Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The British 1st Division was formed in 1809 and is still active today. Due to its long history, several articles have been created to adequately cover it. This one covers 100-years, from formation through to the end of the Boer War and becoming a permanent part of the British order of battle. The GOCE have given it the once over and it has already passed a GA review. I look forward to further feedback to make the article better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

History of military logistics

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

History of military logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is sadly deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, Military logistics, which I am still working on, and rewriting and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

If you look at a selection of the top level articles in the scope of our project you'll find that little work has been done on them. There are good reasons for this, the major one being that they are very hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars.

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am therefore appealing to the project for a bit of help here, for people to look over the sections in areas where they have particular expertise. Specific issues for consideration are the level of detail, what could be omitted and what else should be mentioned, especially important omissions. Opinions are also sought on the layout of the references, whether they sghould be by period or all together, and the Further reading section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, the final boss. The white whale. The city on the hill. The part in the anime where the (first) OP starts playing. I will DEFINITELY look this over. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you say anything about the changing tooth-to-tail ratio of militaries of the world? This could be represented as a bar chart. How did logistics work in the New World? Did the lack of domesticable working animals in the western hemisphere contribute to the fall of the Aztecs and others? Additionally how did Europeans surmount the distance from home problem in the new world. How did logistics work in the new world prior to Columbus? Hunter gatherers don't keep surpluses of food, but how about weapons? Obsidian spear tips have been found in Ohio. There are no volcanos in Ohio. How did it get there? You kind of touched on this, but I would also like to know more about the evolution of push vs pull logistics. Did quicker forms of communication contribute to more pull and just-in-time logistics? More information about the trend of globalized economic warfare (i.e. when did nations start cooperating to refuse passage to enemies of their allies?). Please say something about standardization of NATO equipment (especially calibers and fuels), dieselization in the '60s (the range of the gas M48A2 is 160 miles compared to 300 mi for the diesel M48A3) and metrification. When did armies start bringing their own gas fuel for heating meals instead of relying on wood? Should probably mention that canning was explicitly invented to preserve food for soldiers. Need something about airdrop. Shinseki's Army and the conversion of Heavy Brigades to Stryker brigades and brief flirtation with intratheatre lift should probably be mentioned. What about aerial refueling and transcontinental strategic airlift? The Suez and Panama Canal? Are new passages through the arctic relevant? Use of GPS? What is the U.S. base strategy and when did that come about? How does the U.S. military stockpile equipment abroad in ready reserve? NATO palletization and Russia's failure to adopt this. Article should note corruption and failures of accountability in Russian supply depots and a failure to invest in support vehicle acquisition. Schierbecker (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe also the discovery of the cause and cure for Rickett's, allowing for longer deployments and blue water navies. Have you ever read Omnivore's Dilemma? The first chapter where he laments the explosion of production of kilocalories from processed corn, namely corn syrup, consumed by world. The surplus of energy-dense processed food has surely affected the way militaries feed themselves and victims of humanitarian disasters. I don't have a good source readily available, but I'll try to find one. Food surplus on this scale is without precedent in history. Particularly after the Dust Bowl, the U.S. government has subsidized food overproduction partially to meet potential wartime need. Is this done anywhere else? Another interesting rabbit hole: the USDA cheese caves of Missouri. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Rickets (vitamin D deficiency) was not a major problem, since northern Europeans have pale skin, but scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) and beri beri (vitamin B deficiency) were. I've written about this before, so the material is on hand. What is interesting is that the discovery of the cause (vitamin deficiency) dates only to the inter-war period, about 150 years after the treatment was found. I will also add a bit about tropical diseases (malaria) and antibiotics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, yep I meant scurvy. Schierbecker (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of armies using gas fuel to heat food. In my day we had hexamine stoves to heat our food and brew a cup of tea. I haven't read the Omnivore's dilemma. I will have a look. Corn syrup is seldom used here; we have to sweeten our tea with sugar, which is produced here in large quantities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I sweeten my tea with honey personally. But I get why corn syrup would be less common elsewhere. But I would think global production of energy dense food staples has increased leading to less famine. Schierbecker (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, but global populations are expected to increase by a third by 2050, thereby wiping out the surpluses. There's an article on this, Green Revolution, but it is out of scope. Most countries that subsidise food production do so for food security purposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The diesel vs gasoline tank engine controversy is a long-running one in the US. It dates back to World War II, when the Guiberson diesel engine was rejected in favour of the Ford GAA engine. (The General Motors 6046 diesel was used for Sherman tanks shipped to the UK and USSR, which demanded diesel engines.) Early versions of the M48 Patton used gasoline, but in Vietnam the diesel was preferred. I think this is too detailed for this particular article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I trust your judgement. Please let me know if I suggest something in this review that doesn't make sense. I'm not an SME. And that sounds interesting. Do you happen to have any material you could point me to on the subject of that controversy? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! That is exactly what I was looking for. I will work through this list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have added some additional information about:

• tooth-to-tail ratios
• economic warfare
• vitamins
• diseases
• automatic supply

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Also added a paragraph on Mesoamerica, mainly in keeping with my effort to give this article as global a perspective as possible. Gog the Mild is the expert here, so I hope he can jump in with some observations. (Apparently, the obsidian artifacts found in Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Ohio came from Obsidian Cliff in Wyoming, inside Yellowstone National Park, and Bear Gulch in Idaho, just west of the National Park boundary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add on any of these things: the multirole-erization of aircraft, crew reduction and automation (particularly on ships), loitering UAVs? I'm curious also if you've come across any information about the disaggregation of deployable units? In Iraq/Afghanistan I believe the U.S. Army transitioned to Brigade Combat Teams from division size units. Is that part of a larger trend? Can Kabul airlift be mentioned? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is tactical rather than logistical. Mentioned the Kabul airlift. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

French battleship Charlemagne

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Charlemagne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Charlemagne was a French predreadnought battleship that was thoroughly obsolete when World War I began in 1914. Aside from bombarding Ottoman fortifications in 1915, she spent the war on secondary duties. I've extensively reworked the article to incorporate newly available material and believe that it fully meets the A-class criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers who will inform me otherwise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll try to review this sometime over the next three or four days. Hog Farm _Talk 21:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• The 11,275 displacement figure from the infobox doesn't match up to anything in the body
• Ditto the 727 complement figure, given that the background gives 750 for flagship crew and 692 otherwise
• Is 14,200 PS (body) or 14,500 PS (infobox) correct?
• steaming range also differs between body and infobox
• Infobox gives deck armor as varying between 40mm and 70mm, but the way things are phrased in the body, it seems the 40mm armor is below the 70mm deck armor, so there was no place with only 40mm of armor?
  • The upper 70mm deck covered the entire hull. So you'd prefer just to use the thickness(es) of the thickest deck? That's not a problem, but I've often not done it that way.
    • Maybe 40 mm (lower) and 70 mm (upper) or something, to make it clear that there isn't a point where only the 40 mm splinter deck is providing protection? Hog Farm _Talk 13:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I think that the data for the thickest deck works well enough as I don't want to devote more than a single line to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Charlemagne, named after the first Holy Roman Emperor - it seems odd to me to at no point here actually link to Charlemagne
  • It does, doesn't it.
• Also noting I agree with Indy's concern about the Caresse collision note below
  • I've revised the wording on this and would appreciate your opinion given Indy's reservations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• As a predreadnought, wouldn't she have been at least partially obsolete by WWI or even earlier? This seems worth mentioning if it can be supported by sources
• "Her 138.4 mm guns were removed the following month" - wouldn't these have been 138.6 mm guns based on the prior description of the armament?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish I'd remember to cross-reference the figures in the infobox and main body when updating articles! Thanks for looking at this. I think that I've addressed everything that you brought up above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

