Open main menu

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks


Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an 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 (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  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. 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 may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal). In this case, please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

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.


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.

Current reviewsEdit

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Albona-class minelayerEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Albona-class minelayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These dinky little mine warfare vessels were originally started for the Austro-Hungarian Navy during WWI, but construction stopped at the end of the war. The Italians had three finished in 1920, and another five were completed a decade later for the Yugoslavs. The remaining six were never completed. Those that had been commissioned all saw service in WWII, in Italian, Yugoslav, German and even Croatian hands. Three survived the war to join the Yugoslav Navy, and one was still in service in 1978. The article went through GAN in 2017, and I've only made a few minor improvements since then. This forms part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

Both images are appropriately licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5Edit

Do this one this evening CET. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me see.
  • class for the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: Kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine; k.u.k. Kriegsmarine) Unlink German 'cause of common term.
  • and a draught of 1.40 m (4 ft 7 in) as a minesweeper and 1.70 m Both "1.40 m" and 1.70 m are too specific.
  • were rated at 280 indicated horsepower (210 kW) Link kW.
  • In Italian service, the Albona-class Link Italian with Kingdom of Italy's article.
  • were armed with a single 76 mm (3.0 in) L/40 gun Like above 3.0 in is too specific.
  • apparatus to assist in the defence of Venice Unlink Venice 'cause of common term..


  • "31.10 m (102.0 ft) (oa)" both metre and foot are too specific and the metre shouldn't be linked.
  • "6.70 m (22.0 ft)" Same as above.
  • "1.40–1.70 m (4 ft 7 in–5 ft 7 in)" Metres are too specific.
  • "1 × 76 mm (3.0 in) L/40 gun" inch is too specific.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5, all done. Here are my edits. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Inter-Allied Women's ConferenceEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Gog the Mild, who did the GA review suggested the article might benefit from the process. Having never nominated an article for A-class, it will be a learning experience for me. (Note, I am not remotely technically oriented. Technical fixes, which might be needed, need to be explained step by step, please. The extremely-noisy/damaged group photograph is being restored by Adam Cuerden, though it may take some time to complete that process. Also, should Cobble or Siegel's reference materials be needed, I can e-mail them upon request). SusunW (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Susun, welcome to Milhist ACR. Thank you for your efforts. I've only taken a quick look as this isn't a topic I know enough about to make too many comments, I'm sorry. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Unsure if the surname is... --> "It is uncertain whether the participant's surname was..."
  • official records of the conference[21] and.... --> suggest adding a comma before "[21]"
  • and saw "female self-determination as the corollary of the democratisation of nations" --> suggest attributing the quote in text
  • As the Russians... --> probably best to say "Soviet Union" instead of Russians here, or "Soviet forces" potentially
  • "File:Avril de Sainte-Croix.jpg": suggest using a cropped version of this so it is consistent (visually) with the other images (i.e. without a border)
  • Interestingly, was just discussing cropping the photo yesterday with restorer, Adam Cuerden, who is working on the image. I have updated the discussion today with your suggestion.[1] SusunW (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography Cobble is overlinked
  • "File:Millicent Fawcett.jpg": would probably be more visually appealing if it faced into the article (i.e. right aligned)
  • same as above for "File:Millicent Fawcett.jpg"
  • Assume you meant Lady Aberdeen's photo, so I made it facing into the article.  Done SusunW (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "File:Lady Ishbel Aberdeen 1899 IIAV 15541.TIF": suggest using a cropped version of this file, removing the signature so that it is more visually appealing
  • I have absolutely no idea how to crop something that has already been uploaded to commons. Have asked for assistance.[2] SusunW (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again SusunW. If you get stuck, ping me and I can crop both for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog the Mild. I didn't want to mess up any of Adam's processes, so I asked him about de Sainte-Croix. As is evident, GMG has helped me with many images, but if he cannot help on the Aberdeen photo, I'll advise. Appreciate your offer of assistance. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done SusunW (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

