact." The readers should have a mental picture at this point that what we know about the crash comes from very distant witnesses and from reconstructions. But then we find out: "Some eyewitnesses reported that F-4B's left wing impacted the center of the airliner's fuselage immediately after performing a barrel roll. Other witnesses claimed that the F-4B ripped a large hole in the fuselage of the DC-9, through which papers and luggage streamed as the crippled airliner fell." This gives the opposite impression, that people watched details of the event and reported what they saw. It's best to establish one of these two frames of reference early in the article, and then parts of the story don't mesh with that viewpoint, make it clear that they don't mesh.
- "a form of primitive flight data recorder": "a primitive flight data recorder"
- "Thursday, June 10, 1971 and sent to Washington, D.C.": "Thursday, June 10, 1971, and sent to Washington D.C.". See WP:MHCL#commas.
- The second paragraph of Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Survivability could say the same thing with fewer words. IMO there's more detail on the electronics than most readers want. Also check for agreement of subject and verb throughout the paragraph.
- {{cquote}} has met resistance at FAC and isn't supported by Chicago. Indenting a block quote is sufficient.
- "During the course of the accident investigation": "During the accident investigation" is safer at FAC, although I think it's a judgment call, since "the course" reminds the reader in just two words that the investigation was lengthy.
- "The NTSB report included a total of three recommendations for the FAA. These recommendations included: [3 recommendations] Additionally, the NTSB strongly recommended ...": See WP:MHCL#repetition and WP:MHCL#clarity. I didn't make the edit.
- "These recommendations included: the installation of ...; provide air traffic ...": See WP:MHCL#series.
- "contemporary media": media. "contemporary" is common in scholarly history articles, but for a general readership, it has two contradictory meanings, so it's best to avoid the word.
- "The FAA refuted these findings": "refuted" expresses the POV that the FAA was right and the NTSB was wrong; was that what you meant?
- "inflight": "in-flight" per WNW, unless you have a dictionary that writes it as one word.
- "a joint statement asking the FAA ... Other demands": Were they demanding or asking? Also, there's a comma after a ref number, and the series is nonparallel.
- "filed lawsuit": "filed a lawsuit". "filed suit" would also be okay.
- "all other 72 actions": "all 72 actions" - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have another look after you've had a chance to fix things. Feel free to submit more articles to A-class review, but we prefer that articles comply with our checklist before they're submitted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mukk, I just got a note on my talk page: "I don't know if you are aware but the article is on the GOCE requests page". Are you still looking for copyeditors from the GOCE? - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: I see no edits to the article by the nominator since I made these requests. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I haven't had any experience reviewing aircraft articles, so I can't really focus on content, sorry. Just a couple of comments from me:
- no dabs, ext links work, alt text is present;
- in the Probable cause section, "Lt. Schiess, the radar intercept officer". Previously you have, "Lt. Schiess, the Radar Intercept Officer". Thus the capitalisation should be consistent;
- in the Aftermath section, "US Military" - I think this is incorrectly capitalised. I think it should just be "US military" as it is an improper noun;
in the Aftermath section, there is a reference before a comma ("radar screens[4],"), per WP:PAIC it should be after;- in the Aftermath section, I think there is a word missing here: "with the Los Angeles and New York noted as being..." I think it should be "with the Los Angeles and New York routes noted as being";
- Citations # 28 and 35 probably need full stops for consistency with the other citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone in a position to respond to those comments? This review is due to be closed in about four days and currently it does not have the required level of support to be promoted. If these comments can be addressed, I will take another look at the article to see whether I can support its promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: unfortunately the 28 day time limit for this review has past and my concerns have not been addressed. I have listed the review for closing by an uninvolved co-ord. You are welcome to renominate at a later date (no minimum time frame) when you feel you have addressed any outstanding issues in this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone in a position to respond to those comments? This review is due to be closed in about four days and currently it does not have the required level of support to be promoted. If these comments can be addressed, I will take another look at the article to see whether I can support its promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- No consensus to promote at this time (after 28 days). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it's ready for review (redundant, really). I helped bring this article from Start-Class to its current GA status and I am confident it meets at least most of the A-Class criteria. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not reviewing the article, as I don't do A-class reviews, but I noticed that something is missing from this sentence: "Sherman settled into a siege of Atlanta, shelling the city and sending raids west and south of the city to cut off the supply lines from Macon, Georgia, resulting in the" (in the section on Siege and closure; quoted in its entirety). I presume that the rest of the sentence was lost inadvertently in an edit. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out; it was my fault entirely. In this edit, I added "resulting in the" to the end and forgot to add the result (i.e., that the battles over the supply lines made up the remainder of the Atlanta Campaign). Interestingly, the blunder slipped through GA review. Guoguo12--Talk-- 12:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't think you need both citations on the casualties in the infobox.- Fixed. I kept the print reference, and also left a hidden comment noting the existence of possible further references.
- The images mention Ponder House but its not mentioned in the text.
- Done. Used web source, though.
The images were too scrunched together; I moved them around slightly.- Thanks.
- I think the Siege section needs to be expanded - instead of your summary ...remaining battles of the campaign were fought over supply routes, you should list each battle with a date, culminating in the battle of Lovejoy Station which expelled the confederate forces from Atlanta. I think this is preferable than a further information/see also link in the heading.
- Really? There are six battles. I think it'll make things to complicated and possibly off topic.
- The siege section kind of puts this off topic but I think its important to show that the seige consisted of those 6 battle - maybe someone else has an opinion. Kirk (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? There are six battles. I think it'll make things to complicated and possibly off topic.
- I also think the battle section should be expanded.
- A map would be nice to add. Kirk (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kirk, thanks for your comments. Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "were extensively covered by Northern newspapers, significantly boosted Northern morale, and Lincoln was reelected by a large margin.": See WP:MHCL#series. Changed "boosted" to "boosting".
- "Hood, with his vastly outnumbered army, was faced with two problems. First, he needed to defend the city of Atlanta, which was a very important rail hub and industrial center for the Confederacy. Second, his army was small in comparison to the enormous armies that Sherman commanded.": "Hood needed to defend the city of Atlanta, which was an important rail hub and industrial center for the Confederacy, but his army was small in comparison to the armies that Sherman commanded." See WP:MHCL#conciseness.
- "If successful, Hood could later on surround the Union troops and win the battle.": It's not clear what the word "successful" refers to; see WP:Checklist#dangling. "Hood intended to surround the Union troops." - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major General McPherson": "Maj. Gen. McPherson". See WP:Checklist#consistency.
- Please check "The remaining battles of the Atlanta Campaign were fought over these supply routes." "resulting" was dangling. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't cover sourcing, but from the little I saw, I'm not convinced that everything in the article is exactly right, so I'll hold off on supporting until others have taken a whack at this. Thanks for trying our A-class review; I hope it's helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and corrections. Guoguo12--Talk-- 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerenetalk 14:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I kept getting comments that the Singapore Strategy should be better explained, so I created a whole article on one of the most controversial strategies ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:great work, Hawkeye, another very interesting and useful article. These are my comments in review:- CorenSearchBot reports no copyright violations: [31] (no action required);
- no dabs, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
- images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
- in the lead, please check the capitalisation of "far east" - shouldn't it be "Far East", as a proper noun?;
- in the lead, should Prince of Wales and Repulse be in italics?
- in the lead, all three paragraphs start with the same clause "The Singapore strategy" - is it possible to reword so there is some variation?
- in the Plans section, I'm uncertain about the capitalisation here: "British, United States and Japanese Navies". I think it should be "British, United States and Japanese navies", as they are not proper nouns. I might be wrong, though;
- in the Plans section, two sentences start with "however" in a row. Perhaps reword for variation: "However in June 1939, the Tientsin Incident demonstrated another possibility: that Germany might attempt to take advantage of a war in the Far East. However, this did not change the Singapore strategy, as the Kriegsmarine was relatively small and France was an ally";
- in the Criticism section the links and abbreviations to the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force should be moved up earlier in the section to where they are first mentioned (the sentence about 10,000,00 and 2,400,00 pounds);
- in the Criticism section, I think the capitalisation is off here: "the Labor party's position" (specifically Labor Party);
- in the Criticism section, this seems out of chronological order, which makes it a little confusing: "In 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies replaced the heads of the Army and RAAF with British officers.[29] By 1937..." (specifically the first sentence is in 1939, but then the second is in 1937);
- in the In retrospect section, I'm a little concerned about use of phrases such as "most critics", "many historians" etc. These might be considered weasel words. Is there a way to avoid this? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in, I also raised this in my GA review and I decided it was okay at that level if the sources Hawkeye cited used terms like "many/most critics/historians" (which I understood they did). On the other hand, given that now a second reviewer is a bit uncomfortable with the wording, perhaps it might be better to be more specific and just name a couple of them as representative of the pack and lose "many/most"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not usually refer to historians by name unless they are notable. Instead, I have re-worded the consensus as a statement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, works for me, too. Well done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not usually refer to historians by name unless they are notable. Instead, I have re-worded the consensus as a statement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in, I also raised this in my GA review and I decided it was okay at that level if the sources Hawkeye cited used terms like "many/most critics/historians" (which I understood they did). On the other hand, given that now a second reviewer is a bit uncomfortable with the wording, perhaps it might be better to be more specific and just name a couple of them as representative of the pack and lose "many/most"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- I reviewed, copyedited, and passed this at GA not long ago, and the changes since then seem to only have improved the article.
- Again performed a light copyedit for prose -- pls revert anything that's unintentionally altered meaning.
One minor grammatical point: As diplomatic relations with Japan worsened, the Admiralty and the Chiefs of Staff began considering what ships could be sent in August 1941 -- being pedantic, this could be taken as either the Admiralty beginning their considerations in August 1941, or the Admiralty beginning (at some unspecified time) to consider what ships it could send to Singapore during August 1941. If the former, then perhaps something like As diplomatic relations with Japan worsened, in August 1941 the Admiralty and the Chiefs of Staff began considering what ships could be sent -- or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Tks for clearing that up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- This article is very interesting, thanks for taking it on.
- Its unusual to have an A-class article without some kind of visual aid in the lead; I wasn't aware this was an optional thing, but I read the GA, A and FA criteria and its apparently optional. Something to think about if you start a series on 'UK Naval strategies of the inter-war period', I guess you could add a navigation template at that point.
- The MILHIST A-Class style guide doesn't cover an article about a strategy, but the questions on war I think are appropriate here. I don't think the article's lead really answers the question: why did the Singapore strategy happen? You have to read the next section to find that out.
The lead also neglects the vague expected contribution of the RAN in the strategy.The bullet points in Plans should be put in the lead.The section 'In retrospect' briefly covers both the outcome of the strategy and the significance, but its rather short, and I think this could be expanded in both the lead and the prose.- Did the arguable failure of the Singapore strategy influence any future naval strategies?
'Consequences' might be a better section name than 'In retrospect'.Kirk (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- None of these points have been addressed, as far as I can tell. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so:
- The first two points required no action;
- The bullet points in plans were moved into the lead, as was an explanation of the origins of the Singapore Strategy;
- The "Australia" section was expanded;
- The 'In retrospect' section was renamed 'Consequences'
- I was still looking at the expansion of the 'Consequences'. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update - I'd still like to see an image in the lead.Kirk (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- This book might be of some relevance: Andrew Field, "Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East, 1919-1939: Preparing for War against Japan
- You talk about the reactions of the Admiralty to the rise in tensions with Japan, but what about the Army and the RAF? And the Australians? I know that reinforcements were sent to Singapore, these should be detailed if you want to keep the RN's response in the article.
- Don't forget to mention that the carrier Indomitable was intended to accompany Force Z, but she grounded while training and needed repairs that prevented her from joining it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I did a little copyediting in the lead and first section, and they look quite good. I'll wait on the edits in response to the comments above before I finish up. Does anyone know how Australian or British style guides handle paired commas? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a style guide, but I believe that they are generally acceptable, if not recommended. I might be wrong, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a style guide, but I believe that they are generally acceptable, if not recommended. I might be wrong, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted at this time EyeSerenetalk 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an important battle during the Siege of Leningrad. This article was just approved as GA, and I think it can get to A-class as well. D2306 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Haupt, Werner , Krivosheev, Grigoriy , Meretskov, Kirill are all listed but do not seem to have been used Done Moved to "Further Reading". They were used in older versions of the article.
- Where is Atlegen, PA. I presume its an abbreviation for a US state? for those of us from the rest of the world its better spelled out in full. Done
- Others seem to be missing publishing locations (unable to read Russian so apologise if they are there) Done All references now have publishers.
- Krivosheev, Grigoriy. missing the year of publication Done
- References 2 and 3 / 4 and 5 / 15,16 and 17 / 19,20 and 21 / 23 and 25/ 29 and 30 / 31 and 32 / 41 and 42 are the same they should be combined by using ref name Done If you see any more duplicates, tell me.
- The Germans strength in the inf box needs a cite as its not covered elsewhere. Done
- In the lede the convert template can be used for 8–10 km and elsewhere in the article sometimes its used and sometimes not. Done Now used everywhere.
- 96th Infantry Division should be linked on first use. Done
- What makes http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm a reliable site and an access date is required
- Ok this is a complicated one. Sources are quite confusing about the first captured Tiger. Some sources, including Wilbeck in his "Sledgehammers" book, say the first captured Tiger was during the Sinyavin Offensive (1942) in the same area. Other sources, including many documentaries and Soviet generals' memoirs say it was captured during Iskra, specifying it was this tank:
- The Russian wikipedia article on the tiger tank makes the most sense. It says that essentially both these claims are correct. The first being the first captured Tiger, while Iskra was the first captured undamaged Tiger, which was indeed used in the photograph. Unfortunately the sources that article is using are hardly better than the one you are concerned about. So I would welcome reliable sources or advice on how to best put this info in or remove it altogether.D2306 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am glad to have seen this article through the GAN process. However, I don't think it meets the A-class citeria at the moment.
- Only three used sources, could you not use any of the books listed in Further reading? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there is no requirement on the quantity of sources for A-class. As for the sources themselves:
- Glantz (2005) is a different edition of Glantz (2002)
- Krivosheev's figures are already used by both Glantz and Isayev
- Meretskov's memoirs are not the reputable reliable source for A-class. I could use it to put in a quote, but not for any accurate information.
- Haupt again, more memoirs and recollections.D2306 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't find anything, that is forgivable, but the more the better, no?
- As far as I know, there is no requirement on the quantity of sources for A-class. As for the sources themselves:
- Transliteration of Cyrillic into Latin characters has been done for two authors, another would be appreciated (located in Further Reading). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Only three used sources, could you not use any of the books listed in Further reading? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: good work so far, but I think there are a few things that need to be addressed before it can be awarded an A-class rating:
- no copyright violation per CorenSearchBot: [32] (no action required);
- no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
- you might consider adding alt text to the images per WP:ALT, but it is only a suggestion;
- File:Iskra german defences.JPG does not seem to be correctly attributed. Currently it says its source is "Soviet Photograph" - this actually needs to be where the uploader obtained it from. Did you get it from a book or a website? If so, those details should be listed. Also, the date field does not seem correct. Basically it is saying that the image was taken in 2010, but actually it should be "January 1943";
- this Google search produces a number of results for Siege of Leningrad + Iskra: [33]. It might be worthwhile looking at some of these sources, because currently it does seem a little light in terms of cited works. Remember A-class criteria 1 asks for an article to "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", thus it is important to demonstrate this by citing multiple works. Currently it is mainly cited to two authors and while I recognise that they may be the main contributors in the field, I don't think this is enough to satisfy the A-class requirement at the moment. Even if a number of sources agree on the same thing, it probably wouldn't hurt to add in citations to other works for variation and corroboration;
- the capitalisation in the infobox seems a little off: "Soviet Strategic Victory, Siege of Leningrad eased". This should probably be "Soviet strategic victory, Siege of Leningrad eased";
- there is currently a mixture of British and American spelling, e.g. "defenses" and "defences";
- what makes achtungpanzer.com reliable? Is the author an established expert? Does it cite its sources? If it is not a reliable source, it will need to be removed and replaced;
- Citation # 34 should have accessdate information added to it;
- minor nitpick: some of the citations have a space between the full stop and number, but others don't. For instance "Glantz p. 262" v. "Glantz p.280". These should be consistent;
- sometimes you use single quotes, e.g. 'Road of Life', and then later double quotes, e.g. "Iskra". Seems inconsistent;
- is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Haupt work in the Further reading section?