• Could we get a brief note on why the French ordered the Charlemagne class of ships?
  • I generally save that for the class article.
    • It's not enough for me to holdup the review, but I hope you might reconsider on adding a brief note. That a specific ship is ordered to be built is not just a given thing, and a sentence of context wouldn't hurt, even if it is just a "The French government ordered the battleship and its sisters as part of the X naval expansion programme."
      • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• In the World War I section, Yavuz should be linked at its mention, and it should be made clear in the first paragraph that Charlemagne was operating against Ottoman forces. I don't think the average reader is going to realize without some clarification that the Yavuz, Kum Kale, Kilitbahir Castle, were Ottoman places.
  • Yavuz is linked in the lede and this isn't such a long article that readers will forget. Have worked in more references to the Ottomans
• The battleship arrived at Bizerte on 3 April to begin a badly needed refit. "Badly needed" is something of an opinion, and it isn't exactly clear what was done during the refit which was apparently so urgently required.
  • Badly needed is a paraphrase from the source, but I've added the most urgent repair to better justify the characterization.
    • Thank you for the added context.
• The footnote This is not mentioned in Caresse's detailed history of Gaulois, and may have been confused with Gaulois's collision with the battleship Bouvet on 31 January 1903. is sourced directly to Caresse, and seems like an original observation.
  • It seemed pretty obvious to me, but removed.
    • I get the common sense rationale behind explicitly noting this discrepancy in article text, but discussing things which are not mentioned in a given source, through an analysis of that source in comparison to others itself without the citing of an overarching historiographic review or comment of some sort (e.g. something like "Curiously, Caresse does not discuss any collision incident involving the Gaulois in his comprehensive studies of the battleship, in contrast to other sources." - Bob Smith, The French Navy During the Great War, p. 27), I think is still engaging in low-level WP:OR. There is theoretically an infinite amount of things we can point out are not mentioned by a given book, but without a different source making that observation itself it's impossible to fairly assign DUE weight in choosing to declare such omissions. This presents more of a risk on articles of modern socio-political controversy than the service record of a French predreadnought, but I'd prefer the whole note be removed on principle. I'll defer to @Hog Farm: and other reviewers if they think I'm splitting hairs here. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on my experience with Caresse-type works, I think it's okay to simply state that Caresse's history does not mention this; those types of works are generally extremely comprehensive. I wouldn't recommend that in most cases, but there's a fairly strong expectation that if a collision of any significance occurred, then Caresse would mention it. Hog Farm _Talk 23:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• • • • All I can say is that the Caresse article is a detailed history of the ship and covers the other collisions that Gaulois was involved in, so I can only presume...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

My comments are so minor in the scheme of things that I'm moving to support the nomination at this time. Pendright (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead:

• The battleship was initially assigned to the Northern Squadron (Escadre du Nord) and was not transferred to the Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée) until 1900.

"but" was not tramsferred

• The ship was transferred later that year to the squadron assigned to prevent any interference by the Greeks with Allied operations on the Salonica front.

Since squardron is unspecified shouldn't it be "a" squardron?

• Lead does not mention anything about armament, speed, or armor?

Design and description:

• The ships' anti-torpedo boat defences consisted of twenty Canon de 47 mm (1.9 in) Modèle 1885 and two 37 mm (1.5 in) Maxim guns, fitted in platforms on both masts, on the superstructure, and in casemates in the hull.

defences -> sp?

• Other:

• armour - sp?

Construction and career

• Charlemagne, was the namesake of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor,[7] was ordered on 30 September 1893 as the name ship of the three battleships of her class.[8]

Suggest the sentence be rephrased to show Charlemagne's title after his name.

• A 100 mm cartridge spontaneously ignited in a magazine on 30 December 1904, but Charlemagne suffered no damage from the incident as the magazine was quickly flooded.[16]

Any injuries or fatalities?

• The divisions of the battle squadrons had been renumbered on 5 January and the 4th Division was now the 1st Division of the 2nd Battle Squadron.

and the 4th Division "became" the 1st Division

World War I:

• After the French ships were ordered to be relieved by six other British battleships,[24] Bouvet struck a mine and sank almost instantly while Gaulois was hit twice, one of which opened a large hole in her hull that began to flood the ship.

Any injures or faltaliti3s?

• Charlemagne was slightly damaged when her armour belt was dented when she was struck by a shell on 25 May.

armour -> sp?

• They sold her to an Italian company which demolished her in Savona, Italy.[32]

"that" demolished her

Done - @Sturmvogel 66: Supporting - Pendright (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Charlemagne-Marius Bar-img 3122.jpg Is a photograph, not an artwork. Suggest PD-France or PD-old-70-expired instead.
• File:00-9861p Brest le port et l'arsenal.jpg - PD-old-70-expired vrai
• File:Dardanelles defences 1915.png - Wikipedian generated - PD - okay
• File:Charlemagne off Mudros 1915 IWM Q 13412.jpg - PD-UKGov - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Gallipoli (1416)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Battle of Gallipoli (1416) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first large-scale naval battle between Ottomans and Venetians was the main event of a brief, almost unofficial war between the two powers, and a triumph for the Venetians. We have a fairly detailed description of it (albeit one-sided) by the Venetian commander, the famed Pietro Loredan. The article was written back in 2017 and passed GA in the same year. I recently completed an on-and-off again overhaul with some additional sources, and it should be ready for A-class and eventually FA. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CPA

• There are six howevers maybe remove some?
• "fleet of 42 ships—six galleys, 26 galleots, and the rest" --> "fleet of 42 ships—6 galleys, 26 galleots, and the rest"
• "by the Signoria on 4 February 1416.[14][12]" re-order the refs?
• "such as erecting a pavisade around the ships.[41][31]" Same as above?
• "the engagement lasted until the 22nd hour." Do we know at what time it was in modern time?
• "who were likely to use the opportunity to escape." this part looks like a foodnote?

Down to Battle of 29 May. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Maurice Suckling

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Maurice Suckling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Maurice Suckling/archive1

I'm renominating this article now that I'm back editing and won't suddenly abandon work and disappear. The man who (maybe?) made Nelson the man he was, but apart from that had quite an uneventful naval career. Has received a slight update with a new source since my last nom. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - I supported at the prior ACR, and a skim through the changes since then reveals nothing that concerns me. Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hawkeye7 Looks good to me, but some comments to prove that I read it:

• "Suckling did however have the support of considerable patronage from the powerful Walpoles" Who were they? You mentioned his great-uncle but not the other members of the family (although some appear in the final section)
  • I've adjusted to focus more on Walpole himself rather than the wider family
• "he found it long and arduous work" I'm not sure what "long work" is.
  • Replaced with time-consuming
• The final sentence had me wondering about the sword. Apparently it was sold in 2021 [1].
  • It would be a fun subject to have a look into and possibly write an article about, but the main source Swords for Sea Service is rather expensive!

    A lot cheaper than the sword I'll bet. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Hi, thanks for taking a look! Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review - Pass - It is good to see this renominated. Welcome back. An image review was completed at 12:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC) for the previous submission and there seem to be no material changes. There is a nice selection of images and all seem appropriate to the text. All state that they are in the public domain and have relevant PD tags. Pass. simongraham (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Lead:

• Suckling was employed in the aftermath of the Capture of Belle Île in 1761 destroying French fortifications on the Île-d'Aix, and went on half pay at the end of the war in 1763.

• Replace the first in with "during"

• Done

• Drop the comma after Île-d'Aix, or add [he] went on half pay

• Done former

Early life:

• Nothing is recorded of Suckling's childhood past this point apart from that he continued to live in Beccles.[2]

Do you mean Nothing is "known to have been" recorded?

• Changed to "known", which is the wording the source uses

Early career:

• In Newcastle Suckling saw service in the Western Approaches, the English Channel, and off Gibraltar and Lisbon, advancing to able seaman on 7 April 1741 before being promoted to midshipman on 7 September.

Second clause -> "who" is advnacing and being promoted?

• Reworded

• While sailing off Villefranche on 7 February 1746 he was transferred to the 80-gun ship of the line HMS Russell also as fourth lieutenant.[3][6]

Add a comma after 1746

• Done

• He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne into the 50-gun fourth-rate HMS Gloucester as that ship's first lieutenant, which naval historian David Syrett suggests was another appointment brought about by Suckling's patrons.[3]

Change that to "this" or "the"

• Done latter

• Suckling's position in Gloucester meant that he avoided the unemployment that came to many naval officers when the Royal Navy began to decommission warships in response to the end of the war.[6]

end of "a" war

• Source is specifically referring to this war

• <> Which war is the source referring to? Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

First commands:

• The ship was at the time serving on the North America Station, and Suckling took passage out in a merchant ship to join his new command.

to "assume" or "take up" his mew command

• Done latter

Seven Years' War:

• Ordered to Jamaica, Dreadnought formed part of an eleven-warship escort [for] to a convoy that [had] left Spithead on 31 January 1756.[10]

Suggest the above changes

• Done former but not latter; imo the addition of "had" suggests that this is just the convoy leaving Spithead and not the whole group of ships

• The ship spent most of her service in harbour at Port Royal as the area was a backwater in the Seven Years' War.

Suggest:

in "the" harbour at

• I think "in harbour" is itself a well-used term

• <>It may be, but gramatically it is not correct Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Link backwater

• Done

• On 21 October 1757 Dreadnought was undertaking such an operation alongside two other 60-gun ships of the line, expecting to intercept a French convoy leaving Cape Français.

Suggest this or something like it -> On 21 October 1757, Dreadnought and two other 60-gun ships of the line had undertaken an operaton to intercept a French convoy leaving or which had left Cape Français?

• Reworded along these lines

• The three ships formed [a] line of battle with Dreadnought taking the vanguard.[1][10][13]

Add the indefinite artice "a" as indicated

• Done

• The French squadron, having received heavy casualties, retreated back into Cape Français.

Drop the common after squardron

• Done

• Suckling subsequently sailed his ship to Chatham, where she was paid off on 19 November.[10][3]

where she paid off the officers and crew?

• A ship is "paid off", not the crew

<>The link says -> The term "paid off" is alternatively used in British and Commonwealth contexts, originating in the age-of-sail practice of ending an officer's commission and paying crew wages once the ship completed its voyage. Pendright (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The source used for that sentence says "When a ship reaches the end of her commission, she is paid off". I believe my wording to be correct. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• In June Suckling's ship reinforced the British squadron that had recently captured Belle Île, and [she] was then detached in a squadron under Captain Sir Thomas Stanhope.

Suggest the above change

• Done

• As the Royal Navy began mobilising in the expectation of war he was given command of the 64-gun ship of the line HMS Raisonnable, which was fitting out at Chatham, on 17 November.[1][3][19]

• Add a comma after war

• Done

• War with whom?

• Added

Pausing at the end of the Career section - Pendright (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Pendright: Hi, not sure if you've got any more comments to add here, but I've responded to all those above. Thanks for taking a look! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: <>I have left you one response. I'll finish the review in the next day or two. Thank you for your prompt responses. Pendright (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Resuming - Pendright (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Patron of Nelson:

• On 26 June Suckling was also appointed senior officer for his part of the Thames Estuary, and filled most of his time with paperwork regarding topics including naval discipline and the deployment of marine detachments.[19][26]

and "he" filled most of

• Changed

Comptroller of the Navy:

• The Comptroller of the Navy was the head of the Navy Board, responsible for all Royal Navy warship construction and upkeep as well as troop transports and dockyards.

"he" was resoinsible for...

• I believe the current wording is acceptable, I won't fight it if you demand it though!

• <> For the sake of discussion, let's kick this around a bit: It appears (from the previous sentence) that "The comptroller" is referring to Suckking in which case he was would be correct. If the sentence is referring to just "A" Comptroller, then it woudl be who was. I would be iterested in your thoghts.

• By the way, the word demand is a harsh word and I'm without the right to demand anything from you or anyone else on Wikipedia. As it should be! My role as a reviewer, as I see it, is to help make a good article better by suggestions, questons, and discussions that are all made in good fath. Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• The position was highly prestigious as well as important and why Suckling, a relatively unknown candidate, was chosen by Sandwich, is not known.[36][37]

Drop the comma afteer Sandwich

• Done

• The naval experience that Suckling brought [to the position[ was , however, of great value to Sandwich[,] as he [who] went about reforming naval administration, with particular emphasis put on attempts to make Royal Navy shipyards more productive.

Cosider the above or somethong similar

• Done

Done - @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Pendright (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Pendright: Thanks, I've replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I support this nomination whether or not the comments left receive a response. Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

• ...by Captain George Townshend, another maternal relative, historian John Sugden says...: Suggest moving "another maternal relative" to precede Townshend. I initially parsed this sentence as referring to Sugden

• Done

• He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne...: "translated" seems an unusual term to a layman, does it mean transferred or another meaning?

• Changed to "translate"

• link post captain

• Done

• ...combined with his patronage and the beginning of the Seven Years' War to almost guarantee his promotion to that rank.: This didn't quite read right, perhaps the last part should be "...Seven Years' War to almost guaranteed his promotion to that rank."?

• Done

• Having returned from this, Suckling then had Nelson join the 24-gun...: this could be read as referring to Suckling having returned, rather than Nelson

• Reworded

• appointing Maurice a clerk in the Naval Office: what's the Naval Office? I see later in the Death section mention of a Navy Office, is this what was meant? (if so, the link will need to be moved).

• Linked moved

Some comments above for your consideration, looks in pretty good shape. Zawed (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Zawed: Hi, thanks for taking a look! Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• All good, happy to add my support. Zawed (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Ykraps (in progress)

• "In 1775 he unsuccessfully applied to the Admiralty for shore-based appointments in Newfoundland and Jamaica". - Unless I'm missing something, the source doesn't specifically state he was unsuccessful. Are we basing his lack of success on the fact that he wasn't appointed to either position? --Ykraps (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Cane Hill

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Cane Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A bunch of ammo got burned off, but unexpectedly light casualties for a running fight of nine hours that took place over 12 or 15 miles of ground. A bunch of fighting in the woods in the Ozark Mountains, with the Confederates armed with junk cannons and shotguns - fairly standard Trans-Mississippi warfare. Hog Farm _Talk 04:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I don't normally even look at articles on the American Civil War, and this article is good example of why. It is a rollicking yarn though, well-researched and generally well-written. Some comments to prove that I read it:

• One of those maps of the US showing where Arkansas is might be helpful
  • I've added one of those
• "slavery chief among them" Well yes, but not helpful to a non-American reader (who might have stumbled across the site). Instead of just "slavery" I would say "the desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the United States" (No need for the comma before "as" btw)
  • Done
• "newly elected President" Lincoln was elected president in November 1860; so this was five months before. But he had only assumed office on 4 March.
  • Switched to "newly inaugurated"
• Is Federal capitalised or not?
  • Depends on the context. For "federal government", the answer is generally no, but it's often capitalized when ACW writers use it as an alternative to "Union"
• "Hindman took command" Hindman has not been introduced year.
  • He's introduced now
• "rebuilt Confederate strength in the region" Not sure what is meant here.
  • Rephrased
• "strict and sometimes extralegal methods" Or here. (But I note that a quarter of the civilians were slaves.)
  • I've generally rewritten this to make it clearer and better indicate who was unhappy with it (although I doubt the slaves were too happy with Hindman, either, because he was working them like rented mules on CSA building projects)
• "he was removed of district command" Suggest "from". And by whom?
  • Rephrased and clarified
• "Hindman retained a field command, and pushed his forces back into southwestern Missouri" Um, you don't push things back. At least not your own forces.
  • Rephrased
• "Hindman saw an opportunity in the Union positioning" I would stick to "federal", which has been used up to this point.
  • Done. Old habits die hard
• Cane Hill isn't marked on the map. A better map would be appreciated if you have one.
  • It is, as 'Boonsboro' (see the parenthetical explanation for the dual name in the article). The old version of the map was cropped specifically for the Battle of Van Buren article, so I've made a new crop that focuses more on the locations relevant for this article
• " believing himself abandoned by Schofield, Blunt decided to go on the offensive" Yes, that makes perfect sense: attack when you are abandoned and outnumbered. (You haven't said how many men Blunt had.)
  • I've indicate Blunt's strength and have elaborated a bit on his mindset
• "Blunt waited for a supply train to arrive" I'm guessing this was a wagon train and not a choo choo, but other readers might not
  • I've rephrased this
• "Blunt's men would have plentiful ammunition" Suggest "had" instead of "would have"
  • Done
• "The Federals also had a numerical advantage in artillery" Do we have any idea how many guns each side had?
  • I remember the sources not strictly agreeing on this, so I'll need to take another look at this
    • The sources generally agree on a ratio of 30:6, so I've added that.
• "The Federals cavalry's horses were also in better condition than those of the Confederates, and the Confederates were also inadequately uniformed" repeated "also" (I would drop them both)
  • Removed both
• Is Joseph Bledsoe's Missouri Battery the same as Bledsoe's Missouri Battery?
  • No, that's Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery. Joseph Bledsoe's was later known as Collins's Missouri Battery and would probably be under that title when created per wiki article naming conventions, so PM67 had me move Hiram Bledsoe's to that title in the GA review. The O'Flaherty source in the further reading is known to confuse the two on occasion.
• "Seeing the Federal building" Sounds like a structure
  • Rephrased
• "Scott and Burgess compare the outcome of the battle of a hung jury" Is "to a hung jury" meant?
  • Rephrased
• "Missouri and northwestern Arkansas remained in Federal control." Suggest "under Federal control".
  • Done

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

All done except for the cannon count; I'll research that further later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 03:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Thanks for the review! Replies to all have been made above. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Great work - moved to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA

The map where Cane Hill lies confuses me. It say that it is in Missouri but the map is about Arkensas? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I've corrected this. I'd copied the code for the infobox map from the article about a battle in Missouri, and didn't catch that. Hog Farm _Talk 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Confederate troops led by Colonel Charles A. Carroll laid an ambush" No link?
  • No; I don't think Carroll is notable. He's not any of the people at Charles Carroll.
• "for a group of supply wagons to arrive; logistics was difficult in the Ozark Mountains" This is part doesn't feel right?
  • I've clarified this (and got a reference error in the process)
• "most of the Confederate cannon were obsolescent" --> "most of the Confederate cannons were obsolescent" cannon as plural is mostly a British way of saying.
  • Have made the change here and in several other places in the article
• "early on the morning of November 28 that Blunt's" --> "early on the morning of November 28, that Blunt's"
  • Done
• "encounter Shelby's next prepared line.[53][52]" re-order the refs?
  • Swapped
• "Herron's men arrived in the area on the morning of December 7. The night before, Hindman had learned of Herron's approach, and decided to make a stand near Prairie Grove, instead of attacking Blunt. On the morning of December 7," Maybe have this part a bit chronocally?
  • Have rewritten this section
• I have a feeling I miss an image in the bottem part of the battle section or the aftermath.
  • Have added an image of the fighting at Prairie Grove to the last section

A fine piece of paper I would say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@CPA-5: - how do the changes I have made to the article look? Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

William Y. Slack

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

William Y. Slack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first bio for A-Class review is a fairly straightforward one. If this goes well, I may try to take on some more complex ones. Slack was a lawyer and (briefly) politician who parlayed 16 months of experience as an O-3 equivalent in the Mexican War into being appointed a Brigadier General with the outbreak of war. Serving with a pro-Confederate militia and then later the Confederate Army itself, Slack fought in three significant battles and was shot in the hip in two of them. The second wound was fatal. Hog Farm _Talk 13:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This is a well developed article about a somewhat obscure figure. I have the following comments

• "After the outbreak of the American Civil War in April 1861, Slack began to support the Confederate cause" - I'd suggest noting here that he was in favour of slavery before the war, which I presume would have predisposed him to the Confederate cause
• Can Slack's father be named?
• There's an considerable over-use of 'Slack' (for instance, in every sentence of the paragraph that starts with 'After his military service ended' - some other paras are similar). I'd suggest mixing this up, though use of 'he' and other phrasing. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: - Thanks for the review! I've addressed the first two and for the third have rephrased roughly 17 instances of "Slack" - hopefully the helps the issue. Hog Farm _Talk 17:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing as I have gone along. Could you let me know here if you object to any of it? Thanks.

• "he served as a captain in the United States Army during the Mexican-American War." It may be helpful to tell a reader when this took place.
  • Added
• "Returning to a legal career". And again.
  • I don't have a clear date on this, so I've noted in the lead that his service began in 1846 and lasted for 14 months.
• Is "the Missouri State Guard" referred to as "the Guard" in the sources? I note that later you refer to it as "the MSG", sometimes using both in a paragraph.
  • It is to some extent, but I've standardized to MSG
• "further Confederate and Guard troops". I know what you mean, but I suspect that you will confuse many readers with the implication that the Missouri State Guard were not Confederate troops.
  • I've linked directly to Confederate States Army here, in hopes that indicates better these are two quasi-allied organizations. Historically, the fact that the Missouri State Guard was not a part of the Confederate army played a significant role in the 1861 Wilson's Creek campaign.
• "Slack transferred to the Confederate States Army". Is it known when?
• Is Slack's mother's name known?
  • Added
• "as the legal market in Chillicothe was less crowded". Optional for ACR, this is a little clumsily phrased.
  • Have rephrased
• "the Missouri state legislature." Definitely lower case initials?
  • I've specifically named the Missouri General Assembly as where his seat was
• "Despite opposing war". In general? Or just an American civil war in particular?
  • Clarified
• "A 1927 article in the Missouri Historical Review states that Slack became a leading secessionist in the area after Fort Sumter." Why is the source for this given in line. Is there doubt or dispute over it?
  • This doesn't appear to be a controversial statement, in-line attribution removed.
• "James S. Rains and Slack were ordered to". Any chance of a brief introduction of Rains?