- is it Ladoga Lake, or Lake Ladoga? Currently both forms are used, consistency is best;
- in the Background section, you should probably clarify who made attempts to breach the blockade, for instance: "During 1942 several attempts were made by the Soviets to breach the blockade but all failed." (added "by the Soviets");
- in the Preparations section, this is not grammatically correct: "One of the key locations were the Sinyavin heights". This should be: "One of the key locations was the Sinyavin heights";
- there is some repetition here: "which were some 150 metres higher than the surrounding flat terrain, which were one of the few dry and clear areas, and in addition provided good observation" (a number of clauses that begin with "which were"). I suggest rewording for variation;
- in the Soviet preparations section, this is not grammatically correct: "opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor". Because "10 kilometres" is being used as an adjective to describe the corridor, it should be: "opening a 10 kilometre (6.2 mi) corridor" (difference: kilometre v. kilometres). This can be achieved by adding the following code: "|adj=on" to the convert template;
- in the Battle section, I think you need a paired comma in this sentence: "One improvised battle group consisting of five battalions from the 96th Infantry Division, supported by artillery and four Tiger tanks moved to Gorodok No. 2 to reinforce the...". A comma should be added after "four Tiger tanks" in my opinion;
- in the Battle section, this seems a little awkward, "and attacked the German rear lines." It would probably sound better as: "and attacked the German rear area.";
- in the Battle section, this seems a little awkward, "the Soviet forces cleared Shlisselburg and Lipka from German forces". It would probably sound better as: "the Soviet forces cleared Shlisselburg and Lipka of German forces";
- in the Aftermath section, I think there is a word missing here: "The Soviet forces carried several other offensives in the area in 1943". I think it should be: "The Soviet forces carried out several other offensives in the area in 1943" (addition of the word "out");
- given the above grammar points, it might be advisable to seek out a copy editor at the Guild or somewhere else who can go through the article and tighten it up as I might have missed some points;
- in the Aftermath section, I suggest wikilinking "salient" to Salients, re-entrants and pockets, as the casual reader might not be familiar with the term;
- is there any image that could be added to the Aftermath section? Maybe an image of equipment destroyed in the fighting, or something similar?
- also, perhaps you might consider adding an "iconic" image to the infobox, rather than the map which could then be used in the body of the article perhaps (this is a suggestion only, not required). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- regarding the maps, I think that you might need to include more source details. For instance, what sources were consulted to determine the location of various positions, the movement of forces, the positions that were destroyed, etc? What sources were used to determine the topography, etc.?
- Many thanks for the comments. I will not be too active in the upcoming week, so please do allow me some time to answer all the comments.D2306 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. The ACR will be due for closure on 24 February (the usual timeframe for an ACR is 28 days), but if others agree, there shouldn't be any dramas with keeping it open for a bit longer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, how are you going with responding to these comments? The review has now been open three days passed its scheduled closing date. In order to maintain fairness to other nominators this will need to be listed for closing shortly (the next 24 hours or so). Given that it doesn't look like there is enough support at this time for promotion (a minimum of three supports is required), it might make sense just to have this ACR closed as unsuccessful; you can then work on the comments in your leisure and re-nominate for another ACR at a later date when you feel you've addressed everything. Please let us know what you want to do. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that tis is the best thing to do. I am still too busy to respond to comments within the next couple of days. I will address them in time and renominate the article later.D2306 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, no worries. I've listed it for closing now. It might take a few days, though, as the co-ords are a bit busy at the moment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that tis is the best thing to do. I am still too busy to respond to comments within the next couple of days. I will address them in time and renominate the article later.D2306 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, how are you going with responding to these comments? The review has now been open three days passed its scheduled closing date. In order to maintain fairness to other nominators this will need to be listed for closing shortly (the next 24 hours or so). Given that it doesn't look like there is enough support at this time for promotion (a minimum of three supports is required), it might make sense just to have this ACR closed as unsuccessful; you can then work on the comments in your leisure and re-nominate for another ACR at a later date when you feel you've addressed everything. Please let us know what you want to do. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. The ACR will be due for closure on 24 February (the usual timeframe for an ACR is 28 days), but if others agree, there shouldn't be any dramas with keeping it open for a bit longer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the comments. I will not be too active in the upcoming week, so please do allow me some time to answer all the comments.D2306 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote EyeSerenetalk 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has been recently listed as GA with no major objections and since I believe that all five A-class criteria are either met or reasonably close to warrant a serious review. Tomobe03 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks by GregorB
editHere is a review of the article. First, a disclaimer: this review was originally not meant to be submitted here, so it was not written with A-class (or any other) formal criteria in mind. Please, take it at face falue. Needless to say, other editors are by all means encouraged to post their own comments and opinions.
- Intro
- The ICTY also condemned a "widespread and systematic... This sentence seems disconnected with the rest of the paragraph, and it is unclear what "also" refers to. Perhaps the quote should be incorporated in the following paragraph, say after thousands of refugees.
- Done I opted not to move the sentence as it is related to the Greater Serbia concept introduced into the article in the previous sentence. Instead I reworded the sentence in the lead to make it less awkward as there is no need to carry the entire quote in the sentence as the quote is already in the main text (ICTY section).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was primarily a flow problem. Looks good to me now. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I opted not to move the sentence as it is related to the Greater Serbia concept introduced into the article in the previous sentence. Instead I reworded the sentence in the lead to make it less awkward as there is no need to carry the entire quote in the sentence as the quote is already in the main text (ICTY section).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ICTY needs to be expanded on the first use. UNPROFOR likewise.
- Done Ditto for UNTAES.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) is now a redirect. Should be fixed/clarified in some way.
- Done Resolved redirect to the appropriate section of the article to which that used to redirect, and changed "Yugoslav Republic of Croatia" to "Republic of Croatia, a constituent republic of..." to reduce possibility of confusion and provide some context even without proceeding down the wikilink.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. GregorB (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Resolved redirect to the appropriate section of the article to which that used to redirect, and changed "Yugoslav Republic of Croatia" to "Republic of Croatia, a constituent republic of..." to reduce possibility of confusion and provide some context even without proceeding down the wikilink.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things that might be spelled out in the intro: the war damage figure(s) and the exact area that was held by the RSK. Regarding the latter: the article says "approximately 30 percent"; IIRC, the figure was around 29%. Oddly, according to this, the total area was 13,913 km2, which would be significantly less than 29%.
- Believe it or not, both figures are correct. I suppose the above source and 13,913 km2 figure for RSK area size can be accepted as reliable. Starting from there, add 270 km2 and 1440 km2 that were once occupied, but recaptured by HV in late 1991 in Otkos 10 and Orkan 91, and another 684 km2 occupied near Dubrovnik (this figure is approximate, one half of Dubrovnik Diocese is reported to have been occupied - and 1368 km2 is area size of the diocese). Granted, the three figures are approximate, but even the RSK reported size may or may not comprise further 90 km2 retaken by the HV in Miljevci Plateau. If all of these (including Miljevci) are added up, one gets 16,397 km2 or 28.97%. Considering possible (or even likely) inaccuracies I'd say usage of "approximately 29%" is fair. Simply said, the discrepancies stem from Dubrovnik hinterland not being included in the RSK and the W Slavonia occupation in 1991. --- In short, I'll attempt to distill something meaningful out of this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as suggested, specifying only RSK 1992 size in the lead and specifying details in the main article text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This discrepancy is resolved then. However, my comment regarding the exact area was a general one, not specifically related to the intro itself. This means that while the article body should go for exact figure, an approximate one would still be good enough for the intro. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as suggested, specifying only RSK 1992 size in the lead and specifying details in the main article text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, both figures are correct. I suppose the above source and 13,913 km2 figure for RSK area size can be accepted as reliable. Starting from there, add 270 km2 and 1440 km2 that were once occupied, but recaptured by HV in late 1991 in Otkos 10 and Orkan 91, and another 684 km2 occupied near Dubrovnik (this figure is approximate, one half of Dubrovnik Diocese is reported to have been occupied - and 1368 km2 is area size of the diocese). Granted, the three figures are approximate, but even the RSK reported size may or may not comprise further 90 km2 retaken by the HV in Miljevci Plateau. If all of these (including Miljevci) are added up, one gets 16,397 km2 or 28.97%. Considering possible (or even likely) inaccuracies I'd say usage of "approximately 29%" is fair. Simply said, the discrepancies stem from Dubrovnik hinterland not being included in the RSK and the W Slavonia occupation in 1991. --- In short, I'll attempt to distill something meaningful out of this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, the intro is very good, I'd even say excellent.
- "Background"
- The bit about the formation of political parties in 1989 should probably precede the part about the actual elections in 1990.
- Done That particular area was reorganized earlier today exactly in this way. I also think it's better that way.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Serb Democratic Party is not mentioned at all in the article. It might be introduced in this section.
- Done The Serb Democratic Party is now mentioned.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbs occupied a disproportionate number of state posts throughout Yugoslavia, including in Croatia. The sentence is disconnected with the rest, should be moved elsewhere or removed altogether.
- Done Actually I kept the sentence - sort of. The idea was to provide a context - to illustrate perception of the Serbs in Croatia. The sentence has been reworded, reorganized and expanded a little bit, with an appropriate citation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much better. (Again, this was a flow rather than a content problem.) Also, from League of Communists of Croatia: The Serb influence was indeed disproportionate at times. In 1989, 30% of the members of the Croatian League of Communists were Serbs, while their overall percentage in the republic was less than 13%. Might be true, but is unfortunately unsourced. GregorB (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Actually I kept the sentence - sort of. The idea was to provide a context - to illustrate perception of the Serbs in Croatia. The sentence has been reworded, reorganized and expanded a little bit, with an appropriate citation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Important factors in Croatia's preservation of its pre-war borders were... This entire paragraph seems out of place. I'd say it belongs to one of the earlier sections.
Actually, no, but it should not be in this exact spot either. Plus it's written virtually backwards. I'm on it now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done I reorganized the paragraph to center on the Badinter Commission, which was pivotal for EEC recognition of Croatia and dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia, and moved the paragraph to proper location (chronologically) - the second half of 1991 when the Commission did bulk of its work. Additionally I provided an extra reference establishing importance of the 1974 constitution to the commission's decision making.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. Like some other changes discussed here, this is not merely a fix, but rather a substantial improvement. GregorB (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The JNA was unable to advance as far as planned due to Croatian resistance and mobilization problems. Uncited and IMO only partly true. Note that the source for the map is CIA. Its origin may be the infamous S-2 war plan, but I don't think JNA ever actually thought of implementing it in its entirety because that would have made no sense (see my remark about Slovenia below). It is somewhat dubious whether the map corresponds to anything that was actually planned.
I'd like to try and break this down a bit and ask you for some feedback:- The map you refer to was made by the CIA. It was published in book "Balkan Battlegrounds" which I cannot find online or offline. Corps referenced by the map are accurately located but that's about it. However, looking at two long arrows stretching from general area of Požega to Križevci (or thereabout) the map appears to be an amalgamation of actual JNA movements and general assumptions on possibly planned movements. I would say the map may be used, at best, as an illustration of what the US analysts thought the JNA intended at one time or another.
- Claim that the JNA was unable to advance... is somewhat awkward but fairly obvious - any army advance (if attempted and/or planned) is hindered by its opponent's resistance and supply problems (food, fuel, munitions or as in this case, manpower). Validity of the claim may, IMO, be questionable only in terms of attempts/plans of the JNA to advance further.
- In that respect, the article says that JNA tried to "occupy the whole of Croatia". The claim is supported by two sources, including a book by Kadijević (federal defense secretary) and Bjelajac, Žunec, Boduszynski, Draschtak, Graovac, Kent, Malli, Pavlović, Vuić 2009, p. 241. The latter specifies that JNA tried to gain approval for "operation “Shield” designed to disarm the Croatian military organization and put its leaders on trial" and declaration of state of emergency, however the divided presidency could not act. This serves to verify that JNA did in fact plan to capture at least a substantial part of Croatia, presumably including Zagreb (since the plan entailed capture and trial of Croatian leadership). The divided federal presidency indeed failed to grant approval to the JNA, but it also ostensibly failed to hold it back. Furthermore the JNA operated quite well without any approval by the presidency - getting its supplies and personnel from Serbia, as confirmed by reliable sources cited in the article.
- It is also true that at one point Serb/JNA objectives changed, as evidenced by Jović in his diary and in his testimony to the ICTY. (also referenced in the article) In testimony (cited) he says "The main JNA forces shall be grouped on Karlovac-Plitvice [Lakes] line to the West; Baranja, Osijek, Vinkovci - Sava [River] to the East and Neretva [River] in the South. In that way all territories inhabited by Serbs shall be covered until the final resolution, that is until the people freely decides in a referendum." These too contain geographical references which indicate that even those scaled down objectives were not met - Neretva River and Sava River.
- Taking into consideration the above I conclude that the CIA map is quite vague but it may be close to an early JNA plan (although that is impossible to confirm) and I also conclude that the JNA did in fact have a plan to overthrow the Croatian leadership by means of a military action and that both that plan and the scaled down plan for occupation of a more or less specific area in Croatia was partially hindered, i.e. that the JNA did not advance as far as it wanted to (ostensibly due to resistance and personnel issues).
- Done On another thought, even though the above is, IMO, logical and valid reasoning, that would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS so I've changed the caption where the claim is made to what is actually communicated by the source (CIA book/map).--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very detailed and well thought-out analysis. I think we are in full agreement now. It boils down to this: 1) the CIA map is in itself not problematic as a source, if properly introduced, 2) JNA indeed had a radical plan in the early days, 3) it is bit risky to "connect the dots" between points 1) and 2) due to WP:SYNTH. The caption now reflects this, so the issue is indeed settled. GregorB (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The S-2 plan was one of JNA strategic plans for defense of the SFRY. The S-2 was designed to combat a NATO invasion from the North and from the South. (The S-1 was designed to fight a Warsaw Pact invasion.) While it could be argued that it was used to combat Slovenia and/or Croatia, it seems highly dubious since it entailed support of Slovene/Croatian TOs and a technically/technologically superior adversary, frontline bases in Maribor, Varaždin, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Jastrebarsko etc. all of which obviously did not apply in 1991.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, this is a longish section; initially I thought it was too long, but I'd say now that it's very important to provide proper context. It is also difficult to write for the same reason. I'd also rate it as very good. What is a bit lacking for my taste: the role of the media, the impact of events such as the Petrova Gora rally (generally underrated now, while the Gazimestan speech is generally somewhat overrated IMO), open talk of independence, and finally the HDZ's own nationalist and far right leanings (c.f. Račan's "dangerous intentions" remark). On the other hand, this section really shouldn't be much longer than it is, and it is neither possible nor desirable to go into greater detail here.
- Done Added Petrova gora rally, hope it is enough because it really is a long section already.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that reordering the content, and adding info about the SDS and the rally is a major improvement to this section. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But translation of Petrova Gora is not really necessary here... GregorB (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gone.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But translation of Petrova Gora is not really necessary here... GregorB (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that reordering the content, and adding info about the SDS and the rally is a major improvement to this section. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Military forces"
- No objections here, a solid overview. More information on tactics would be useful (not necessarily in this section).
- "1991"
- In July, in an attempt to salvage what remained of Yugoslavia... This seems to imply that the JNA attempted to subdue Slovenia, failed, then turned to Croatia as a some sort of "substitute". This would be a misinterpretation: JNA simply withdrew from Slovenia once the entire operation was recognized as pointless. The reasoning was as follows: the Slovenians want to leave Yugoslavia, so let them go; we'll focus on those who don't want to leave, i.e. the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a strategic decision rather than an outright failure. (And no, I don't have a source for that.)
- Done ... at least I think so. Earlier today I expanded this bit and added a reference for the planning or at least decision making involved (Jović diary).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. The Jović diary bit is a bonus. GregorB (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ... at least I think so. Earlier today I expanded this bit and added a reference for the planning or at least decision making involved (Jović diary).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbs over-represented in the armed forces - same fact is essentially reported twice, in different ways (1981 and 1990). The 1990 figures seem both more relevant and provide better context (if Serbs were, say, 5% of the population, over-representation would probably not have mattered much), so I'd say cut out the 1981 figures.
- Done Moved the paragraph to "Military forces" as the info really belongs there, trimmed down the 1981 info substantially, simply observing that there was a similar situation back then. Added reference to instruction to eliminate Slovenes/Croats from the JNA given prior to the war in Slovenia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. GregorB (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Moved the paragraph to "Military forces" as the info really belongs there, trimmed down the 1981 info substantially, simply observing that there was a similar situation back then. Added reference to instruction to eliminate Slovenes/Croats from the JNA given prior to the war in Slovenia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In August 1991, the border city of Vukovar came under attack and the Battle of Vukovar began. Serbian troops eventually completely surrounded the city. The first sentence is a bit of an oversimplification. Still, I'm not sure if going into details would help either.
- Since there already is a wikilinked article on Battle of Vukovar, I feel there is sufficient information here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. GregorB (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there already is a wikilinked article on Battle of Vukovar, I feel there is sufficient information here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some inconsistencies in date formatting (month-first, day-first).
- Done I think I got all of them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1992"
- No particular objections here.
- "1993"
- the successful Operation Medak pocket in 1993 caused sharp reactions of countries and organizations that had anti-Croatian and pro-Serb attitude during the war. Citation? It is true that Croatia was criticized, but that's (ostensibly) because it violated the cease fire agreement. Also, Medak pocket was (again, ostensibly) targeted for its artillery which had been shelling Gospić. Whether my interpretations here are correct (and relevant) or not, context could definitely be improved.
- Indeed I seem to be unable to find a reliable source to support the assertion made in the article. I'll search some more and see what comes up - and then rewrite the passage if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entire subsection was somehow wanting. I rewrote some of it and reorganized most remaining text in the subsection - I think only the last paragraph was left as it was.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two problems remain: 1) "marred by war crimes" is followed by "the alleged crimes", a bit of a non sequitur (if it's reasonably clear that war crimes actually took place, and I'd say that it is, then I guess "alleged" might as well be dropped; what was alleged was their guilt), and 2) one should take into account that the Croatian-Canadian battle is IIRC still flatly denied by the HV, and the article itself does not give a definite answer. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed...
working on that one!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I provided info and sources for Croatian (and apparently UN) interpretation of the events with sources. Hope that turns out ok.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... (I really hate being a nuisance... :-) )
The "alleged" bit is still there.(But not in the same section!) Also, while the section's content is fine, there is perhaps a WP:SS/WP:DETAIL violation now, especially since the article size might be close to becoming a concern. Simply saying that one side claims there was a battle while the other denies it should probably be enough here. GregorB (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Got the other "allegation"... I'll distill that extra info into something smaller and equally useful. As for article size, prose is still below 80K. Admittedly entire article is much larger, but still far below 400K cautioned by WP:SIZE. Still, I agree that it should not be expanded beyond reason. There's no problem about what you call "being a nuisance" - I figure the whole point of any serious review is to have other people detect what could be improved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... (I really hate being a nuisance... :-) )
- I provided info and sources for Croatian (and apparently UN) interpretation of the events with sources. Hope that turns out ok.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed...
- Two problems remain: 1) "marred by war crimes" is followed by "the alleged crimes", a bit of a non sequitur (if it's reasonably clear that war crimes actually took place, and I'd say that it is, then I guess "alleged" might as well be dropped; what was alleged was their guilt), and 2) one should take into account that the Croatian-Canadian battle is IIRC still flatly denied by the HV, and the article itself does not give a definite answer. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entire subsection was somehow wanting. I rewrote some of it and reorganized most remaining text in the subsection - I think only the last paragraph was left as it was.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I seem to be unable to find a reliable source to support the assertion made in the article. I'll search some more and see what comes up - and then rewrite the passage if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the details as discussed, those would probably be better off in the article on the battle itself anyway. Do you think this setup could work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just right. GregorB (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll mark this one as Done as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lučko rocket attack seems fairly unimportant (no fatalities, minor damage). E.g. the attack on Zagreb TV Tower in 1991 might be seen as more important, but is not mentioned.
- Done Indeed it is relatively minor. Removed Lučko attack from the section and added Lučko to the list of attacked towns, moving the reference accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1994"
- The war was originally fought between HVO and Croatian volunteer troops. I believe they fought the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than amongst themselves.
- Done per suggestion, except they fought Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, the guard brigades were manned by professional soldiers, while the other units used mobilized personnel. If sourced, might be important to mention.
- Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1995"
- serb held - should read "Serb-held".
- Done Kebeta (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK otherwise.
- Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Type and name of the war"
- euphemism - this does not seem to be supported by the sources.
- My point was that calling a war (small or large) a conflict is use of euphemism by definition. The source for such a use is this and it is referenced at the end of that particular sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My remark about the sourcing does not concern the use of the word "conflict", but rather calling such a use a "euphemism". This is what the source apparently does not support. Strictly speaking, calling the war a "conflict" is not incorrect, since war is by definition a kind of conflict. In fact, Bjelajac, Žunec et al. also refer to it as a "conflict" several times in their paper, although, of course, they primarily describe it as a "war". While describing this war exclusively as a "conflict" by all means might be considered euphemistic, I don't see real evidence of such use. The NYT source is not helpful in this respect because it is dated June 1991, still some months short of the first large-scale battles and the first substantial casualties, i.e. back then the word "war" may have still legitimately felt too strong for some. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I'll look into that shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the "euphemism" seems to serve no purpose at all other than draining good will and energy away from reviewers and editors alike, I thought it best be removed and marked Done as moot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I'll look into that shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My remark about the sourcing does not concern the use of the word "conflict", but rather calling such a use a "euphemism". This is what the source apparently does not support. Strictly speaking, calling the war a "conflict" is not incorrect, since war is by definition a kind of conflict. In fact, Bjelajac, Žunec et al. also refer to it as a "conflict" several times in their paper, although, of course, they primarily describe it as a "war". While describing this war exclusively as a "conflict" by all means might be considered euphemistic, I don't see real evidence of such use. The NYT source is not helpful in this respect because it is dated June 1991, still some months short of the first large-scale battles and the first substantial casualties, i.e. back then the word "war" may have still legitimately felt too strong for some. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that calling a war (small or large) a conflict is use of euphemism by definition. The source for such a use is this and it is referenced at the end of that particular sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since neither Croatia or Yugoslavia declared war on each other, a prevailing view in Serbia was that it was a civil war between Croats and Serbs in Croatia. Both facts are true (#1 - the war wasn't declared, #2 - the Serbs see it as a civil war), but the inference seems faulty to me. Unreferenced.
- This is changed now and references are added, could you please have another look at this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but still not completely fixed. Declaration of war (or lack thereof) is IMO orthogonal to the issue of the war being international or not. I fail to see how the (true and referenced) fact that the war was not declared might lead to any conclusions - one way or the other - about its character in this respect. (Well, at least in the absence of sources that make explicit inferences of the sort.) "War not declared" bit might simply be dropped without any loss of context. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right
and I'm working on this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Moved the non-declared nature of the war to the end of the subsection as it is not as important as international/internal characterization. Further referenced Serbian position on internal war. Your objection on non-declaration of the war as a cause for characterization of the conflict as internal was spot on: The non-declaration by Serbia/Yugoslavia is an ipso facto consequence of the view that the war is internal - those are not declared by default. In that respect provided info why Croatia (Tuđman) never declared the war and reference to support the claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After another look, this seems decent to me now, so I am tempted to consider it Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And indeed it is... GregorB (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After another look, this seems decent to me now, so I am tempted to consider it Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved the non-declared nature of the war to the end of the subsection as it is not as important as international/internal characterization. Further referenced Serbian position on internal war. Your objection on non-declaration of the war as a cause for characterization of the conflict as internal was spot on: The non-declaration by Serbia/Yugoslavia is an ipso facto consequence of the view that the war is internal - those are not declared by default. In that respect provided info why Croatia (Tuđman) never declared the war and reference to support the claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right
- Better, but still not completely fixed. Declaration of war (or lack thereof) is IMO orthogonal to the issue of the war being international or not. I fail to see how the (true and referenced) fact that the war was not declared might lead to any conclusions - one way or the other - about its character in this respect. (Well, at least in the absence of sources that make explicit inferences of the sort.) "War not declared" bit might simply be dropped without any loss of context. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is changed now and references are added, could you please have another look at this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia should be considered international as from 8 October 1991 because the independence of these two States was definite on that date. Here, the ICTY may not be fully reliable as a source because it is apparently in a conflict of interest: if I'm not mistaken, only international conflicts are within their jurisdiction, so ruling otherwise would be tantamount to declaring themselves lacking jurisdiction. I'm not faulting the article on this point, since this is clearly presented as ICTY's viewpoint, but still - prominent display with two big blue quote boxes...
- ICTY is not barred from any type of conflicts internal or international. They are only limited to prosecuting natural persons - I've also added a reference to their Statute which says so, so I don't think we have a conflicting interest there. Besides, another source was added to support the claim. As far as big blue quote boxes are concerned, I moved one of those (Tadić case) to a quote parameter of the existing reference. I'm inclined to consider this Done unless I missed something.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the ICTY's jurisdiction is indeed not limited by the type of the conflict (do you have a source for that?), then there's no conflict of interest, and my remark would not be valid. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do: it's here and it is referenced in the section on ICTY.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article 5 of the Statute: "The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed in armed conflict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any civilian population". Therefore, my point was not valid. GregorB (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do: it's here and it is referenced in the section on ICTY.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the ICTY's jurisdiction is indeed not limited by the type of the conflict (do you have a source for that?), then there's no conflict of interest, and my remark would not be valid. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ICTY is not barred from any type of conflicts internal or international. They are only limited to prosecuting natural persons - I've also added a reference to their Statute which says so, so I don't think we have a conflicting interest there. Besides, another source was added to support the claim. As far as big blue quote boxes are concerned, I moved one of those (Tadić case) to a quote parameter of the existing reference. I'm inclined to consider this Done unless I missed something.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Casualties and refugees"
- Also disabled people. PTSD might be mentioned too in this context. No objections otherwise.
- Done ...at least for Croatia. I seem to be unable to trace a reliable source for similar information on Serb casualties at this time that could be reliably said to be related to Croatian War of Independence alone. I suspect some of the 3,500+3,500 specified here are related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, some to Kosovo and an unidentified portion to Croatia. Furthermore there's no way to tell what type of disabilities does that figure include. I'll keep on searching, maybe something turns up yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, even without the details. It would be good to have the number and status of disabled people on the Serb side, but this is a complete mystery to me, I don't think I've ever seen any media coverage of it. GregorB (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ...at least for Croatia. I seem to be unable to trace a reliable source for similar information on Serb casualties at this time that could be reliably said to be related to Croatian War of Independence alone. I suspect some of the 3,500+3,500 specified here are related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, some to Kosovo and an unidentified portion to Croatia. Furthermore there's no way to tell what type of disabilities does that figure include. I'll keep on searching, maybe something turns up yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wartime damage and minefields"
- I'd expect a seealso link to Minefields in Croatia, even if it's linked in the paragraph.
- Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wartime damage - just direct, or indirect too? (Likely the former, the figures seem low.) Info on methodology would be useful.
- Done ...well sort of. I provided info on what comprises the figures specified. Additionally military spending was described in proportion to overall government spending.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quadrillion now appears as a disambiguation page, and should be fixed...maybe to de-link it.... :-) Kebeta (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the tip, I'd like to keep the link, as I honestly expect that people are generally unsure exactly how many zeros are there in the quadrillion (and to make sure that it is not a zillion). I looked at the page and never realized it was a disambiguation page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the tip, I'd like to keep the link, as I honestly expect that people are generally unsure exactly how many zeros are there in the quadrillion (and to make sure that it is not a zillion). I looked at the page and never realized it was a disambiguation page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quadrillion now appears as a disambiguation page, and should be fixed...maybe to de-link it.... :-) Kebeta (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ...well sort of. I provided info on what comprises the figures specified. Additionally military spending was described in proportion to overall government spending.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "War crimes and the ICTY"
- the Croatian government reportedly funded a covert unit - does the source support that? A (dishonorable) mention of Branimir Glavaš would provide more solid evidence for government involvement in general.
- The claim you referred to indeed was not supported by any source. I suppose that the government did fund the unit, after all it was (as confirmed by cited sources) a reserve unit of the ministry of interior, and those are normally funded by governments. On the other hand, that's WP:SYNTHESIS so I removed the claim and left the info supported by the sources for readers to draw this or another conclusion. The section on war crimes is now reorganized a bit, additional sources are added to support hitherto unsupported claims and information on Norac sentence, Ademi acquittal and Bobetko exemption (health) is added and referenced. Likewise Glavaš is now briefly mentioned as important instance of national judiciary processing high ranking officials (MPs for that matter).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. One minor thing: Glavaš is a former MP now, but he was still an incumbent MP when he was convicted. GregorB (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the tip - that's a major difference in circumstances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. One minor thing: Glavaš is a former MP now, but he was still an incumbent MP when he was convicted. GregorB (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim you referred to indeed was not supported by any source. I suppose that the government did fund the unit, after all it was (as confirmed by cited sources) a reserve unit of the ministry of interior, and those are normally funded by governments. On the other hand, that's WP:SYNTHESIS so I removed the claim and left the info supported by the sources for readers to draw this or another conclusion. The section on war crimes is now reorganized a bit, additional sources are added to support hitherto unsupported claims and information on Norac sentence, Ademi acquittal and Bobetko exemption (health) is added and referenced. Likewise Glavaš is now briefly mentioned as important instance of national judiciary processing high ranking officials (MPs for that matter).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serbia's role"
- During the war - I think this section's content is best incorporated in the preceding sections. In this case, the rest of the section would need to be reorganized too.
- That is certainly possible - the second subsection could stand on its own as a section called "Croatia-Serbia relations after the war" or something along those lines. I admit the proposition carries a benefit of a shorter article with no loss of content, in fact I'm inclined to accept it. However, I'd like to keep the section like this at least for a short while, to wait and see what other reviewers think of this idea.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one point I disagree. It would go hand in hand with hidding any involvement of Serbia in the war. The complaint here is baseless. We could simply have two sections: "Serbia's role in the war" and "Situation after the war".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any possibility that even a casual reader of the lead, let alone the remaining text (apart from this particular section) would be in doubt that Serbia had been funding, manning (at least in part) and otherwise supporting JNA/RSK troops let alone "somehow involved". Still I'd like to have other reviewers feedback on this one before committing to any course of action (or inaction per WP:BROKE).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I say keep it. Don't even understand why it was brought up here, anyway.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I was going to call it a day regarding the comments here and continue tomorrow, but let me just respond to this...
- As Tomobe duly noted, it is not as if Serbia's involvement is a minor issue not otherwise covered here. It spans from the 1980s, through more or less every phase of the war, virtually into present day (recent extradition requests, as seen in the news). I don't think I'd exaggerate much if I'd say that it's one of the defining characteristics of this war, and I don't think that the article exactly makes it a secret.
- First and foremost, I see this as more of a style and exposition issue, rather than a content issue. Some subjects are best covered in separate sections - a good example is "Type and name of the war". It is simply my opinion that the role of Serbia is best described concurrently with chronological description of the events, and that's precisely because it is not a some kind of a one-off issue.
- I'd definitely agree with Tomobe that the final prose section of the article should be something along the lines of "aftermath of the war extended to the present day", which is more or less Croatia-Serbia relations: reconciliation (or lack thereof), lawsuits, war crimes trials, missing persons search, integration processes (such as Partnership for Peace), and what have you, this is just off the top of my head.
- However, I'm aware this may turn into a major rewrite, affecting many parts of the article, so it is definitely wise to wait and hear other comments before making substantial changes. GregorB (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left you a comment on article's talk page (during discussion about Infobox) regerding this. See what do you think. Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... Serbia had a role in the war (regardless of how one understands what "Serbia" and "role" mean), but whether it was a belligerent or not is a tricky question. My remark - like some other remarks in this review - did not address the content, but its exposition. I don't think that keeping the section vs killing the section (and distributing its content) would lead to readers drawing different conclusions regarding the role of Serbia. Anyway, I'm pleased with the changes implemented since my original remarks were submitted, so I'd say this point is moot now. GregorB (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left you a comment on article's talk page (during discussion about Infobox) regerding this. See what do you think. Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I say keep it. Don't even understand why it was brought up here, anyway.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any possibility that even a casual reader of the lead, let alone the remaining text (apart from this particular section) would be in doubt that Serbia had been funding, manning (at least in part) and otherwise supporting JNA/RSK troops let alone "somehow involved". Still I'd like to have other reviewers feedback on this one before committing to any course of action (or inaction per WP:BROKE).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one point I disagree. It would go hand in hand with hidding any involvement of Serbia in the war. The complaint here is baseless. We could simply have two sections: "Serbia's role in the war" and "Situation after the war".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is certainly possible - the second subsection could stand on its own as a section called "Croatia-Serbia relations after the war" or something along those lines. I admit the proposition carries a benefit of a shorter article with no loss of content, in fact I'm inclined to accept it. However, I'd like to keep the section like this at least for a short while, to wait and see what other reviewers think of this idea.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "Wartime damage" and "Casualties and refugees" are also mentioned in the article, and yet they both have their own stand-alone section. Likewise, Serbia's politicians are still shy to admit that the country was involved in the war, probably due to fears of war reparations, thus it's there to point it out. An average reader will definitely not read the whole article, but only scroll down to the section where Serbia's role is mentioned and summed up. I'm sure you can economize somewhere else.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding those two sections: they summarize the subject and provide figures and aftermath, so they make sense here. Using a separate section just for the purpose of driving a point home is probably not a good idea. (Of course, I'm not saying that was the original idea here.) GregorB (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This section is also there to summarize and provide an aftermath. So please drop it and let's all be friends again.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding those two sections: they summarize the subject and provide figures and aftermath, so they make sense here. Using a separate section just for the purpose of driving a point home is probably not a good idea. (Of course, I'm not saying that was the original idea here.) GregorB (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is a room to improve this subsection (regardless whether it's contents are eventually moved or not) so I'll do that first. That should not be a major effort, and when it's done, maybe we'll be able to "have our cake and eat it too".--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reorganized the subsection, distilled the information already there and related information in the remaining text to provide a usable summary (for those readers going after this aspect only) with additional information on media role in this respect. I believe this setup might be alright since it, IMO, justifies a summary such as this one. If that's OK, I'd consider this Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections. Great job!--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I like the end result... It is a summary now, looks good, and breaking it up would not do any good. I'd like to suggest a following reordering, though: 1) Move "During the war" section under the "Course of the war" level 1 section (possibly retitled as "Serbia's role in the war"; say, before or after "Type and name of the war"), because it does not actually belong to the aftermath, 2) Make "After the war" a level 1 section (and possibly retitle). GregorB (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't like to hurry such a move. The section (both subsections) provide a summary on Serbia-Croatia war related "relations" and postwar relations (broadly) so they complement each other nicely. Furthermore, being a proper summary, this place seems (at least to me) as good as any other. Finally I'm not sure the article would benefit significantly from the move (WP:BROKE). Anyway I'm not sold on any of these points, but I'd rather have the whole section sit like this for a little while just to let it sink in better. Maybe we can revisit this issue in a couple weeks to see if we like this setup or should those be moved after all? (Besides, I hope other reviewers will read this and maybe suggest something new)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I like the end result... It is a summary now, looks good, and breaking it up would not do any good. I'd like to suggest a following reordering, though: 1) Move "During the war" section under the "Course of the war" level 1 section (possibly retitled as "Serbia's role in the war"; say, before or after "Type and name of the war"), because it does not actually belong to the aftermath, 2) Make "After the war" a level 1 section (and possibly retitle). GregorB (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections. Great job!--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reorganized the subsection, distilled the information already there and related information in the remaining text to provide a usable summary (for those readers going after this aspect only) with additional information on media role in this respect. I believe this setup might be alright since it, IMO, justifies a summary such as this one. If that's OK, I'd consider this Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is a room to improve this subsection (regardless whether it's contents are eventually moved or not) so I'll do that first. That should not be a major effort, and when it's done, maybe we'll be able to "have our cake and eat it too".--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In popular culture"
- "In media" sounds better as a section title.