• Does Bearss have an ISBN and/or a publisher location?
  • This one's a fun one. The full text of the copyright page of the work is The Battle of Wilsons Creek by Edwin C. Bearss with battle maps by David Whitman published by George Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 1975 ARTCRAFT PRINTERS [logo identifying printer as a union shop] BOZEMAN, MONTANA It's over 1,000 miles from the George Washington Carver District to Bozeman, so I can only assume the Bozeman place is a physical printing location, not the location of the publisher. This source has been published in I think at least 4 different forms over its existence; the edition I have in particular seems to have a byzantine publishing history. No ISBN, but I've added an OCLC. Hog Farm _Talk 04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Prushankin writes that this deployment bought Price time to deploy other units into line." Again, s there a reason why this fact in particular needs in line citation?
• "although Prushankin suggests that Price may not have had authorization to do this." And again.
• "that included both Confederate and MSG troops." So the MSG was not considered "Confederate" even after the creation of "the Confederate government of Missouri"?
• "Historian Ezra J. Warner writes that Slack was ..."; "Historians William L. Shea and Earl J. Hess report that ..." False title.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• • No issues with the copy edits; I'll try to address these tomorrow and on Saturday. Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

French battleship Justice

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

French battleship Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a hiatus of (I think) at least a few years, WP:OMT is once again making an appearance at ACR (which will hopefully be more of a routine occurrence going forward!) I bring you Justice (no, not that one and only for some of you), a French pre-dreadnought battleship that saw (if monotonous) service during World War I. Actually, the ship's career before and after the war was a fair bit more interesting, being involved in a number of accidents, having an early film produced about her in 1911, and being part of a mutiny in 1919. In any event, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll take a look here later this week; will be a few days though because I'm going out of town for work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• February 1908 commissioning date is in the infobox but not anywhere else
  • Think that must have been from an old version of the article - fixed
• "Justice began having trouble with her main battery" - do the sources give any details on the nature of these issues?
  • No, unfortunately - mechanical problems of some sort, it'd be safe to assume, but I can't say what
• "company with the destroyers Lansquenet " - link on Lansquenet goes to a ship list page
  • Good catch
• "but following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the ensuing July Crisis prompted the fleet to remain close to port" - not sure that this is grammatical. Maybe a word missing?
  • Reworded
• " In mid-1916, she became involved in events in Greece, being stationed in Salonika to put pressure on the Greek government" - the body doesn't seem to put this particular emphasis on Salonika over the other stationing points
  • Tweaked the body to make this clearer
• Sources all look reliable

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm! Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

Interesting article. At the risk of being pedantic/snarky, I've developed a few articles within scope of OMT to A-class over the last few years ;) I have the following non-snarky comments:

• "mid-1900s" - most people will think that means the 1950s or similar
  • You whippersnappers!
• The first sentence of the 'Design' section is over-complex
  • Reworded
• "Tests to determine whether the main battery turrets could be modified to increase the elevation of the guns (and hence their range) proved to be impossible," - I think that there are some missing words here (e.g. what was found to be impossible? The test or the modifications?)
  • Fixed
• It might be worth noting why the ship was completed despite being of an outdated design
  • It would probably be impossible to source such an explanation - Justice was launched well before work began on Dreadnought, and it would have been impossible to alter the design by that late state of construction. The cost of completing the ships was also already baked into the budgets for 1907 and 1908. Add to that the political realities of doing anything other than simply completing them as planned (what's the navy going to do, go to parliament and say "hey, we just wasted millions of francs on ships that are no good, give us more money please"). More or less every major navy finished building their last generation of pre-dreadnoughts after Dreadnought was commissioned - heck, the British completed the Lord Nelsons after Dreadnought (the real question mark is why the French continued with the Danton-class battleships, which were all laid down after Dreadnought, but that's another story for another day).
• "shooting training" - 'gunnery training' seems the more common term
  • Fixed
• Watch out for long/complex sentences. I've split up a couple. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nick! Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Images properly licensed.
• Not sure that File:French battleship Justice illustration.jpg really adds much to the article
• Captions are generally sentence fragments and don't use a period
  • Fixed - don't know when those crept in
• Is the caption on File:Justice leading the French fleet.png original to the source? 'Cause it looks to me like the ships aren't going anywhere just yet. I'd swear that Justice's anchor is still down and I suspect that they're raising steam.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't recall now, that was more than a decade ago that I uploaded it! I agree that it doesn't appear correct - I've tweaked it. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Zawed

Pulling up my chair for this one. Zawed (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Modifications

• Instead, the navy determined that tanks...: as determined is used in the previous sentence, to avoid repetition, suggest replacing it with "found that".
• On 8 December 1915, the naval command issued orders...: what's "naval command"? The French equivalent of the Admiralty?
• Because it relates to different technical matter compared to the rest of this section, suggest putting the stuff regarding rangefinders into its own paragraph.

Construction – 1910

• An exact date is given for the ship being laid down, but only month/year in infobox
• Beginning on 10 June and lasting through and July, the..: something missing here, may be "and July" should be "to July"?

World War I

• ...Danton-class battleships Condorcet and Vergniaud, which took over...: Don't think the "which" should be there.
• ...by the French naval command to withdraw...: ditto my comment from the Modifications section regarding naval command but your response there may resolve this one. I see the term is used again in the Postwar career section
• ...launched a coup against the monarchy...: for sake of clarity, suggest "Greek monarchy"

Postwar career

• Black Sea had been designed the 2nd Squadron...: presumably "designed" should be "designated"
• ...though the dreadnoughts continued.: wording not quite right here, I assume you are wanting to say the crews of the dreadnoughts continued with the mutiny.
• Justice thereafter being reduced to a training ship.: suggest replace "being" with "was".
• The year of breaking up needs to be added to the text here, the infobox says 1922.

Comments as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Grand Gulf

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Grand Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of my 2020 GAs I just gave a thorough revamping too. The battle itself isn't much to write home about - a few ironclads shoot up a couple forts, the forts shoot back and beat up three of the ironclads pretty good. The context of the battle is one of the most important events in American military history: Grant's famed crossing of the Mississippi River. The original plan had been to cross at Grand Gulf, but the inability of the ironclads to take out the fortifications led Grant to cross at Bruinsburg instead. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Harrias

Overall, a really nice article that was enjoyable to read. A few small niggles, nothing more:

• "..between the Confederate defenders and the Union Navy ships the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross." I found this a little difficult to keep track of on the first read. Maybe split the sentence a little more, something like "..between the Confederate defenders and two Union Navy ships: the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross."
  • Have rephrased, I think I had meant to write "two Union navy ships" instead of "the Union Navy ships"
• "..with the Union having.." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
  • Done
• "..which saw Union warships and transports loaded with infantry move up the Yazoo River on April 29, skirmish with Confederate forces the next two days." This is either missing a word, or should be "skirmishing".
  • It looks like Nick-D has fixed this
• "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other bore the name Fort Wade." "bore the name" seems a bit laborious, and I think could just be cut: "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other as Fort Wade."
  • Done
• "..a 40-foot (12 m)tall bluff.." Missing a space. I should have just sorted this myself, but...
  • Fixed
• "..was located 0.75 miles (1.21 km) downriver.." Unless we know it is really this precise, drop the precision of the conversion to one decimal place.
  • Rounded off
• "..and 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away from it.." Same here.
  • Rounded off
• "..suggested that the army march further south, with the navy's ironclad warships to cover.." Add a comma after "warships".
  • This seems rather out of place to me, but I'm not very good with commas. pinging Gog the Mild as the great arbiter of comma usage. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Okay, it depends on the meaning of the sentence. Is the army marching south to cover the movement of the transports, or are the navy's ironclad warships covering the movement of the transports? If the first, it needs the comma. If the latter, it would suggest making it slightly clearer, something like "..accompanied by the navy's ironclad warships to cover the movement of the transports." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Grammatically it looks fine to me and seems to convey the meaning you want it to. However, I agree with Harrias that "with" is a bit futsy. Their suggestion seems good. Possibly tweaked to end '... its transports' in order to tie the transports to the army? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The naval forces also had the advantage in size of cannon.." Is there any detail on this?
  • Clarified
• "..while the other three focused on Fort Cobun." Maybe add "remained" before "focused"?
  • Done
• "However, Fort Cobun fought on." Not keen on this very short sentence. Maybe blend it into the end of the subsequent sentence: "The four Union vessels that had silenced Fort Wade moved upriver to face the remaining Confederate fort, which fought on."
  • Rephrased the sentence out of existence; that's probably a relic of the worse-written 2020 version
• "warhips" Typo.
  • Ugh. Fixed
• "Port lost one man in the affair.." Should this be "Porter"?
  • Corrected
• Out of interest, Fort Wade was presumably named after its commander, Colonel William F. Wade. Do we know whether Fort Cobun was commanded by a Colonel (or otherwise) Cobun?
  • I haven't seen any references to a Cobun being involved in the battle, and cannot figure out where the name is coming from. Bearss, Shea & Winschel, Ballard, Miller, and even Wright's archaeological report don't say anything, and general sourcing isn't bringing it up. Not even the source I usually turn to in sorting out obscure Mississippi basin place names has anything. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said at the top, a really good read, thanks. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: - I've rephrased the one outstanding issue (the comma one), so hopefully I've been able to resolved everything. Hog Farm _Talk 00:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: really good work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

The Vicksburg campaign is such an interesting and under-remembered part of the US Civil War, so it's great to see high quality articles on it. I have the following comments:

• The first para of the lead doesn't really establish the significance of crossing the Mississippi
  • I've fleshed out the first paragraph of the lead a bit to better establish this
• The sentence starting with 'Early in the American Civil War' would benefit from being split into two sentences
  • Done
• "Grand Gulf, Mississippi, which was located along the Mississippi River" - I've suggest giving its location relative to Vicksburg
  • I've stated it was to the south of Vicksburg, can hunt in the sources for a distance in miles if desired.
• "By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition in an amphibious operation that would not be exceeded in size in American military history until the Normandy landings" - this seems unlikely given the large size of the Operation Torch landings in 1942 Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Miller p. 365 has It was the largest amphibious landing in American history until D-Day, June 6, 1944 (without an obviously-placed footnote for that specific claim) Kennedy p. 158 has the much weaker In one of the America's largest amphibious operations prior to World War II, the 24,000 men [...] Bearss p. 346 calls it the greatest amphibious operation in American history up to that time but doesn't make any claims about World War II. It looks like Housecarl merged the claim over from the Vicksburg campaign article, where it is apparently pulled from this NPS page with no byline. Given that the two most thorough-going historians I've checked on this - Ballard and Bearss - don't make such a claim. Gonna apply the Sagan standard here and remove the claim as I don't think a NPS piece with no footnotes or byline or an unfootnoted claim in Miller are enough to support that claim. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support the nomination. Sorry about my slow response here. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• "File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf". What is the source of the information shown in this image?
  • No clue where Hal Jespersen got his info from, but it correlates very well to a map in Miller, with the only differences being Miller's map doesn't show Walker's attack, the date for Milliken's Bend, give the crossing dates of the Mississippi River, and has Grand Gulf evacuated on May 2 instead of May 3. The latter points are sourced well enough in the article and I can find a map in Shea & Winschel or somewhere that covers the Milliken's Bend ancillary movements if you'd like. Thoughts? Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think adding Miller as the main source with a note that Shea and Winschel are relied on for the Milliken's Bend stuff should do it.

@Gog the Mild: - turns out that Shea & Winschel don't have the map I thought they did have. Have checked 7 books and poked around online and can't find a good map of Walker's approach to Milliken's Bend. Because the file is a PDF, I can't just crop that part out. Would it be acceptable for me to provide a page range for a chunk of text describing Walker's general approach to Milliken's Bend? Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I have (belatedly) gotten around to adding this info to the file page. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The cites need to be in full, just like any other citation. I have amended them for you, but you may wish to check them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Alt text?
  • Gog the Mild - Added for the infobox image, but I have no idea how to possibly describe either of those complex maps in an alt text-friendly way. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See what you think.

• The first map creates a sandwich with the infobox.
  • Have moved images around, which resolves the issue, at least on my screen)
• "File:Grand Gulf Battlefield Mississippi.jpg". Any further information on the source for this? "National Park Service" is a little broad for anyone wishing to verify it.
  • I have no clue. I cannot find the file anywhere, searching for elements of the file's text description (which read like they're pulled from the NPS document this thing came from) brings up nothing. I've removed the file - it's not super useful due to drastic changes in the river course, and without a real source (and the image appearing to have been made by overlaying a topographic map in Microsoft Paint), I don't think the pros outweight the cons with it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• References and References (?) consistently formatted
• While I'm not aware of any specific issues in Konstam's book, I did note some mistakes in another book on British battleships of WW2 that he wrote. So I don't think that he's highly reliable. I'd suggest that you find another source to replace him.
• All the other sources appear to be highly RS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: - I've fixed the duplicate header name and have removed Konstam outright. Konstam had been added several years ago to support that the Union ships were ironclads, but that's supported in other ways now, so Konstam was no longer necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

Place my chair here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Fort Phantom Hill

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort Phantom Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At long last, my second submission for A-Class of the US Army's many posts in the vast state of Texas. In a time and place with a lot of bad jobs and offices, Fort Phantom Hill was maybe the worst. Isolated, barren, and abundant in nothing but boredom, it was quickly abandoned, unfortunately setting a tone for Jones County, Texas. This is another National Register property, too, and a rather unique one, too. A dozen chimneys and tree stone buildings in the middle of nowhere, on a ghost hill. Hope you all enjoy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe support

• United States Army and Texas are duplicated in the lede

• I cannot now find these duplinks. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Subpost should be a proper wikt link

•  Added –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Civil war is an unnecessary link

• I disagree; that link is to the American Civil War. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Lieutenant colonel (United States) is a duplicated link in main text

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• A direction for forts Worth and Duncan would be useful, e.g. "the southerly Fort Worth..." or whatever is correct

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Might as well give Marcy his rank as you do with other officers

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "One of those locations"

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "what he had witnessed was actually"...and thus it was not actually abundant in water and game?

• Correct. I have nixed this clause and revised the preceding one. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Chronology slightly confusing. Why does the article describe the army building Fort Phantom Hill in paragraph 2 and then go through this again in more detail in paragraph 3? Would make more sense to remove the list of second line forts and move straight from identifying the Clear Fork location to Belknap/Smith turning up and ordering construction

• I am confused. Paragraph two of the article is context about the line of forts to which Phantom Hill belonged. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "assigned command of the area by the time he assumed command of the Department of Texas on September 16, 1851" this isn't the most clear of sentences. Considering we have a date for Smith ordering the construction, there's no harm in saying "On November 3, 1851, General PFS, in command of the Department of Texas, ordered..." or something similar

• Done as suggested. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Are we meant to know what the Pecan Bayou is?