- No references. The worst example is "Truth (director unknown)" - can't even be googled to verify.
- One notable documentary that is missing is Oluja nad Krajinom - even discussed by the Croatian parliament (see source below).
- Done Added references to the movies I found (Including "Storm Above the Krajina"), others were removed.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Final remarks
While this is not to be construed as a some kind formal review (a "replacement" for a GA review in particular), I believe that the article roughly meets the GA criteria, despite some smaller-scale issues. Overall, it is well-referenced (albeit with occasional unreferenced claims throughout that need to be fixed - more than just the ones listed above!) and neutral in tone (in part due to a good choice of sources). I'd rate it high in both scope and focus, despite minor issues in this respect, described above. I believe that the initial phase of the war (March 1991 - January 1992) might still be covered more comprehensively, because - as the article points out - most casualties and war damage fall into that period.
Spelling and grammar seem to be reasonably good, but in this area I'll defer to what the native speakers say. A copyedit might be useful - not just spelling and grammar, but MoS stuff too (e.g. dashes). Editing for better flow is definitely needed.
- The article was copyedited by WP:GOCE prior to the GA nomination, but I agree that substantial changes were made in the meantime to warrant another copyedit. I plan to request one after issues brought up by this review are addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'd like to recommend the following high-quality source. It might be particularly useful for strengthening some less-developed aspects of the article (a general overview of military tactics, to name one).
- Rat u Hrvatskoj, 1991-1995.
- http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article5669 (in Croatian)
- http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article5751 (in Croatian)
- http://ponude.biz/knjige/r/Rat%20u%20Hrvatskoj91-95.pdf (in Serbian), apparently the same as the two-part text above
- Done Interestingly, I stumbled upon the same text in English few days ago (it's in use now). Thanks for the tip though!--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very complex subject and a substantial article, so I've likely missed a number of things - I'll post more and/or provide further comments, time allowing. GregorB (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I placed numbers in your remarks to make a better overview, hope you don't mind.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, looks better now. Unfortunately, inserting content in the list resets the numbering... GregorB (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the time and effort you took to review this article. I've already addressed some of your remarks, and I plan to do the remaining ones within a day or so...--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the responses took a bit longer, but I hope their quality benefited from that. I have tried to address all the issues you brought up - I believe the article genuinely benefited from this review. Once again, thanks for your effort. I hope the improvements warrant your support in this A-class review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the responses both quick and thoughtful, often aiming higher than just "patching" the issue at hand. I think that the article has progressed correspondingly. I have no further remarks regarding content. I'm going to wait until we're finished with the items above (we're almost there now), and then I'm going to provide some additional technical remarks regarding referencing style. GregorB (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can say now that all my substantial remarks have been addressed. The additional remarks, as described above, will be added in the next 24 hours. GregorB (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again thanks for the time you took to review this article, hope this earns your support for A-class promotion!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just say that things are moving in the right direction... :-) GregorB (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again thanks for the time you took to review this article, hope this earns your support for A-class promotion!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can say now that all my substantial remarks have been addressed. The additional remarks, as described above, will be added in the next 24 hours. GregorB (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the responses both quick and thoughtful, often aiming higher than just "patching" the issue at hand. I think that the article has progressed correspondingly. I have no further remarks regarding content. I'm going to wait until we're finished with the items above (we're almost there now), and then I'm going to provide some additional technical remarks regarding referencing style. GregorB (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following are the additional remarks regarding referencing:
- All online sources should provide the
|accessdate=
param (except, perhaps, Google Books and such - does not really make much sense). - All (or almost all?) sources should provide the
|work=
param. For newspapers, this is the newspaper's name (i.e. say The New York Times is the work, displayed in italics, not the publisher). For websites, the situation is a bit less clear: one might say that the work is e.g. "icty.org" or say that the publisher is the ICTY, or both. Not sure on this one.
- Actually, for newspapers, the template page specifies newspaper parameter, so I'll use that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course,
|author=
if possible. From what I can see, this is generally OK, but|authorlink=
might be provided too where applicable. Notes apparently use|first=
and|last=
, unlike the references. This is probably preferred to|author=
, but I wouldn't call this inconsistency a problem. - I think there's no need to specify here all the other important params that should generally be provided: language, publisher (for books mostly), isbn/issn, format, etc. These are mostly fine from what I can see.
working on citation parameters...--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I did most of them, I still have to find out proper way to reference movies and documentaries...--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only {{cite video}} AFAIK. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:GOCE copyedit of the article seems to be underway right now,
so I'll prepare (hopefully) those in my sandbox and paste those into the article later.- I believe I got them all now, so I think this may be Done now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:GOCE copyedit of the article seems to be underway right now,
- There's only {{cite video}} AFAIK. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did most of them, I still have to find out proper way to reference movies and documentaries...--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the number of references, it would be convenient to implement WP:CITESHORT using wikilinks (see WP:CITEX). By no means required. GregorB (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Google Books one might trim the URL junk so that id is the only parameter remaining. E.g. http://books.google.hr/books?id=gmRbRwAACAAJ&dq=Srpska+pobuna+u+Hrvatskoj+1990-1995&hl=hr&ei=Bg0JTeXXH8-UswbSyeiTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA becomes just http://books.google.hr/books?id=gmRbRwAACAAJ. Purely cosmetic, of course.
working on this one simultaneously with the cite parameters...--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "History of Croatia" sidebar is taking away horizontal space which would be useful for so many references in the section. Move it elsewhere, perhaps? (Just a suggestion...)
- Any suggestion where to move it? Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of moving some images out, actually two maps: the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag map is not actually a source or based on a source rather on a broad description, so is that WP:SYNTH? Also the map of Bihać pocket IMO is not really necessary as the infobox map indicates where Bihać is in relation to other parts of Croatia and the map itself is quite approximate too. Perhaps when those two are removed there may be sufficient space to place that sidebar? Alternatively, the sidebar could be moved up a few sections quite harmlessly to where Movies and documentaries section begins - nothing would have to be rearranged then and the notes would get the extra space. Any thoughts on those two?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidebar might be placed under the infobox. GregorB (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sidebar was initially under the infobox, and because of that there was a huge space between two name section's: 'Background' & 'Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia'. see end of a section 'operations in the timeline (previously in the campaign box)' on a article's talk page. Maybe Tomobe03 will have some good idea about this? Kebeta (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to move the sidebar to just below the infobox (in preview only not to disrupt the article) and did not observe any major problem with the sidebar. When placed within the fix bunching template it presents a white gap between the text to the left of the sidebar and the sidebar itself. If left out of the template it renders just fine, although a couple of right-aligned images are pushed down. IMO that could be fixed by avoiding right-aligned images in the first few sections, say, down to Military forces or so. (Contrary to "popular belief" MOS:IMAGES does not prohibit left aligned images set against a sidebar/infobox, rather sandwiching text between two images.) My screen resolution is 1366x768 so it tends to bring images closer together than vertically than some other setups as the text gets drawn out horizontally.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries - the sidebar should be placed where it's least disruptive, and if that's the references section, then so be it. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to move the sidebar to just below the infobox (in preview only not to disrupt the article) and did not observe any major problem with the sidebar. When placed within the fix bunching template it presents a white gap between the text to the left of the sidebar and the sidebar itself. If left out of the template it renders just fine, although a couple of right-aligned images are pushed down. IMO that could be fixed by avoiding right-aligned images in the first few sections, say, down to Military forces or so. (Contrary to "popular belief" MOS:IMAGES does not prohibit left aligned images set against a sidebar/infobox, rather sandwiching text between two images.) My screen resolution is 1366x768 so it tends to bring images closer together than vertically than some other setups as the text gets drawn out horizontally.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sidebar was initially under the infobox, and because of that there was a huge space between two name section's: 'Background' & 'Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia'. see end of a section 'operations in the timeline (previously in the campaign box)' on a article's talk page. Maybe Tomobe03 will have some good idea about this? Kebeta (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidebar might be placed under the infobox. GregorB (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of moving some images out, actually two maps: the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag map is not actually a source or based on a source rather on a broad description, so is that WP:SYNTH? Also the map of Bihać pocket IMO is not really necessary as the infobox map indicates where Bihać is in relation to other parts of Croatia and the map itself is quite approximate too. Perhaps when those two are removed there may be sufficient space to place that sidebar? Alternatively, the sidebar could be moved up a few sections quite harmlessly to where Movies and documentaries section begins - nothing would have to be rearranged then and the notes would get the extra space. Any thoughts on those two?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the External links: "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [1], World Courts [2] and Sense [3]" is ugly and should be properly formatted.
- Done as suggested, also formatted other ones to conform to WP:EXT. Added ODP template linking site containing a number of articles, including ones that were found in this section (those links were consequently removed as redundant).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, but the "Movies and documentaries" section looks malformed for some reason, with bare external links. The previous layout looked fine to me. Anyway, the {{cite video}} template is generally meant to be used when the content of a video serves as a reference, not for merely saying "this film exists" (IMDb is generally sufficient for this). GregorB (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I get it now: one cannot use both a wikilinked title and an URL. I'd say that, with a wikilink supplied, URL is redundant. GregorB (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, but the "Movies and documentaries" section looks malformed for some reason, with bare external links. The previous layout looked fine to me. Anyway, the {{cite video}} template is generally meant to be used when the content of a video serves as a reference, not for merely saying "this film exists" (IMDb is generally sufficient for this). GregorB (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as suggested, also formatted other ones to conform to WP:EXT. Added ODP template linking site containing a number of articles, including ones that were found in this section (those links were consequently removed as redundant).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've touched the issue of article size: although it is quite big (72 kb of prose, and also in the Special:LongPages top 100), I still don't think this is a significant problem at the moment.
These are my final comments. One pass through the refs should be enough... GregorB (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I already mentioned, all my substantial remarks have been addressed. Some additional improvements (other than the ones discussed here) have also been implemented since this review started. Referencing is excellent, relying where possible on English-language sources, which is not only in line with relevant guidelines, but also contributes to neutrality. Comprehensiveness is also excellent. I cannot find factual errors or significant omissions. Moreover, it is obvious that significant effort has gone into putting facts in proper context and providing background where necessary. The article size is substantial, but in my opinion still not problematic, because it stays on topic and avoids unnecessary details (i.e. only rather minor trimming might still be possible/desirable). Prose quality is very good, improved by the recent thorough copyedit.
Right now I can only extend my hope that additional editors will join in, there is still enough time for a review. GregorB (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks GregorB for your extensive review and your final 'Support'. Regerds, Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks by AustralianRupert
editComments: I have made a few edits but am having trouble loading the article with my internet connection, so I will list some of the issues I am seeing:- in the lead, the first sentence is quite convoluted and probably would benefit from being split up;
- I admit it is a bit unwieldy. As a stopgap measure, I punctuated a dependent clause using em dashes and replacing "former" with a proper name. I'll give it some more thought for sure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, "and both the Serbia-controlled Yugoslav People's Army". I think this should be "Serb-controlled...";
- Done per suggestion.
- in the Background section, this is not grammatically correct: "The fourth vote was provided by Montenegro, whose government survived a coup d'état in October 1988, but not second in January 1989" (there is a word missing; it should be "1988, but not a second one in...");
- Done per suggestion.
- in the Croatian forces and the First armed incidents sections, the emdashes are incorrectly spaced. Per WP:DASH they should not be spaced;
- Done Removed those spacings as well as further instances that appeared in the notes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Croation forces section, "...later "Croatian Army" (Croatian: Hrvatska vojska) - that was formed on April 11" (the hyphen here should be an unspaced emdash);
- Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the War crimes and the ICTY section, this is not grammatically correct: "was convicted to a jail sentence by a Croatian court" (maybe reword to "convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail by a Croatian court");
- Done similar to the suggestion.
- "The disaster was prevented by Mark Nicholas Gray, a Colonel in..." (incorrect capitalisation of rank, per Wikipedia:MILMOS#Capitalization, it should be "colonel" when not being used as a title;
- Done as suggested. Found a few incorrectly capitalized generals and fixed them too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in contrast to the point above, "president Josipović" should be "President Josipović" in this case because it is his title, as opposed to "Josipovic was the president";
- Done that as well as other presidents and some ministers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Electoral and consistutional moves section, is this correct: "anti-Yugounitarist" (Yugo unitarist perhaps?);
- Done Yes that was clumsy - now it's slightly reworded to avoid the double prefix.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to fix some examples, but there is a mixture of US and British English spelling, for example: Croatian Defence Council (is the proper noun Defence, or should it be Defense); programme, kilometres, favoured, armoured, manoeuvre, Home Defence Regiments. Overall the article appears to favour US spelling so it should all be consistent;
- I corrected the ones you specified, except for Croatian Defence Council as I'm not sure how to proceed there. Their official name is in Croatian, and it is normally translated in BE spelling. Would it be better to change it to US or keep it as is. As a possible guidance for me here, would a non-US text change Israel Defense Force to Israel Defence Force? Of course I'll scan the text for other similar inconsistencies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is normally translated in to BE spelling, then we could treat it as a proper noun and thus it would not need to be changed. I think the IDF usually use US spelling, so Israel Defense Force would be a proper noun and wouldn't be changed. I might be wrong in all of this, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can find, indeed the BE spelling is normally used.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is normally translated in to BE spelling, then we could treat it as a proper noun and thus it would not need to be changed. I think the IDF usually use US spelling, so Israel Defense Force would be a proper noun and wouldn't be changed. I might be wrong in all of this, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the ones you specified, except for Croatian Defence Council as I'm not sure how to proceed there. Their official name is in Croatian, and it is normally translated in BE spelling. Would it be better to change it to US or keep it as is. As a possible guidance for me here, would a non-US text change Israel Defense Force to Israel Defence Force? Of course I'll scan the text for other similar inconsistencies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes section there appears to be an inconsistent style in presenting accessdates: e.g. Note # 18 "January 17, 2011", but Note # 21 "Retrieved 2010-02-07". There are many examples of this;
- Done GregorB already pointed out varying date formats, but I neglected the notes. Now they should be uniform, as I think I got them all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g "Anatomy of deceit: an American physician's first-hand encounter with the realities of the war in Croatia" should be "Anatomy of Deceit: An American Physician's First-hand Encounter with the Realities of the War in Croatia" (there are other examples also);
- Done per suggestion. If I understood WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles correctly that does not apply to non-English titles, or am I wrong?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are correct. I don't think it applies to non-English titles. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done per suggestion. If I understood WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles correctly that does not apply to non-English titles, or am I wrong?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References section, the date ranges in the titles should have endashes per WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, I'll fix those as soon as possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I could see your changes look quite good. I'm still having serious trouble fully loading the article (it might be because of its size, or that my computer was built in the Stone Age), so I haven't been able to review the sources, check the image licences and fully read the paragraphs, sorry. I'll see if another reviewer might be able to do this, by leaving a note on the project talk page. One other suggestion that I have is for alt text to be added to the images. Guidance can be found here: WP:ALT. I'll try to come back to this article tomorrow and hopefully by then my connection will have improved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and thanks for the invite for other MILHIST contributors. I definitely plan to place alt text where suitable fairly shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I could see your changes look quite good. I'm still having serious trouble fully loading the article (it might be because of its size, or that my computer was built in the Stone Age), so I haven't been able to review the sources, check the image licences and fully read the paragraphs, sorry. I'll see if another reviewer might be able to do this, by leaving a note on the project talk page. One other suggestion that I have is for alt text to be added to the images. Guidance can be found here: WP:ALT. I'll try to come back to this article tomorrow and hopefully by then my connection will have improved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments: Sorry, my internet connection is still struggling with this article (it is taking about 20 minutes to load the page and editting is almost impossible for me). I can't comment on the content really, as I have no knowledge of it, so I am focusing mainly on prose. From what I can see there is a bit of work required in this area before it could be passed as an A-class article, but that is not necessarily to say that it can't make it in the time period allocated (it will be due for closure on 11 February, so there is a bit of time). I will list a few examples from the Military forces section as I see them. If you can work on these now, and then go through the article again looking for similar issues, it might help tighten the prose:
- I'll try to find some of those myself, but just to be on the safe side, I asked a WP:GOCE copyeditor (User:Diannaa) to help with this issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Serbian forces subsection, this sentence is not grammatically correct: "The JNA was initially formed during World War II to carry out guerrilla warfare against Axis powers occupation." (perhaps: "to carry out guerrilla warfare against occupying Axis forces");
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Serbian forces subsection, there is a typo in this sentence: "However, by 1991, majority of this equipment was over 30 years old: it consisted substantially out of T-54/55 tank and the MiG-21 aircraft." (perhaps try "However, by 1991, the majority of this equipment was 30 years old, as the force consisted primarily of T-54/55 tanks and MiG-21 aircraft");
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Serbian forces subsection, this is not grammatically correct: "such as Soko G-4 Super Galeb and most notably Soko J-22 Orao whose armaments included AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles". Perhaps try: "such as the Soko G-4 Super Galeb and, most notably, the Soko J-22 Orao, whose armament included AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles";
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a missing word here: "new conscripts proved ineffective fighting force". Try: "the new conscripts proved an ineffective fighting force";
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this needs tweaking: "Thus paramilitary units like White Eagles, Serbian Guard, Dušan Silni or Serb Volunteer Guard, that committed numerous massacres against Croat and other non-Serbs civilians, became increasingly relied upon by the Yugoslav and Serb forces". Perhaps try: "Thus paramilitary units like the White Eagles, Serbian Guard, Dušan Silni or the Serb Volunteer Guard, which committed a number of massacres against Croat and other non-Serb civilians, were increasingly used by the Yugoslav and Serb forces";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest wikilinking "officers" to Officer (armed forces) on first mention;
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Croatian forces subsection, "By contrast to that force, Croatian military was in a much worse state." Perhaps try: "In contrast to the Serbs, the Croatian military was in a much worse state";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Croatian forces subsection, "At the early stages of the war, lack of military..." This should be: "In the early stages of the war, the lack of military...";
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Croatian forces subsection, this sentence is quite confused and probably needs to be broken up somehow (not sure myself, sorry): "At the early stages of the war, lack of military units meant that the Croatian Police force would take the brunt of fighting—eventually the police would form the core of the new armed force—initially named "Croatian National Guard" (Croatian: Zbor narodne garde), later "Croatian Army" (Croatian: Hrvatska vojska)—that was formed on April 11, 1991, but not really developed until 1993";
- Done I gave it a go, how about this setup?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "WW2" this abbreviation is a bit informal, it is probably best just to say "World War II";
- Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this needs tweaking: "Weaponry was always lacking and many units were formed either unarmed or with WW2-era rifles. The Croatian Army had just a handful of tanks (even older WW2 veterans like the T-34) and its air-force was even worse: a few old Antonov An-2 biplane crop-dusters were converted to drop makeshift bombs." Perhaps try: "Weaponry was in short supply and many units were formed either unarmed or with obsolete World War II-era rifles. In terms of armor, the Croatian Army had only a handful of tanks, including World War II surplus vehicles such as the T-34, and its air force was in an even worse state, consisting of only a few Antonov An-2 biplane crop-dusters that had been converted to drop makeshift bombs";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this needs tweaking: "However, since the soldiers were defending their homeland and their families the army was exceptionally motivated, and was formed into local fighting units—so people from a village would defend their own village—which meant they were fairly effective in their home grounds." Perhaps try: "However, since the soldiers were defending their homeland and their families, the army was very motivated and was formed into local fighting units. Fighting in their local area, they proved quiet effective";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In August 1991, the Croatian Army had fewer than 20 brigades, which would grow to 60 brigades and 37 independent battalions by the end of the year through general mobilization which was initiated in October". Perhaps try: "In August 1991, the Croatian Army had fewer than 20 brigades. General mobilization was instituted in October, though, and subsequently the size of the army grew 60 brigades and 37 independent battalions by the end of the year";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a missing word, capitalisation and flow issue issue here: "Seizing of JNA's barracks in the Battle of the barracks would alleviate the problem of equipment shortage." Perhaps: "The seizure of the JNA's barracks between September and December helped to alleviate the Croatians' equipment shortage and allowed them to recapture most of the weaponry that the JNA had confiscated from the Croatian TO depots in 1990. A significant number of heavy weapons were also captured, along with the 32nd JNA Corps' entire armory";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a missing word here: "By 1995, balance of power significantly changed. Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina combined were estimated to be capable of fielding at most 130,000 troops. " Perhaps "By 1995, the balance of power had shifted significantly. Combined, Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were capable of fielding an estimated 130,000 troops";
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a missing word here as well as a punctuation issue: "On the other hand, Croatian Army, Croatian Defence Council (Croatian: Hrvatsko vijeće obrane) (HVO) and Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina could field a combined force of 250,000 soldiers. In addition the three forces commanded a total of 570 tanks." Perhaps try: "On the other hand, the Croatian Army, Croatian Defence Council (Croatian: Hrvatsko vijeće obrane) (HVO) and the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could field a combined force of 250,000 soldiers. In addition the three forces commanded a total of 570 tanks". AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment - the article is really long. My internet connection is relatively fast, and it still takes about 20–30 seconds to load. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting... The article is long, but it's a matter of seconds for me, on an average connection (2 Mbit/s), tried with Firefox 3, Chrome, and MSIE 8. It is only slow in MSIE 6. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still having troubles loading the article (I've tried both Firefox and IE). It took me ten minutes to load this morning, and then five to save one edit. This is making it very difficult for me to review the article, unfortunately. From what I can tell, though, Diannaa is doing an excellent job copyediting the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's too bad. There might still be a possibility to read it offline, by saving it as MHT first (MSIE only), or by downloading it as PDF. Printing to PDF is also a good idea, if you have that option. You might want to wait for Diannaa to finish her run first. GregorB (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still having troubles loading the article (I've tried both Firefox and IE). It took me ten minutes to load this morning, and then five to save one edit. This is making it very difficult for me to review the article, unfortunately. From what I can tell, though, Diannaa is doing an excellent job copyediting the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting... The article is long, but it's a matter of seconds for me, on an average connection (2 Mbit/s), tried with Firefox 3, Chrome, and MSIE 8. It is only slow in MSIE 6. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral (neither support or oppose): this A-class review will be due for closing by an uninvolved co-ordinator in about 24 hours time (they have a 28 day limit). At that point the decision about whether it can be promoted to A-class or not will be made. I believe that a lot of excellent work has been done on this article, however, as I have been unable to check all the sources and read the article fully due to connection issues (downloading the pdf copy crashed my machine this afternoon), unfortunately I am unable to support its promotion to A-class at this time. However, I will not oppose either, though, for as I said, I believe a lot of work has gone into the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, thanks for the effort. The article has been significantly improved, and your help is welcome in the future. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote EyeSerenetalk 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I hope to raise the profile of this obscure engagement during a peripheral campaign in World War 1. The article seeks to give a balanced description of the operations and has been substantially rewritten, edited, copy edited and reworked and now its hoped may meet the criteria for A class. Rskp (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A1, clear and good within the limits of citation style which is a template maintainer problem I have some concerns, I'll raise them before doing a minute citation check. I would like to invite other editor's opinions on the appropriate use of PRIMARY sources, and whether this article's use of archival materials is appropriate. My supposition is that it is okay here as the use is limited, apposite, simple and occasionally doubly supported. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation of archival material, for example, ""Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train War Diary". Canberra: Australian War Memorial. October - November 1917." is "Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train. War Diary. [archive]. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, First World War Diaries - AWM4, Sub-class 25/20: AWM4 25/20/5 (PDF facsimile of manuscript and typescript). October - November 1917." As: The object has a corporate Author. The object has a Title, but is unpublished, quotation marks indicate that the object is a subsection of a published work (generally), italics indicate the object is a work published under that title. The object is an unfamiliar object (archive). The archive has a holding location, holding authority, location within archive and file number. And, as the object was not the archive sighted but a PDF facsimile of the archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Fifelfoo, I've had a crack at this for Rskp, but I don't think I've got it exactly right. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it still needs work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am banging my head against the floor and want to cry because of the idiocy of hard coded " " and '' ''s in the citation templates. It looks like I have to write yet another citation template. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, mate. Thanks for taking a look so quickly. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AustralianRupert's solution is pretty good. However, there are two problems. One is that the "Title" is in quotation marks. I have surveyed Citation/core and this is not fixable by users. You'll have to wait until March or April when I get coding time to produce a "Citation" style template that can handle "non-published works" like archives, reports, tech reports, theses, ephemera, etc. In the mean time the other problem can be solved by Italicising |work=s within templates. This makes the "work" appear _unitalicised_ as is correct for unpublished works. I'm implementing this on Battle of Mughar Ridge. Obviously my peer editors believe that the use of archival material here is reasonable, supported by secondary material, and not-original research [this was my broad feeling: archival material was acting as "illustrative" and not "substantiation" material]. Implementing fix now. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help with this. I think that so long as they are not overused and so long as secondary resources are used to support them, then it should be okay. That's just my opinion, though, and others may disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AustralianRupert's solution is pretty good. However, there are two problems. One is that the "Title" is in quotation marks. I have surveyed Citation/core and this is not fixable by users. You'll have to wait until March or April when I get coding time to produce a "Citation" style template that can handle "non-published works" like archives, reports, tech reports, theses, ephemera, etc. In the mean time the other problem can be solved by Italicising |work=s within templates. This makes the "work" appear _unitalicised_ as is correct for unpublished works. I'm implementing this on Battle of Mughar Ridge. Obviously my peer editors believe that the use of archival material here is reasonable, supported by secondary material, and not-original research [this was my broad feeling: archival material was acting as "illustrative" and not "substantiation" material]. Implementing fix now. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, mate. Thanks for taking a look so quickly. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am banging my head against the floor and want to cry because of the idiocy of hard coded " " and '' ''s in the citation templates. It looks like I have to write yet another citation template. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Fifelfoo, I've had a crack at this for Rskp, but I don't think I've got it exactly right. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it still needs work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation of archival material, for example, ""Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train War Diary". Canberra: Australian War Memorial. October - November 1917." is "Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train. War Diary. [archive]. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, First World War Diaries - AWM4, Sub-class 25/20: AWM4 25/20/5 (PDF facsimile of manuscript and typescript). October - November 1917." As: The object has a corporate Author. The object has a Title, but is unpublished, quotation marks indicate that the object is a subsection of a published work (generally), italics indicate the object is a work published under that title. The object is an unfamiliar object (archive). The archive has a holding location, holding authority, location within archive and file number. And, as the object was not the archive sighted but a PDF facsimile of the archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In the info box Belligerents section Australia and New Zealand were part of the British Empire. Either only have the empire or add Great Britain, Aus, NZ without the B/Empire link.
- In the Commanders and leaders section there should only be Allenby listed on the allied side. Same with the Germans the senior commander only should be listed.
- The lede is well referenced but normally we only reference points not covered in the body of the article, for easier reading and to draw readers in.
- Not sure what to do about these. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also link Gaza and Beersheba on the first use not second, Hebron could also be linked in the same paragraph.
- I have fixed this, I believe. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He ordered a successful attack by the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division to he ordered an attack, I doubt however much he wanted it that he order them to be successful.
- I have removed the word "successful". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the 156th Royal Scots the brigade or the battalion. I know they did not form 156 battalions but its not clear
- I have fixed this.--Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems weighted and possible POV towards the allied side. Here some Ottoman soldiers occupied a strong position on high ground north west of the village. The brigade made a dismounted attack capturing 600 prisoners along with large amounts of supplies, war material, and an abandoned German field hospital. Was this without any loss top the attacking brigade? and again later on At about 1200 the first water was found at El Mejdel when it was occupied with little difficulty by the 1st Light Horse Brigade. They capturing 170 prisoners Also should that be they captured ?
- If there were losses figures were not given.--Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They advanced 16 miles (26 km) (as the crow flies) as the crow flies is not needed.
- Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added info to provide context. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 5th Yeomanry Mounted Brigade should be linked even if a red link. and is it the same unit mentioned three lines down 5th Mounted Brigade ?
- Fixed this.--Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The field ambulance set up a dressing station and treated about 40 wounded - Wounded men, horses ?
- Clarified as "men". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Field ambulances don't treat horses - they go to the Mobile Veterinary Sections. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Anzac Mounted Division followed the infantry brigade - which infantry brigade
- The same one mentioned in the previous sentence. I was trying to avoid unnecessary repetition. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3000 yards could use the convert template
- Added the template. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use .5 mile instead of 1⁄2 miles (0.80 km) and the same later on high ridge 1 and 1⁄2 miles (1.6 km) north as the fractions do not format right.
- Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2/3rd Gurkhas can be linked 3rd Gurkha Rifles on the first use.
- Added the wikilink. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 156th Royal Scots Battalion - which battalion from the brigade its not clear and again later when the remnants are mentioned.
- Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New Zealanders captured great numbers of machine guns (some with prismatic sights) and 2 Lewis guns. Lewis guns can be linked but they are also machine guns. So they captured machine guns and machine guns
- They captured 2 British Lewis guns in addition to the German/Ottoman machine guns. I have fixed the syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Access dates can be added to the web links in the bibliography
- The external link Estate remembers cavalry action 11 Nov 2007 is already used in the references.
- Removed the external link. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good start but I think it need a better copy edit and if it had had a peer review and GA review. I think it would be a lot closer to A Class standard. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I have made a significant number of edits to this article, so I recuse myself from supporting or opposing the promotion of this article to A-class. However, I do have a number of suggestions/comments that I would like to add to aid in this article's development:
- Without wanting to discourage you (I think you've done a lot of excellent work here), I also think it might have been best to put the article up for a peer review and then maybe going through a GAN before coming here to ACR (A-class is theoretically a higher rating than GA), but nevertheless hopefully, and with a bit of work, it can be successful and if not, the review should help it at least eventually be successful at GAN;
- I've made a few edits today, some of which I believe may have addressed some of Jim's comments, so please work through his list to fix the issues I've not been able to address;
- I'm not sure, but I think that the article could possibly benefit from having a small Background section (this could be placed above the Prelude). This could discuss what the general situation in the campaign at the time was. For instance, in the first paragraph of the Prelude we hear that the Ottoman Army was able to withdraw in good order but we don't know why they had to do so. A Background section would provide this answer by placing this battle within the context of the entire campaign. A good example of an A-class article with a Background section is: Battle of Kaiapit. If you take a look at this, it might help give you some more ideas;
- Watch the use of superlatives, for example in this sentence: "Despite these difficulties the Ottoman Army successfully carried out an extremely difficult retreat to establish a new defensive position on an extremely well chosen position" (also watch repetition, e.g. "extremely" is used a number of times);
- Thanks. Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another example of repetition: "After encountering rough mountainous ravines and 6 miles (9.7 km) of very rough going they camped in a wadi bed at about 2400" (the repeated use of the word "rough" is the issue here);
- Yes, thanks. Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "XXth Corps", "XXIInd" and "XXIst" - are these correctly presented? I don't think it is normal to use ordinal suffixes ("th", "nd" and "st") for Roman numerals;
- Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "(Wadi Jamus?)" - why is the question mark here? I'm not sure that it is good practice to present unknown information like this;
- The original source refers to Wadi by the village name. Its the only one that does hence the question mark. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be best to place this in a footnote, rather than displaying it in the prose as it looks a little unprofessional, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The original source refers to Wadi by the village name. Its the only one that does hence the question mark. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of sentences begin with "And", this is not ideal as it is a conjunction. For example, "And the Yeomanry Mounted Division were to push on from Huj and come into line on the right of the Australian Mounted Division";
- Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are still seven sentences that begin with "And". I strongly advise trying to find a way to reword these if possible. It is your call, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "And railhead was pushed forward as rapidly as possible, but did not reach Deir Suneid until 28 November. So it was a considerable distance over which the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps worked to bring up supplies"; The issue here is that these two sentences begin with "and" and "so". These are conjunctions and are usually used to join clauses, rather than start sentences.