• No; I have contextualized this a bit now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• No need to repeat years all the time; only once at first mention or at the beginning of each paragraph is fine

• Trims made accordingly. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think the fact he was a brevet lieutenant colonel is that relevant to an article about the fort Abercrombie was starting

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Could be made clearer in main text that Camp on the Clear Fork of the Brazos and Fort Phantom Hill are the same thing (if I'm reading note a correctly)

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "creation of a crude road to Fort Chadbourne" a direction or similar would be useful here, all dependant on whether you agree with my previous comment about introducing the second line forts!

•  Added –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "until February 1852" could be clearer as to whether they stop attempting in February 1852 or else

• Source is unclear; states, "Smith's choice of the site [...] was not met with great enthusiasm by the officers of the Fifth Infantry, and until February 1852, they entertained some hopes it would be moved...". Could be OR on my part to render this as "until February 1852 they asked for the fort's abandonment". Thoughts? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have resolved this by cutting the section. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ibid repetition of years
• To clarify, despite the changes in commander, is the garrison still made up of the 5th Infantry until the introduction of the 2nd Dragoons?

• Yes. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Four companies of infantry replaces by one of dragoons? Is this not a significant decrease in garrison size?

• Yes. The fort rapidly declined in importance, as evidenced by the depreciating rank of its CO. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Link ranks - Colonel, General, etc

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• As I read these initial sections I found it disconcerting to not be informed of any of the architecture/structure of the fort. Believe it would be much more useful to have the grounds and architecture split up as necessary between the "Use as permanent garrison" and "Preservation" sections

• Will consider with input on the February 1852 matter (would be the best place to move the relevant portion). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've added a detail about the fort's architecture to pad out the regular section and better tie the whole article together. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• "The fort was ordered abandoned" do we know by who?

• No; I assume the order was issued by the commander of the Department of Texas, but none of my sources state this. They just say that the army left on 6 April 1854. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "travelers through Texas" I think we can assume the travellers are going through Texas without stating the obvious!

•  Removed or perhaps the fort is a stop for inter-dimensional travelers, too –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• What's the "2nd Cavalry Regiment"? Our article says it was still called the 2nd Dragoons in 1856

• Oops. I uncritically lifted that name from Wright when I had previously, correctly, labeled that unit as the 2nd Dragoons. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sentence beginning "Major General David E. Twiggs..." little confused here; Twiggs, according to our article, eventually becomes a Confederate. Why is he surrendering equipment etc and abandoning the state, and to who?

• Ah. Twiggs was surrendering the Federal garrisons and their inventories to the Confederates, specifically the secessionist government of Texas. Because he himself was sympathetic to the Confederacy, he was commissioned a general in the CSA's army and then almost immediately died of illness. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Why have you stopped giving soldiers their ranks suddenly? McCulloch, Barry, etc

•  Added –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• If the fort had been burned, what exactly is Barry actually stationing his troops in?

• Tents. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a more precise date for the departure of McCulloch's troops and the arrival of the Frontier Regiment?

• No, unfortunately, not with the sources I presently have. That said, Frontier Defense in the Civil War: Texas' Rangers and Rebels may have something. I'll look tonight or tomorrow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• This was unfortunately a bust for this article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• "who also encamped at Fort Phantom Hill were also increasingly pulled away" needs rewording

• I forgot an "and" here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "heralding its defeat" there is no other "it" in this paragraph so far, so one assumes the federal government has just been defeated because Confederate forces are surrendering to it!

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Relationship with Jones County" might be better renamed "Civilian use" or similar, imo

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest preservation is a level 2 rather than level 3 heading

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• "who popularized the fort" How? Not sure what this actually means

• Clarified. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• More year repetition here
• What is a marker commemorating the fort doing in the grounds of Jones County Courthouse? What's the connection?

• I have no idea. Were I to guess, somebody probably thought it would be more visible at the courthouse than at the ruins in the middle of nowhere. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Were there any defensive structures/fortifications?

• No. Forts in Texas were designed as cantonments, without actual fortifications. I would have added this if I had or could remember a source describing the military architecture of Phantom Hill. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I may have acquired a source or combination thereof that will allow me to shed some light on this. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of photos of the fort on commons, suggest adding some

• Added one :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Will get to these soon! Today or tomorrow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: You haven't responded to all my comments but it's been a while, so just checking whether you have in fact covered them all? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Should be addressed now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Happy with these changes, supporting; do however consider adding Benjamin McCulloch's rank too. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

• This 1913 article from The Houston Post mentions a B. Paisley as the then-owner of the site who actually lived there with his family. He served the roving journalist who the wrote the article dinner in the old officer's house, which was used as his kitchen, and also used another old structure as a stable. These 1918 and 1919 news items reference a Fort Phantom Hill Oil Company conducting exploratory drilling operations in the area. Mentions of oil drilling drop off sharply by 1920 per newspapers.com. Not sure exactly what to make of all this, but it seems the site wasn't totally abandoned after 1900. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do not know how I missed this comment. I must have been running on fumes. I will look into all this tonight. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Source review

• MOS:PAGERANGE requires the full page numbers be used for both the first and last pages. While not relevant to this review, I'll note that it requires the same for year ranges.

• I wish I had known about this before I had several Featureds under my belt. Fixed now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• References otherwise consistent
• Sources consistently formatted
• Frazer and Field are known to me as highly RS.
• Spot checks not done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• It might be good to add the date of publication or updating to all the Texas Handbook Online pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Using |orig-year= and |year=? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I was referring to the publication and revision dates for the articles themselves in the upper right-hand corner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Those are what I included. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies, my eyes glossed right over them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Heads up, I may add American Forts: Architectural Form and Function as a reference for context and the architecture/layout of the fort. I'll also confer with an essay in the South West Quarterly Review about US military architecture in Texas in the time period and see if, or how much, could be added to the article with both sources. I'll update here if/when I add more material. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• The sole image is properly licensed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Make that two properly-licensed images. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Apologies; I should have notified Hog Farm. –♠Vamí_IV†♠

« Return to A-Class review list

Central America under Mexican rule

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Central America under Mexican rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article covers a one and a half year period from 1821 to 1823 when the First Mexican Empire (somewhat) controlled most of the nations of modern-Central America. It outlines the struggle between the Mexican government and monarchists who wanted to annex Central America against republicans and nationalists who wanted to remain independent, eventually resulting in Central America regaining its independence in 1823. This article was built entirely from scratch as little to nothing of its content existed on Wikipedia prior to July 2022, has passed a Good Article nomination in November 2022, and recently underwent an extensive copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors this month; I believe that this article meets all 5 criteria for promotion to A-class. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 20:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Potential copyright/licensing issues

• I fixed some licensing issues by adding PD-US tags.
• File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG if this is kept needs the licensing for the underlying work (see below)
• File:Agustin I of Mexico.jpg, File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG
• File:Gabino Gaínza.jpg Needs more information on provenance (ie. country of origin, publication date, author's date of death) to determine copyright status
• File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg it's not clear why the US copyright expired. When was this first published?
• File:Ferdinand VII Coin.jpg needs license tag for underlying coin in addition to the existing tag for the photograph

Potential sourcing issues

• File:Bandera del Primer Imperio Mexicano.svg, File:Coat of arms of Mexico (1823–1864, 1867–1893).svg, File:Coat of Arms of the First Mexican Empire.svg, File:Flag of the United Provinces of Central America.svg — needs source for these being the correct flag / coa for what it represents
• File:Political divisions of Mexico 1821 (location map scheme).svg, File:First Mexican Empire (orthographic projection).svg need source for these boundaries existing at the time