- Addressed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is inconsistency in the presentation of figures, e.g. "two infantry divisions of XXIst Corps and 3 mounted divisions" (two and 3 are different). Per WP:MOSNUM usually numbers below 10 should be presented in words (except when measurements, e.g. "3 mm"), while those below 10 should be presented in words (e.g. four monkeys but 11 gorillas);
- Addressed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "20,000 strong". I think that this should be: "20,000-strong";
- Not sure what to do here? --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the hyphen. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "reconnaissances" - I think this should just be "reconnaissance", I don't think it has a plural;
- It is plural. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right. My mistake, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the units, I think there should be a definate article in front of the designation, e.g. "the 4th Light Horse Brigade" rather than just "4th Light Horse Brigade";
- Addressed some. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "GOC" - you need to formally introduce an abbreviation before using it, as many readers will not know what this means;
- Link included. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "well sited"? I think that this should be: "well-sited";
- Not sure what to do here. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the hyphen. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1 company officer and about 100 men": what's a company officer and how does it differ from a normal officer? (Is there a need to say "company officer"?);
- Falls refers to a 'company officer.' --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No dramas, it probably just means an officer of major rank or below. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the placing of commas, and be careful to use paired commas where they are required (I have fixed a number of them, but my eyes are getting tired). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Am continuing the campaign against commas. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Is there an image that better represents the fighting at Mughar Ridge than the one used in the infobox (currently a memorial to NZ soldiers)?- I agree the photo of Ayun Kara is not ideal - I have looked quite extensively through AWM but this series of engagements is quite obscure. I've searched most of the locations in the AWM without success and the Library of Congress Palestine photos were taken too early for this conflict. Even the artillery photo included in the article is identified as being taken some time later in the Judean Hills. --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the photo of Ayun Kara is not ideal - I have looked quite extensively through AWM but this series of engagements is quite obscure. I've searched most of the locations in the AWM without success and the Library of Congress Palestine photos were taken too early for this conflict. Even the artillery photo included in the article is identified as being taken some time later in the Judean Hills. --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"officially known as the Action of El Mughar" by whom? I'm assuming the Battles Nomenclature Committee Report 1922 (i.e. the British)? What was it called by the Turks and the Germans? Even if this isn't available I really think this needs to be reworded because the language could be mistaken for POV;- Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally ranks should not be used in the info box (i.e. Lieutenant General Chauvel should be Harry Chauvel) etc;- Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timings need to be reformated per WP:MOSTIME, specifically 2230 needs to be changed to 22:30 etc;- Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some attention needs to be given to the captions for the images as some have irregular capitalisation and incorrect punctuation (for instance: "Counter Attack & Capture of Junction Station 12–14 November 1917" which probably should be something like: "Counter attack and capture of Junction Station, 12–14 November 1917"; and- Done. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you need to use full names in the infobox for consistency. Currently you use full names for the German and Ottoman commanders (e.g. Fevsi Pasha) and but then don't do so for the British commanders (e.g. E. Allenby);- Fixed this myself. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC) [Thank you. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of instances where you combine and wikilink a rank and a name (e.g. [[General Allenby]]), this is contrary to the MOS and should be [[General]] [[Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby|Edmun Allenby]] (other examples include: Lieutenant General Chauvel and Major General Smith);
- Addressed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise you should always use rank and full name on the first introduction of an individual, then only use their last name (for instance: Lieutenant General Harry Chauvel, then just Chauvel). They are quite a few examples of this, e.g. Major General Barrow,
- Its reasonable in Allenby's case to expect readers to remember he was the GOC EEF but these other commanders are more obscure historical figures. Isn't it expecting a lot from the general reader to remember their ranks / jobs? --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't think so. IMO its also an issue of consistency. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that an opinion or a policy? --Rskp (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy. See WP:SURNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that an opinion or a policy? --Rskp (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't think so. IMO its also an issue of consistency. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its reasonable in Allenby's case to expect readers to remember he was the GOC EEF but these other commanders are more obscure historical figures. Isn't it expecting a lot from the general reader to remember their ranks / jobs? --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major General Hodgson, and General Allenby etc; and
- Addressed. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is still some inconsistency regard figures. Per WP:MOSNUM "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words." As such "3 cavalry troops, 3 guns and about 1,500 infantry" needs to be "three cavalry troops, three guns and about 1,500 infantry" etc (likewise with "1 other rank killed, 1 officer and 9 other ranks wounded").Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Addressed. Thanks for your help. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to all
Thanks a lot for all the feedback. The time you have given this article is very much appreciated. Yes a peer review would have been a good idea but having tried that with another article about a battle in the Sinai campaign which could not find a peer I assumed this one would suffer a similar fate. A copy edit was done but the editor had some difficulties working in this obscure and foreign area.
I have attempted to address all the concerns raised above by directly editing the article and make the following additional comments -
- 6. 'company officer' & 15. identity of 156th Royal Scots' battalion - I don't have the identity of the battalion. The direct quote from Falls p. 152-4 (with my ...s) reads 'The Royal Scots, ... The battalion was, however, reduced to a handful by the time it reached the crest, it had only one company officer left, and it was unable to withstand the counter–attack immediately launched by the enemy.' I've modified this to 'a battalion of Royal etc.'
- I've located a photocopy and corrected this.
- 7. Whatever casualties there were have not been stated in the sources I've seen.
- 8. Yes I agree crow flies is not good so I've added in a straight line. These infantry soldiers probably walked much further.
- 10. If they had been horses then the 9th Veterinary Section would have been referred to in the previous sentence rather than the 4th Light Horse Field Ambulance.
- 11. The Anzac Mounted Division followed the infantry brigade - which infantry brigade? The infantry brigade mentioned in the previous sentence. I have added this second reference tho I initially thought it would be unnecessary repetition.
- 16. The 2 Lewis guns are mentioned in addition to machine guns with prismatic sights as they were captures which the Ottoman units were employing during the fighting. I've cut 'and' adding 'including'.
- "(Wadi Jamus?)" - why is the question mark here? This is the only reference in all the reading done regarding these operations to Wadi Katrah. Given the context I can only assume that the source meant Wadi Jamus but cannot be positive.
- "reconnaissances" does refer to multiple reconnaissances by both cavalry and planes.
- regarding the superlative 'extremely' I have changed one to extensive and the others are used in contexts which I understand to have been extreme.
- the inordinate amount of sentences beginning with 'And' have been cut except 'And the Yeomanry' because I think its necessary there.
- regarding GOC I've added a link to General Officer Commanding
- I agree the photo of Ayun Kara is not ideal - I have looked quite extensively through AWM but this series of engagements is quite obscure. I've searched most of the locations in the AWM without success and the Library of Congress Palestine photos were taken too early for this conflict. Even the artillery photo included in the article is identified as being taken some time later in the Judean Hills.
- Regarding the roman numerals can you tell me where I can check what the policy is? Many thanks to all --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there is a wiki policy on it, but in my experience I've never seen a source use ordinal suffixes for Roman numerals when presenting unit names. For instance, our own articles: I ANZAC Corps, II ANZAC Corps, XXX Corps (United Kingdom), etc. Do your sources use these suffixes? If so, then that is fine; if they don't then I think you should remove them. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that - Falls doesn't so I'll get rid of them. --Rskp (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Anotherclown
Yes, that's right Anotherclown I edited those areas of the article on 12 January which you suggested and which you ticked yesterday. The consistency you are looking for in the names is not always possible e.g. Hodgson. Do you know his full name? Alternatively, the names of the Ottoman and German commanders are even more difficult; which are surnames, which first names and which are honorifics? Thanks a lot for your suggestions - I value your interest. --Rskp (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but there are still a large number of instances where we do know their full names (as they are wikilinked) so this needs to be rectified. I have made a couple of edits to hopefully show you what I mean. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodgson = Major General Sir Henry W. Hodgson, KCMG, CB, CVO (born 29 June 1868, died 5 February 1930) - British Army see Gullett p 255. Are there any others I might be able to assist with? Anotherclown (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. I've searched everywhere for that - might have known Gullett would have it. --Rskp (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodgson = Major General Sir Henry W. Hodgson, KCMG, CB, CVO (born 29 June 1868, died 5 February 1930) - British Army see Gullett p 255. Are there any others I might be able to assist with? Anotherclown (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but there are still a large number of instances where we do know their full names (as they are wikilinked) so this needs to be rectified. I have made a couple of edits to hopefully show you what I mean. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your point about the inconsistent numbers. MOS states an exception to writing out numbers from 0 to 9: 'Do not use spelled-out numbers before symbols for units of measurement' So does this mean either '1 officer' and '3 brigades' is correct? --Rskp (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No its incorrect as neither an officer or a brigade are units of measurement IMO. This needs to be changed to "one officer" and "three brigades". Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Will fix the numbers according to your advice. :) --Rskp (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No its incorrect as neither an officer or a brigade are units of measurement IMO. This needs to be changed to "one officer" and "three brigades". Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text
At the moment these alternative descriptions are not informative. How can they be improved? --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rskp, I've provided an example alt text description for the main infobox image. I'm not the best at alt text myself, but basically you are describing what is there for sight impaired viewers or those using hand held devices. If you want to have a crack at adding alt text to some of the other images, I will come through and take a look and, if possible, make some suggestions. You can view the alt text descriptions for the article here: [34], using the Featured article tools. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, again. Good work so far, but please remember that Alt text should describe what is in the image. For instance currently the alt text for the image of the Hong Kong Battery say this: "This photo was actually taken when the battery was fighting in the Judean Hills a week or so later". That is not adequate as a sight impaired user will have no idea what the image is showing. Something like this might be more appropriate: "A battery of four artillery guns sited along a ridge line". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies Just noticed a brigade name has been edited so that its referred to in two completely different ways e.g. '156th Brigade' and 'Royal Scots.' These edits do not help improve the article. What can be done to protect the article while this review process continues? --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I believe that articles can only be protected in exceptional circumstances. If you do not agree with an edit, it is best to discuss it with the editor who made it. They can then explain their reasoning and then you and they can work out whether it should be changed or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue resolves on personal talk pages. Thanks. :)
Further comments
Overall this article has progressed significantlly and it is quite good in my opinion. Most of the MOS issues appear to have been resolved, however I think there are still a number a number of issues which need to be rectified (particularly with prose). Some issues that I can see include:
- This sentence doesn't work for me: "The Battle of El Mughar Ridge (officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar) took place on 13 November 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War." You might consider moving this phrase to the aftermath and removing it from the lead altogether as it seems clumsy to me (but relevant if included correctly): "officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar";
- Addressed --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure the current wording works. To be honest I would remove the "Officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar" phrase from the lead altogether. Ultimately what does it do? There is very little difference between 'Action of El Mughar' and 'Battle of Mughar Ridge', as I said above I would just include it in the aftermath. If you do decide to keep it in the lead however (which I agree could still work) you might consider the following (more simple) construction: "The Battle of El Mughar Ridge, also known as the Action of El Mughar, took place on 13 November 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War." The key here is explaining (later in the body - likely the aftermath) that it was officially known by this name to the British). I accept my previous advice on this issue may have been confusing. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead seems a little slanted towards the British Empire forces, specifically "involved the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division and the 75th Infantry Division in the centre, with the Australian Mounted Division on their right flank and the Australian and New Zealand (Anzac) and Yeomanry Mounted Divisions on the infantry's left flank." What of the Ottoman forces?
- Addressed --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could units, strengths and casualties be added to the infobox? Will do --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its proving to be a problem because sources focus on the cavalry charge. Only giving the strengths and casualties of the regiments would be misleading, in view of all the related engagements grouped here. The 10,000 Ottoman prisoners quoted in the last sentence comes from Carver who tends to paint with a broad brush and are more likely to refer to the whole campaign from 31 October to 9 December; from Beersheba to Jerusalem though he does give the figure before going on to describe the Judean Hills fighting. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "at Hareira and Sheria on the maritime plain", what is the maritime plain?
- Its the flatish land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Judean Hills - isn't the meaning of 'maritime plain' fairly obvious? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it needs to be clarified. IMO if I had to ask you what it meant other readers would be unsure also. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the flatish land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Judean Hills - isn't the meaning of 'maritime plain' fairly obvious? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be an overuse of the word 'this' (often 'this' might simply be reworded as 'the' IMO);
- I'll look into this --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems grammatically incorrect to me: "During the Australian Mounted Division's night march the 3rd Light Horse Brigade with an artillery battery attached, acted as advance guard, followed by the 5th Mounted Brigade (which had made the costly but successful charge at Huj the day before) with the 4th Light Horse Brigade as rear guard." Probably just needs a comma, perhaps "During the Australian Mounted Division's night march the 3rd Light Horse Brigade, with an artillery battery attached, acted as advance guard, followed by the 5th Mounted Brigade (which had made the costly but successful charge at Huj the day before) with the 4th Light Horse Brigade as rear guard."
- Added a new sentence. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although its probably not incorrect, I don't think this works: ".25 miles (0.40 km)".
Specifically I think miles and kms are not the right units to use here, perhaps yards and metres?
- I've changed this to 440 yards/400 metres. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this looks wrong - it may be correct but I think the original fractions of a mile with the kilometre equivalents were more meaningful. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? IMO it looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this looks wrong - it may be correct but I think the original fractions of a mile with the kilometre equivalents were more meaningful. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Air planes" should probably be reworded to "aircraft", seems more encyclopeadic to me at least;
- Agree, will do.--Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "halting till dawn and then" seems informal, perhaps "halting till dawn and then"
- What's the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I meant "halting until dawn and then". Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed this to: "halted until dawn and then" and split the sentence into two. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find "halted" my find mode seems to be having a melt down. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I meant "halting until dawn and then". Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it - seems ok. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "five burnt aeroplanes were captured", inconsistent language, specifically 'aeroplanes' which you previously called "Air planes". IMO you might consider rewording to "aircraft";
- Will use aircraft. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ".5 miles (0.80 km)", again I would consider using smaller units of measurement;
- These have already been changed from fractions at your suggestion. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 870 yards (800 m). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- what are "night battle outpost lines", might they just be "outposts"?;
- I suggest not. Outpost lines during daylight would be different to those set out at night because of the difference in conditions. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I didn't make my point clear. "night battle outpost lines" is IMO an unnecessarily specific term which makes the sentence complicated. It is already clear that it is night ("but owing to darkness at 17:15...") As such you could easily simplify this to just "outposts" or "outpost lines". Of course night defensive routine would have differed to that during daylight, but that isn't the issue. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest not. Outpost lines during daylight would be different to those set out at night because of the difference in conditions. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Navy", which navy?
- Probably the British as there has not been any mention of Ottoman or German navies but not sure. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it would be the Royal Navy. As such the current wording is imprecise and needs to amended. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the British as there has not been any mention of Ottoman or German navies but not sure. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the time a battalion of the 156th Brigade", maybe "By the time one of the battalions of the 156th Brigade" instead?;
- What is the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO it is less imprecise. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The approach of the 8th Ottoman Army's whole", should this be "Ottoman 8th Army's"?;
- Yes. Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Punctuation seems problematic here: "During the first phase of the attack by XXI Corps' 75th Infantry Division was to capture" Specifically there probably needs to be a comma between XXI Corps and 75th Infantry Division, and the apostrophe seems incorrect to me (ie. "XXI Corps'" should probably be just "XXI Corps"). That said perhaps I have misinterpreted the sentence, in which case it might be reworded: "During the first phase of the attack by XXI Corps' 75th Infantry Division, the division was to capture...";
- Can't find "during the first". Something wrong with the query function? Can you give me another clue where you are talking about? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Finder now working. Yes agree - fixed. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find "during the first". Something wrong with the query function? Can you give me another clue where you are talking about? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "At about 11:30 two leading battalions of 155th Brigade", should this be "At about 11:30 the two leading battalions of 155th Brigade..."
- Is there any great difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less imprecise. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any great difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This still seems like a problem to me: "Wadi Katrah (Wadi Jamus?)" (unless thats what the source actually says). At the least I would include the issue as a footnote rather than using "(Wadi Jamus?)." and
- Yes, I'll put it in a note. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a good start. A citation needs to be included in the footnote however. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'll put it in a note. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'Action of Ayun Kara' seems like its almost worthy of a new article. Indeed it seems to be covered in too much detail for the aftermath section of a battle article IMO. You might considered spliting it out into a seperate article and just leaving a summary in this article (and indicating its relationship to the battle of Mughar Ridge).
- But it was an integral part of the Mughar Ridge battles - it was probably if anything a smaller action than the battles on the days prior to Mughar Ridge; its just I don't have that much detail about them. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be more important than the subject of the article itself? Regardless, if it actually was a part of the Mughar Ridge battles then the detail should be included in the 'Battle' section and not the 'Aftermath'. This would of course require the Aftermath to be amended somewhat but might work as an alternative structre for the article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was an integral part of the Mughar Ridge battles - it was probably if anything a smaller action than the battles on the days prior to Mughar Ridge; its just I don't have that much detail about them. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other issues include:
- Citations really shouldn't be included in the lead, as it should just summarise the contents of the article (and as such the content should already be referenced in the body), see WP:LEAD. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Prelude section is very large and dominates the article, you might consider splitting it up into two sections: 'Background' and 'Prelude' per WP:MILMOS/C. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ALT text is not really up to standard. I accept that this is difficult to get right and I am no expert at it, so you should refer to WP:ALT to get some ideas. This description of yours is an example: "Palestine 1917 3/3rd Gurkha Rifles in front line trenches" The problem here is that you are not describing the image itself. In reality you have just written a seperate caption.Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Hi, Rskp, I've had another go at the alt text for a couple of the photos. Feel free to tweak as you see fit. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes both the changes by AR and Rskp are much better. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept these are a lot of points given that the ACR only has a few days left to run, and I apologise for not finding the time to bring them up earlier. If you have any questions though please let me know. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Anotherclown. Your comments didn't appear on my watchlist for some reason. I'll get to them asap. What is the ACR and why and when does it finish? --Rskp (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Rskp. ACR stands for A-Class Review, which is the review that the article is currently undergoing. The general rule is that each review should run for 28 days and then be closed by one of the project co-ordinators as either successful or unsuccessful depending upon the concensus established by the reviewers. A successful review will lead to an article being rated as "A-class", while an unsuccessful review will just mean that the article stays at its previous rating (it can then be re-nominated once issues have been fixed at a later date (there is no time limit, or minimum), if the nominator wishes). For a review to be considered as successful, the rule is that it requires at least three explicit votes of "support" (which can sometimes be difficult due to a shortage of uninvolved editors). This review will be due for closing on or after 7 February (although sometimes it may take a few days for a review to actually be closed after it has "expired", due to the shortage of available co-ordinators. Additionally, sometimes if a review is close to being successful, it might be left open for a few extra days). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks AustralianRupert. Looks like there are three reviewers - ah but you have recused yourself! Still, its a lot better than 0 for the Magdhaba. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No dramas, unfortunately as I have over 100 edits on this article it would be a conflict of interest for me to support its promotion. BTW, I've just had a quick look at the article again and it looks like there is some html code error in the "Action of Ayun Kara" section. I'm not quite sure what your intention with the image caption is, so I've left it alone, but currently the code is showing in the article, which it shouldn't be doing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the mark up error now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No dramas, unfortunately as I have over 100 edits on this article it would be a conflict of interest for me to support its promotion. BTW, I've just had a quick look at the article again and it looks like there is some html code error in the "Action of Ayun Kara" section. I'm not quite sure what your intention with the image caption is, so I've left it alone, but currently the code is showing in the article, which it shouldn't be doing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks AustralianRupert. Looks like there are three reviewers - ah but you have recused yourself! Still, its a lot better than 0 for the Magdhaba. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Rskp. ACR stands for A-Class Review, which is the review that the article is currently undergoing. The general rule is that each review should run for 28 days and then be closed by one of the project co-ordinators as either successful or unsuccessful depending upon the concensus established by the reviewers. A successful review will lead to an article being rated as "A-class", while an unsuccessful review will just mean that the article stays at its previous rating (it can then be re-nominated once issues have been fixed at a later date (there is no time limit, or minimum), if the nominator wishes). For a review to be considered as successful, the rule is that it requires at least three explicit votes of "support" (which can sometimes be difficult due to a shortage of uninvolved editors). This review will be due for closing on or after 7 February (although sometimes it may take a few days for a review to actually be closed after it has "expired", due to the shortage of available co-ordinators. Additionally, sometimes if a review is close to being successful, it might be left open for a few extra days). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know you have made a great many technical edits. Thanks very much. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This review has now run for 28 days, so it is due for closing. An uninvolved co-ordinator will do this soon (it might take a couple of days). Given that it doesn't seem to have gained the three explicit votes of support it will most likely be closed as unsuccessful. I hope this won't discourage you, though. There are probably only a few more issues to iron out before it could be successful at WP:GAN or here. I'd recommend working through the last of Anotherclown's comments after the review is closed and then requesting a peer review. After that you could take it to GAN and once successful there, an ACR shouldn't be too hard to complete successfully. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now - Although there is much to commend this article, which is quite good in my opinion, I don't think it is quite up to A class standard at this stage. There are still a few outstanding issues listed above, particularly with prose, imprecise language, structure and the lead. These will need to be worked through, however I believe they can be resolved in time. If I can be of assistance after this review is closed please contact me on my talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): White Shadows We live in a beautiful world, Parsecboy talk
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article managed to pass a GAN a while back and with the addition of many other sources as well as information on the ship's actions during World War I, such as the bombardment of Ancona, I believe that SMS Radetzky easily passes the A-class criteria. Other ships that contained similar information such as here sister ship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand managed to pass an ACR and eventually go on to become a TFA. Any comments or questions are welcome to either me, or Pasecboy, who managed to bring this article to GA status and agreed to a co-nomination. All the best and Happy New Year,--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passes A1 specific, pretty good, some work needed: Publisher location required for "Miller, Francis Trevelyan (1916)."; publisher location required for "Vego, Milan N. (1996)."; Hore is only cited once, you don't need the title in parens "Hore (Battleships), p. 180" ; DANFS has a title, DANFS has a corporate author, DANFS has a publication location, work in collection-of-works not cited correctly ""Zrinyi". USN Historical Center. Retrieved 8 September 2009." ; n-dashes " – " missing from page ranges in Sokol pp. citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Congrats on the work! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think between the two of us, we fixed the problems you identified. Can you check the DANFS citation again and see if I missed anything? Thanks for checking these. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The DANFS citation looks good to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments This article is in good shape and makes good use of the available references, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
- "SMS Radetzky was the lead ship of the three Radetzky class of pre-dreadnought battleships (Schlachtschiff) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)" is rather awkward (too many 'of the's I think). I'd suggest something like 'SMS Radetzky was the first of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)'s three Radetzky class pre-dreadnought battleships'
- Replaced the initial sentence with your version.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the purpose of including the German translation of 'battleship'? Does 'Schlachtschiff' have a different meaning to 'battleship'? - if not, it should be removed as it's confusing to readers (and why only translate this word?)
- There really is no reason to include it. I've removed the translation.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What was/is the Stabilimento Tecnico? (a shipyard, I presume; this needs to be specified)
- The STT was a shipbuilding company in Trieste that built many of Austria-Hungary's battleships. I've noted that in the test right before the company's name.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling a seven year old vessel "the old battleship" seems unjustified
- She was much older than the newer Dreadnought battleships but I've removed the "the old" part from the sentence.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "both ships were also laid down at the Stabilimento Tecnico" - why only 'laid down' - were they moved elsewhere during construction?
- I replaced the phrase "laid down" with "constructed" as the ships were built entirely at Trieste.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "By 1913, the new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class were coming into active service, and so Radetzky and her sisters were shifted to the 2nd Division of the 1st Battle Squadron." - what unit were they in before this change (the 1st Division I assume), and did it signify anything other than a redesignation? (eg, did the ships' role change?)
- I added that they were in the 1st Division beforehand. As for any role changes...well, it World War I did not start when it did (less than a year after the Division change) then the ships of the Radetzky class would have been given lesser roles in the fleet but they were still new enough to use alongside the newer ship up until World War I. In short, the only role changes that the ships saw, did not take place until after the Bombardment of Ancona in World War I.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the outbreak of World War I in the summer of 1914" - terms like 'the summer' shouldn't be used as dates per WP:MOS#Longer periods
- Replaced to say August 1914. If you want, I could remove the date and make it simply 1914.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third sentence of the para which begins with 'On 23 May 1915' contradicts the second sentence (Montenegro wasn't part of Italy)
- Added Montenegrin coast as well in the first sentence of that paragraph.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of detail on the raid against Ancona seems excessive given that this ship played a (important) supporting role, and didn't bombard the raid's primary targets
- Removed parts that do not deal with Radetzky herself.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The attack on Ancona was an immense success, as the Austro-Hungarian ships were largely unopposed during the entire operation" - only not being shot at much doesn't seem sufficient to earn an "immense success", particularly as its later stated that the raid caused lots of damage. I think that this sentence is out of place as well as it pre-empts the fairly detailed description of the operation's results
- Moved to a better location near the end of the section.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The various Austrian and Italian warships mentioned during the description of the raid should also probably be red linked per WP:REDLINK as they're all notable
- Linked all ships mentioned in the attack.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "63 Italians, both civilians and military personnel alike" - this could be simplified to "63 Italian civilians and military personnel"
- Reworded per your suggestion.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the remainder of the war saw Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the Austro-Hungarian Navy acting as a fleet in being" - why is Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand being given as an example here?
- I'm sorry. That was a major mistake on my part. You see, I took that section of the text from EFF and forgot to remove it. I'm sorry about that and replaced the words with "Radetzky".--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "With his fleet blockaded in the Adriatic Sea, and with a shortage of coal" - one too many 'with' here I think
- replaced the second "with" with the word "facing".--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Haus enacted a strategy based on mines and submarines" - this seems needlessly vague. Could you say something like 'Haus attempted used mines and submarines'?
- Fixed per your suggestion.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "On November 10, 1918, one day before the armistice" - this was actually six days after the armistice between Austria and Italy (the Armistice of Villa Giusti) came into effect
- "However, under the subsequent peace treaty, the Allied powers ignored the transfer of the Austro-Hungarian ships to the Yugoslav navy" is unclear and could be simplified
- How is that unclear? I understand the phrase just fine...--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote 1 needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ Nick, EFF, another FA article, has the exact footnote and no reference was not required for it. If you still insist on a reference for the footnote, I'll just delete it...--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WS, if you're saying that you don't have to cite it because it's a footnote to the lead section and the material is cited where it appears below the lead, that's fine; you might want to tell Nick where it's cited. If you're saying that it's not cited anywhere in the article, please see WP:CHALLENGED. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ Nick, EFF, another FA article, has the exact footnote and no reference was not required for it. If you still insist on a reference for the footnote, I'll just delete it...--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "SMS Radetzky was the lead ship of the three Radetzky class of pre-dreadnought battleships (Schlachtschiff) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)" is rather awkward (too many 'of the's I think). I'd suggest something like 'SMS Radetzky was the first of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)'s three Radetzky class pre-dreadnought battleships'
- Comments
- this is a little repetitive: "they only wanted the Austro-Hungarian fleet to steam only as far" ('only' used twice);
- this seems unclear to me: "one Italian destroyer managed to escape the Austrian but the Turbine was severely damaged" (I'm assuming from the capitalisation and the redlink that 'Turbine' is the name of the Italian ship, but it might be mistaken for a component of the damaged destroyer);
- Per WP:MOSNUM numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out. Hence "63 Italian civilians and military" needs to 'sixty-three'; and
- Punctuation here is also off " 63 Italian civilians and military personnel, were killed in the bombardment" (remove the comma IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Radetzky was the second ship of the class to be laid down..." The usage here is a little off, I think. Normally one would say "her hull was laid down," which refers to the actual laying down of a line of steel plates on the floor of the dock, which go on to become her keel plates. Rumiton (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying a ship is laid down is perfectly fine - though if you want to get technical, the keel is laid, not the hull. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- according to the tools there is one disambig link that should be fixed if possible: [35];
- ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
- not sure about this, but I seem to remember on previous ACRs that it has been said that the name class should be hyphenated, thus "Radetzky class" should be "Radetzky-class" and "Tegetthoff class" should be "Tegetthoff-class". Apologies if I'm wrong about this;
- Yes, we're going with the hyphen if it's in front of a noun (there's more support for that in style guides, but not universal support), but "dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class were" is correct without the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, "In the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye" might sound better as "Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye";
- in the Construction section: "Radetzly was launched on 3 July 1909" (should this be Radetzky?);
- in the World War I section, there is some repetition here: "made clear they only wanted the Austro-Hungarian fleet to steam only as far " (repeat use of the word "only");
- this has been fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the World War I section, "the Turbine" - is this correct, or should it just be "Turbine" (removing the definate article "the");
- I changed "... one Italian destroyer managed to escape the Austrian but the Turbine was severely damaged." to "... but the other, Turbine, ..." (This is the first mention of Turbine.) I changed the second instance of "the Turbine" to "Turbine". - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a mixture of US and British English spelling, for instance in the infobox "Armour", but in the prose "armored";
- in the World War I section, there is some repetition in this sentence: "During the attack on Ancona and the surrounding coastline, Radetzky, as well as the cruisers SMS Admiral Spaun and SMS Helgoland , and the destroyers SMS Orjen, SMS Lika Csepel, and SMS Tátra traveled south to cover the ships bombarding Ancona." (starts with "attack on Ancona" and ends with "bombarding Ancona");
- there is incosistent presentation of "pre-dreadnought" (sometimes lower case, e.g. in Pre-war section; sometime upper case, e.g. in Footnote # 1);
- End of the War section: use of the abbreviation USN without formally introducing it. Some readers will not know that this means United States Navy
- If an article needs to repeat "USN" many times for some reason, the acronym might be okay, but I haven't yet seen that article. "US Navy" isn't oppressive to write out, and everyone understands it. I replaced the one instance of "USN" I found. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- End of the War section: I think that this is incorrectly capitalised, per WP:MOSHEAD it should be "End of the war";
- End of the War section: "Radetzky was broken up in Italy between 1920–1921". I think this should be: "Radetzky was broken up in Italy between 1920 and 1921", per the guidance in WP:ENDASH where it states that ranges using prepositions shouldn't use an endash;
- in the Footnotes section, would it be possible to add a citation to # 1 and add page numbers to # 2?
- in the References section, I think that the title of the Vego work is incorrectly capitalised. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles I think it should be "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904–14";
- per the discussion here, you may need to consider moving the Portal icon to the top of the Notes section if you are wanting to take it to FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: this ACR will be due to be listed for closing in under 48 hours time. Most of my concerns have not been addressed and unfortunately, as such, I feel I must oppose this article's promotion to A-class. If they can be addressed in the allotted time, I would be more than happy to change my vote, though. As such, is anyone in a position to respond to these comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- AR has asked me to offer feedback as I have time. I agree with everything he just said, and I added a few notes. I'm going to wait for a support or two before I copyedit this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- No supporting cites for the armor and crew data in the infobox.
- No bullet lists in the infobox, see [36]
- Link Fermo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed -- no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... A techno-military article about the famous Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons. This article is a top-level one, rich in links to its many sub-articles. Like the project, the article covers many administrative, military and engineering subjects. I hope that the most important sub-articles can one day be lifted to form a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mention the attempts at gaining intellegence on the German nuclear program, but where similar measures taken on the Japanese nuclear program? You mention the Japanese programs existance very breifly but give no further details.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article notes that "It was believed that the Japanese atomic program was not far advanced because Japan had little access to uranium ore" Nothing much was therefore done about it until after the war. The linked article provides the details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but was the Manhatten Project "charged with gathering intelligence" on the Japanese program as well? If not it should be stated as such in the text, it currently does not mention that nothing was done about it only that the program was rudimentary. If it was charged with gathering intellegence on it then further details should be given.XavierGreen (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- No dabs, external links check out, all images have alt text; (no action required)
- Citation checker reveals one error ({{harvnb|Schwartz|1998}} - error was "Multiple references contain the same content")
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb, before Germany or Japan." Maybe "The Manhattan Project was the codename for an Allied project" or something similar (for clarity)?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence is a little repetitive: "Atomic bombs were used in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (atomic twice);
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These two sentences are a little repetitive: "Their calculations indicated that it was within an order of magnitude of ten kilograms, which was small enough to be carried by a bomber of the day. Their March 1940 Frisch–Peierls memorandum resulted in the setting up of the British MAUD Committee, which concluded that..." (both start with 'their'), perhaps reword?
- Re-worded. Also changed "MAUD" to "Maud" as it was a codename, not an abbreviation,
- "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor..." maybe "in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..." for clarity.;
- That would make it less clear, as people at the time believed that Germany was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Changed to "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States on Germany and Japan" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, I had no idea. Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make it less clear, as people at the time believed that Germany was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Changed to "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States on Germany and Japan" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some over linking, e.g. University of California, Berkeley;
- Removed link. This was caused by the fact that the article was not written from top to bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence seems a little clumsy to me: "However, the British did not have United States' manpower or resources and soon fell behind."
- Changed to "However, Britain did not have the manpower or resources of the United States, and despite its early and promising start, the British project soon fell behind its American counterpart." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences are a little repetitive: "Construction was contracted to the M. M. Sundt Company of Tucson, Arizona, with Willard C. Kruger and Associates of Santa Fe, New Mexico as architect and engineer. Construction commenced in December 1942." (both start with 'construction');
- Changed to "work". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence seems like its missing an 'and', "Various physical methods were considered for uranium enrichment, most of these were carried out at Oak Ridge.";
- Changed to "most of which" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammer seems a little off in this sentence: "Work commenced on 9 July 1944 in September, S-50 began partial operation." Maybe just add a semi-colon after 1944?