Other

• File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG—it's ugly and is there really no scan of this you could upload? (Scans do not create copyright—see {{PD-scan}})
• File:Vicente Filisola.jpg why is this in the article twice? I'd remove the first image because two images of the same guy is not adding anything

(t · c) buidhe 05:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support by Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here. Know next to nothing about this topic, but it looks very interesting. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• later the Mexican emperor as this is relevant for understanding the timeframe, add a date for when Iturbide became emperor
  • Added date
• Despite the acceptance by the Guatemalan-based government in favor of annexation 'in favor of annexation' is redundant
  • Removed
• a coup by monarchists in March 1823 pro-Mexico monarchists?
  • Yes, clarified
• [[Ochomogo War|Battle of Ochomogo]] looks WP:EASTEREGGy. Also, please add date (April 1823)
  • Date added PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Independence of New Spain

• both Europeans and mestizos. perhaps 'people of European descent' for clarity, and briefly explain what a mestizo is.
  • Added

Central American infighting over annexation

• Aside from the shared legacy of Spanish imperial control and geographical adjacency, what were the reasons for 'the prospect of annexation to Mexico' emerging? Did the Central American colonies see themselves as somehow close to the Mexican ones? Financial concerns? Protection against a Spanish reconquest? Iturbide's letter hints at some of that, but some less biased view from a modern RS would be necessary here. It should be explained because a) to an outside reader, it is surprising that people would want to give away their independence, and b) the dissension about accepting the annexation or not is left unclear, apart from the republican/monarchist divide.
  • I'll get back to this
    • I think the wording of that sentence was a bit misleading. The "prospect" of annexation was more meant to be "the mere thought of annexation" rather than "the benefits of annexation". I've reworded that using "idea" instead of "prospect". Regardless, I added that those in favor of annexation argued it would help the region's economy (Carpenter), as well as ideological alignments and belief Mexico would help defend Central America's independence (Kenyon). PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
      • The added explanation is good, thanks!
• the K'iche' were in favor of annexation contextualize a bit who/what the K'iche' were, as most readers won't be familiar with them (or why their opinion was important).
  • Added that they're the largest indigenous group in Guatemala. Basically the only notable thing about their opinion was that they had an opinion at all.
    • Was the addition reverted? I don't see it.
      • I had multiple tabs open when editing so I guess I type this into the wrong tab. Added now.
• Manuel José Arce, a Salvadoran politician, was one of the primary opponents to annexation and a leading republican figure Suggest moving 'a leading republican figure' after 'a Salvadoran politician'.
  • Moved
• He was arrested for calling the last person mentioned is Barriere
  • Fixed
• publish Agustín's letter publicly repetition/redundancy
  • What about it is redundant?
    • Publish publicly ;).
      • Fixed.
• briefly gloss/explain what an open cabildo is
  • Added
• The result of the open cabildos was a decision in favor of complete annexation without any conditions. I see that 67 municipalities did not vote. This and the reasons why should be mentioned.
  • Added
• The Consultive Junta was later dissolved on 21 February 1822
  • Removed
• Are the unlinked signatories of the Act of Union otherwise unknown/unimportant? Even if no articles exist on the English or other wikis, they should still be WP:REDLINKed if there is the prospect of them having an article in the future.
  • Added red links PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Annexation and subsequent separatist conflicts

• The only active resistance against the annexation was in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Nicaragua does this really qualify as 'only'? Three out of five provinces?
  • Removed only
• under the command of Chilean Sergeant a sergeant in command of an expedition? Where there no officers available?
  • I guess. Aceña says that Lieutenant Colonel Manuel José Arce defeated Sergeant Nicolás Abós Padilla
    • Just to clarify: there are no details on why a sergeant was chosen?
      • No, only that he was in charge.
• Filísola recognized that attempting to subjugate the rebel army would be difficult why? due to public opposition? terrain? guerrilla tactics as mentioned below? These are implied, but left unstated, and given the disparity just mentioned, it should be explained.
  • I'll get back to this
    • The sentence prior to that explains why. I've moved it and connected the sentences with a semicolon. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• they later surrendered to Filísola near the town of Gualcince on 21 February 1823.
  • Removed
• The Electoral Junta was established in Costa Rica on 5 January 1822 after the Interim Junta was abolished The Interim Junta is mentioned for the first time, and the reason why it was replaced is not mentioned. Suggest to start the section with a brief intro of the Interim Junta.
  • Added context about the Interim Junta. Sources don't give a reason for why the Electoral Junta was established but it probably has something to do with it being founded on the date Central America was officially annexed.
• In October 1822 some Costa Ricans became frustrated with Agustín when he abolished the Constituent Congress without a new constitution being drafted. Suggest reversing this, e.g. 'When Agustín abolished the Constituent Congress in [date], without a new constitution being drafted, some Costa Ricans became frustrated with the Mexican emperor'
  • Changed
• absolute leader of Costa Rica 'absolute' has connotations of absolutism/authoritarianism; perhaps 'supreme'?
  • Changed
• José Anacleto Ordóñez, a Nicaraguan soldier and merchant, launched a rebellion against Mexican rule on 16 January 1823. what were the motives here?
  • Added motive
    • Well yes, obviously he was discontented, otherwise he wouldn't revolt. But was the motivation nationalism, republicanism, personal differences with pro-Mexican figures?
      • Added nationalist descriptor.
• Non-English technical terms like 'caudillo' should be enclosed in {{lang|es|}}
  • Added PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Independence from Mexico

• Agustín was forced to abdicate the Mexican throne as a result of the aforementioned plot, or due to other factors?
  • The plot, added
• Central America's independence led many Mexican provinces to desire increased regional autonomy...stated that they would declare independence from Mexico unless a new congress was established and how was this resolved? It is left unclear how this situation continued/was resolved/shaped Mexican federalism. This should be briefly covered.
  • Added PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Government

• My comment above about redlinking people also applies to the list of legislature members.
  • Linked PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Economy

• 3,138,451 pesos of foreign debt can this be put in terms that a modern reader would understand? Preferably in 2023 USD equivalents?
  • Sources don't list a currency conversion and I don't know how to convert currency myself, so I don't think so? PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • There are ways of doing this, e.g. finding the USD equivalent in the 1820s from the literature and converting using [2]. Constantine ✍ 09:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Since Dawson says 1 US dollar = 1 Mexican peso in 1823, I used Template:Inflation to find today's value in US dollars so that I know I didn't make a mistake myself and so that it will automatically update itself.

Other

• Images are missing WP:MOSALT
  • I'm not that familiar with image alt text so please let me know if I did it correctly. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • The alt text should not be just a repetition of the caption, but describe what the image looks like. E.g. Iturbide's portrait could be 'Oil painting of a standing man in early 19th-centuy military uniform'.
      • What about now?
• Bibliography is fairly extensive, and looks to be coming from WP:RS. I am not familiar with the topic and its scholarship, but the cited work look appropriate.

That's it, at least for a first pass. I found the article easy to read and understand, and learned a lot in the process. Well done. Constantine ✍ 19:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for your comments! I hope I've addressed most of them. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: Thanks for the swift response. Have crossed out the items done, and responded to the rest. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Changes made. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 05:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: changes look good. Supporting, and thanks for an interesting read. Constantine ✍ 11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)