- Added "and". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this may be a typo: "There were pickled to remove dirt" should it be "They were pickled"?;
- Yes. Changed to " They were pickled to remove dirt and impurities, dipped in molten bronze, tin, and aluminum-silicon alloy, and canned using hydraulic presses and then capped using arc welding under an argon atmosphere." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "retrieved eleven tons of ore from WIFO", IMO this should be "11 tons" per WP:MOSNUM; and
- Done. Glad you understand "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the punctuation may be incorrect here: "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured". Maybe "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured." (missing comma I think).Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comma Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your responses. This is an excellent article IMO and I'm happy to add my support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comma Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A1 comments, mostly good, work required Wow, this is a biggie, good work getting the quality up on this one, it must be a vandalism / kook magnet! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References:
- Watch your terminal full-stops, "Bird, Kai; Sherwin, Martin J. (2005), " has one after the OCLC, for example.
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rhodes, Richard (1986)." and others, "New York, New York" is a wonderful town, but New Haven and other New Yorks lack states. Commonly, major places of publication don't absolutely need their state, unless you're going to give state for all locations.
- For consistency, they all do. Corrected those two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacks a location, "Feynman, Richard P. (1997),"
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch your terminal full-stops, "Bird, Kai; Sherwin, Martin J. (2005), " has one after the OCLC, for example.
- Notes:
- When citing works in an edited work, the individual author and section should be given, even if only in short citations, "Ahnfeldt, Arnold Lorentz, ed. (1966)," ;
- Author, Article title, Italics for Journal as per your style? ""Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, Vol. 25, Nos. 3 and 4, 2002". ornl.gov. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter1.shtml. Retrieved 2010-03-09."
- Full stop before following clause? "Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 108–112 The allusion here is to the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus, who reached the Caribbean in 1492."
- added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link didn't work, Fain deserves a capitalised name, "Ruhoff & fain 1962, pp. 3–9"
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider drawing your multiple author short citation style closer to your long citation style by replacing ", , &" with "; ; ;"?
- They are generated with the harvnb template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: …" bad full stop in citation later on, it is right next to a comma
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schwartz 1998" no page reference given
- It doesn't seem to have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Broken links, "Serber 1943, p. 21" ((No such work in bibliography, wrong date?)) ; "Berstein 1976, pp. 206–207" ((No such work, misspelt author?)) ; "Bird 2005, p. 228" ((No such work, failed to list second author?)) ; "Jones 1987, pp. 67–71" ((Just seems broken)) ; "Waltham 1998, pp. 8–9" ((Just plain broken?)) ; "Groves & 1962 78–82" ((No second author on this one?)) ; "Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, pp. 144–145" ((Just doesn't work))
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the broken links may be date related, they're dated "Winter/Summer 19XX" or "March 19XX"
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I reviewed this for GA in December 2010 and it has been improved since then. I believe that it now meets the A-class criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Einstein–Szilárd letter": if I can get away with it, I'd really prefer "Einstein-Szilárd letter", which is universally hyphenated in the sources, because it's not a letter written and signed by Einstein and Szilárd, it's the letter. There's a current discussion exactly on point at WT:MOS#Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, so long as the link doesn't break. Good luck with WT:MOS#Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ. My own problem is that I can't really see the difference between the different forms of dashes, and cannot type them from my keyboard. So they are just a pain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For at least 99% of our readers, it's a minor or non-existent point, but I wanted to bring it up over there to make sure everyone is on board with allowing (apparent) exceptions to MOS in cases where the "name" of something is so thoroughly supported by sources, dictionaries and style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my mind after the long discussion at WT:MOS and reinstated the dashes. The bottom line is: it doesn't matter. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For at least 99% of our readers, it's a minor or non-existent point, but I wanted to bring it up over there to make sure everyone is on board with allowing (apparent) exceptions to MOS in cases where the "name" of something is so thoroughly supported by sources, dictionaries and style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, so long as the link doesn't break. Good luck with WT:MOS#Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ. My own problem is that I can't really see the difference between the different forms of dashes, and cannot type them from my keyboard. So they are just a pain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Manhattan Project was the codename for an Allied project": up to you, but I like "The Manhattan Project was an Allied project", because that's what we call it now ... I think that should probably go first, then we could mention that it was the codename later. "but was supplanted over time by "Manhattan"" might possibly be sufficient where it is. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this headed to FAC? I need to be more picky with MOS issues if so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, but I can only have one FAC active at a time, and I have a queue of four articles at the moment. Each FAC takes up to three months to compllete, so it is unlikely that it will make it until 2012. Feel free to correct as per the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr. of": Major General Leslie R. Groves Jr. of. See WP:MHCL#commas. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You used both "U.S." and "US" throughout; changed to "US". See WP:MHCL#acronyms. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Army component of the project was officially designated the Manhattan District, US Engineer Department, but was usually referred to as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED). "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename for the project.": No edit, just a note. Outside Wikipedia, copy editors often advise making the first few paragraphs as interesting as possible. But it's quite common on Wikipedia to put details of what something is, was or could be called in the first paragraph, so that the reader who's seen the topic under a different name can figure out as quickly as possible whether they're on the right page. Personally, I can see it both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Judgment call, and check this for accuracy please, I shortened it to "The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District or Manhattan Engineer District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename for the project." - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP just added "Skinny Minnie" as the name of a third bomb ... I'm getting nothing on a gsearch under that spelling. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Look it up on the Wikipedia! The bomb was eventually called Gilda. It was a little more compilcated than that. What they had in 1945 was another plutonium core and a pile of Fat Man assemblies. The bomb as such was not assembled until 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The project's roots began in 1939 ... The Manhattan Project, which began as a small research program that year": repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to Dank: as this one is past the 28 day mark, are you happy enough with it to be listed for closure, or do you think it needs more time? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, still working on it, I'll get it done this evening. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, still working on it, I'll get it done this evening. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in present day value": I used "in 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}} dollars", per WP:DATED, and because readers won't know that you've used a template that auto-updates the figures. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It resulted in the creation of several research and production sites whose construction and operations were secret. Research took place at more than 30 sites,": "Research and production took place at more than 30 sites, some secret,". See WP:MHCL#conciseness. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at the Hanford Site in eastern Washington state; the uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and the weapons research and design laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico.": "The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at the Hanford Site in eastern Washington state, the uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico." Per Chicago 6.58, usually use semicolons to separate the elements in a list if the elements contain commas, but use commas instead if "ambiguity seems unlikely". - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Berkeley, California": "Berkeley, California,". Also: "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill": "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill,". See WP:MHCL#commas.
- Hence: President, Barack Obama Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "who had quit because of concerns over lax operational security on 18 May 1942": "who had quit on 18 May 1942 because of concerns over lax operational security". Dates usually go next to whatever it was that happened on that date. See WP:MHCL#dangling.
- "It was temporary because Marshall intended to later relocate to the major construction site.": I deleted this bit; don't simply state intentions, or states of mind in general. They need to be backed up by a fact that demonstrates the intention, a reason that that the intention is important, or preferably, both. - Dank (push to talk) 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact, backed up by a reference. It explains why the it was called "temporary", and why the MED moved to Oak Ridge in 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs fixin':
- I see you reverted me on MED ... which is fine, but then it needs to be clear to the reader right from the start what the difference is between the Manhattan Project and the MED. I don't think it's clear right now. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is made clear in the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency needed in the spelling of Szilárd (or Szilard). I suggest the former since that's the spelling we use in his article. See WP:MHCL#consistency. - Dank (push to talk)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't look at linking issues much, but be aware that sometimes people care at FAC. WP:Linking says not to link United States, etc. There are some duplicate links that may or may not be a problem at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
- Multiple linking is permissible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Acronyms are tricky; see WP:MHCL#acronyms. Most readers will be willing to memorize a few that seem important to the article, but not a lot. NDRC for instance doesn't seem necessary, because it's only repeated once, a few sentences later. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is because it is a high-level article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to "Executive Order 8807" should appear in the endsections. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are they? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several more commas needed; See WP:MHCL#commas. - Dank (push to talk) 05:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know where. Remember that I do not use the Chicago Style guide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " This was disappointing;" Say who was disappointed. - Dank (push to talk) 06:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem:
- The article is way too long for FAC, but I don't know whether it's way too long for A-class. What's the longest article we've passed so far, does anyone know? - Dank (push to talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Battle of the Coral Sea (now a featured article) is 156 Kb Wikitext, 62 kB (10236 words) "readable". This article, which is as long as it needs to be, is only 114 Kb Wikitext, but 76 kB (12458 words) "readable". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some intractable problems here. Please see WT:MHC#Copy editors, and feel free to brainstorm some solutions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion at WT:MHC#Copy editors. The problem is that there's still so much to do, and we're out of time. Of course, I'm responsible for part of this, because I started late and the review took me a while. But per the linked discussion, regardless of "who started it", there's a downside to letting MILHIST A-class articles get to FAC if they wind up hurting our reputation among the reviewers there. There are a lot of problems here; the three biggest are that Hawkeye hasn't so far started helping with any of the problems I've pointed out (such as commas), and "doesn't use Chicago", and is reverting many of my edits ... and in my judgment, is making the wrong call on every one. I'm not always right, of course, but given my success as a copy editor so far on Wikipedia, it isn't likely that I'm wrong every time, either. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the points raised have been dealt with. Saying "needs more commas" is not helpful.
- Here is an example of a reverted copy edit:
- Dank: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors when uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
- Hawkeye7: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors where uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
- "In a nuclear reactor" is a place, therefore we need the locative "where" and not the temporal "when". I could have said: "during a nuclear reaction when" but this would miss the point of the sentence, which is about the need to build nuclear reactors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That edit came after my claim that your previous reversions weren't helpful. I stand by the claim. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed as No Consensus TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As part of my encore Four Award, I am nominating thise article for A-class review. As not so many comments were made in it's peer review, just like with my other article, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, I am left with the assumption that it is fit for the A class rating, and thus I have come here. I think this article has the potential to make it to FA in due course. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- one disambig link reported by the tools: [37]
- Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- no issues with ext links (no action required);
- I believe that the images are appropriately licenced (no action required);
- you might consider adding Alt text (suggestion only);
- Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- McLaughlin is listed in the Citations, but doesn't appear in the References;
- Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. These should probably be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the ISBNs are still inconsistent, I believe. For instance compare Forczyk to Jung. Can you please take another look at this?
- there is inconsistency in the way the publisher locations are presented. For instance: "London, England" but also "London". These should be consistent, and I think they should be "London, United Kingdom". Also, "Annapolis, MD", should probably be "Annapolis, Maryland";
- I've made a couple of tweaks for British English v US English spelling, but I may have missed something. As such, can you please check for anything I may have missed when you go through the article to address Dank's concerns below? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Service history section, I think there is an issue with this sentence: "She and her sister ships were transferred to Port Arthur in 1900 with most of the First Pacific Squadron, which was the current port of the First Squadron of the Russian Pacific Fleet". (The word "current" doesn't seem to be correct given that you are referring to an event 110 years ago, maybe say "then current"? Additionally, I believe that the "which was" clause is placed incorrectly in the sentence. I think it should follow directly after "Port Arthur");
- in the Service history section, repetition: "outfitted" and "fitted" (perhaps try to reword?);
- in the Service history section (Wartime service subsection): "Japanese Fleet". Is this correctly capitalised? Was the proper name of the Japanese naval forces assembled in the area "Japanese Fleet"? If not, it should probably be "Japanese fleet";
- same as above for "Japanese Army", I think this should be "Japanese army" in this case because it is not a proper noun (i.e "Imperial Japanese Army" was the proper noun at that time. Also consider was Baron Nogi Maresuke the commander of the whole army, including units in Japan, or just those forces deployed around Port Arthur? By saying "Japanese Army" led by Baron Nogi..." it is implying that he was the commander of the entire Japanese army, rather than just those forces deployed);
- in the Wartime service subsection, this sentence seems awkward or out of place: "However, the Sevastopol was not fully repaired, one gun in her aft turret remaining inoperable." (I'd suggest maybe adding a clarifying clause (something along the lines of "even though Sevastopol was not fully repaired, she still sailed with the rest of the fleet...");
- "Admiral Vitgeft" - sounds too much like a formal military report. On first mention "Admiral Wilgelm Vitgeft", and then subsequent mentions just "Vitgeft";
- "ship's hulls" - is it a single ship, or multiple ships being referred to here? If single, it should be "ship's hull" If plural, then it should be "ships' hulls";
- "...which resulted in one man dead..." perhaps "one man being killed...";
- "On the other side..." On the other side of what? The habour? Or are you using "other side" to refer to "the Japanese"?
- "On the other side, Mikasa was hit by two 12-inch shells and one 6-inch shell from Retvizan and Sevastopol, which caused 40 casualties, late in the battle." (This might sound better if "late in the battle" was placed elsewhere in the sentence;
- inconsistent spelling: "Vitgeft" and "Vitegft";
- "squadron via semaphore. But the signals were only slowly..." (Starting the next sentence with "But" seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps you might consider rewording?
- "...a rendezvous with the Second Pacific Squadron..." (rendezvous where? You might need to explain with a clause why this would have improved the situation);
- "...were launched, four hit. All of these four were launched..." (there is some redundancy here with repeated words, perhaps reword?);
- "...squadron led by Lieutenant Miyamoto..." (who is Miyamoto, do you know his first name and why is it notable that he led the squadron? Did he rise to higher command? If so, it might need to be explained with a clause, e.g. "by Lieutenant Miyamoto, who would later become...??";
- "...One of the torpedoes hit one of the ship's propellers, and three in the surrounding torpedo nets..." maybe reword to "Three of the torpedos hit the torpedo nets that had been placed around the ship, while the other hit one of the ship's propellers");
- "...Sevastopol was still afloat, but severely damaged..." (I think this would sound better: "Although severely damaged, Sevastopol remained afloat and managed to sink two destroyers and damage six others...";
- "...so as the ship would not be salvageable by the Japanese..." maybe reword to "so that the ship could not be salvaged by the Japanese";
- "...A dispatch from Tokyo reported that it sank as a result of a Japanese torpedo attack". (As this stands in opposition to the talk about scuttling, perhaps a modifying clause is required here, e.g. "Nevertheless, a dispatch from Tokyo...";
- in the References section, is there a publication year for the Preston source? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- one disambig link reported by the tools: [37]
- Comment: Hi, Buggie, are you able to address these concerns? There is still quite a bit of time left in the review, so if these could be addressed, it might still pass (particularly if you pay particular attention to the checklist that Dank mentioned). I've made a few tweaks, but I don't want to get too involved, otherwise I might not be able to be seen as objective. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I don't think that this article is ready for A-class just yet. As my concerns have not been addressed within the 28 day review period, I must oppose its promotion at this time. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:SupportPerformed a few minor edits for links and grammar.- "other ships in the First Pacific Squadron that managed to survive the Yellow Sea sortie, at that time about 5.7 kilometers (3.5 mi) away from the hill.[29]" - what was 5.7 meters away from the hill, the squadron or the sortie? Clarify please.
- "a Japanese cruiser attempting to attack the Sevastopol was sunk by a mine in the harbor), as well as killing 35 men and 5 officers.[30][6]" - this should be clarified somehow because the current wording makes it sound like officers aren't men.
- "Captain Nikolai Essen" is referred to by his full name on second reference a few times. After he is first mentioned he should only be "Essen" (per MOS)
In addition to the hyphens mentioned above, all of the ISBNs need to the the 13-digit forms.Taras and Balakin are missing ISBNs entirely, andPreston and Watts only have the 10-digit ISBNs.- Hi, Ed. I believe that the Taras and Balakin issue was discussed in the peer review. Apparently they are not available. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Strike that then. —Ed!(talk) 22:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Ed. I believe that the Taras and Balakin issue was discussed in the peer review. Apparently they are not available. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than that it looks good. I'll support after these comments are addressed. —Ed!(talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks guys. I'm currently on vacation now, so I'll have to do these later. Merry Christmas! Buggie111 (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done! Buggie111 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I made the following changes; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The text is around 10k, and one paragraph is sufficient for that per WP:LEAD, but a lead of just one paragraph may attract scrutiny at FAC. You say you're headed there; if it were me, I'd write another paragraph for the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "into First Pacific Squadron": into the First Pacific Squadron - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, this isn't looking good, I'm having to make substantial changes to every paragraph.
- I rewrote the design section so that the reader doesn't have to wait till the second paragraph to find out that nothing in the first paragraph actually happened, and corrected numerous mistakes.
- "The ship was had a crew": The ship had a crew
- "done propeller shaft, powered by fourteen": Part of this sentence was missing. I went with "She was powered by 14 ...", but see if you can restore whatever you omitted. - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I need to move on to other A-class reviews, some of which are getting ready to close. I don't believe anyone has read this to check for obvious mistakes, such as obvious misspellings and sentences like "The ship was had a crew ..." and "done propeller shaft, powered by fourteen cylindrical coal-burning boilers." "Sevastopol, named after the siege at Sevastopol": your source says it was named after the city, not the siege. "the decade older Ekaterina II class battleships": that doesn't work, put "a decade older" after the noun. I'll give it a second chance if you'll read it carefully, going down the checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I'm a bit surprised this didn't come up in the PR, so I'll let this run for a couple more days so as other comments don't get saved for later. I'll rewrite this later and will send it up again. Buggie111 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. I'll try to make some time to participate in peer reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.