AustralianRupert Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed the issues you brought up, though I must wait for technical help on a couple of them. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Susan, your changes look good. I will wait a bit to see what the others come up with, and then take another read through. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Greetings SusunW. I'd say welcome here with your first (I reckon) nomination. I'll claim here a seat. I'll be back for my part in this review tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh PS I forgot something. May I ask you which kind of English does the article uses? I think you use British but I could be wrong right? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL. Apparently from the discussion of English between the GA reviewer and one of the contributors[3] it is in British English from the Collins dictionary school, rather than British English from the Oxford dictionary school. Being neither British, nor partial as to what version of English is used, but recognizing that all the other articles on the Paris Peace Conference/committees used British English, I deferred to their judgment of preference. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • opened in Paris on 10 February 1919 Unlink Paris it is a common name.
  • First World War and Second World War VS World War I one of them should be standardised.
  • between 3 and 8 February 1919 Remove 1919.
  • conference scheduled to open on 10 February 1919 Same as above.
  • They mailed invitations to organisations in all Allied Nations American mailed.
  • Are you asking a question here? You want mailed changed to posted? Sorry, but I am confused. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed "mailed" is an American English word. If this article should be written in British then we should change this one to "posted". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • from France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as Armenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Poland, Romania and South Africa Link Italy with the Kingdom of Italy's article, link Armenia with the First Republic of Armenia's article, link Poland with the Second Polish Republic's article, link Romania with the Kingdom of Romania's article and link South Africa with Union of South Africa's article.
  • I realised that we should link New Zealand with the Dominion of New Zealand's article, link France with the French Third Republic's article and link United Kingdom with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's article.

More to come Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Inter-Allied Women's Conference could serve as advisors American advisors.
  • This is like a treasure hunt ;), assuming you want advisers here? and if so,  Done SusunW (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • along with the Maharaja of Bikaner Ganga Singh (India) and other dignitaries Link India with the British Raj's article.
  • issues as deportations from Armenia, Belgium, Greece, France, Poland and Serbia Link Greece with the Kingdom of Greece's article. Also I thought that Serbia merged into the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?
  • I have no problem linking to that, and did so, but the reference article from 1919 states "Cambon pointed out that a woman’s commission would be particularly valuable in presenting the conference with the details regarding deportation of women from France, Belgium, Serbia, Greece and Armenia", clearly calling it Serbia. If you are okay with linking, then it is  Done SusunW (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • the sale of women in Greece and Turkey were pertinent issues Change Turkey to Ottoman Empire and link this article 'cause officially it was called Ottoman Empire instead of Turkey.
  • Ten, without Wilson present, on 11 March 1919 Remove 1919.
  • serve in any office of the League of Nations Link League of Nations.
  • -isation VS -ization.
  • were intent on participating in the November 1919 Remove 1919.
  • Conference scheduled to convene in Washington D.C. or the State Washington?
  • with others from Belgium, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands Link Liechtenstein 'cause it is not a common term.
  • advanced on territories held by Germany Link Germany with Nazi Germany's article.
  • records and took them to Moscow where Unlink Moscow 'cause of common term.
  • the KGB's secret Osobyi Archive [de] (Russian: Особый архив) Unlink Russian 'cause of common term.
  • This is I think not possible. The template to input a foreign term automatically renders a link to the page X-language, in this case Russian language. As there are 22,800,000 hits to Особый архив and only 1,670 to Osobyi Archive, the Russian name is the common term and I felt it should be included. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you CPA-5 for your thorough review. I think I have addressed all of your points, but if not, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

The sources used all seem reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67Edit

G'day and welcome to Milhist ACR, Susun. Thanks for putting this article together, coverage of such topics is seriously under-represented on WP, especially given the relatively recent recovery and cataloguing of the archives. I have a few comments:

  • I suggest stating who M de W-S was when she is introduced, for example, "a vice-president of the International Women's Suffrage Alliance/President of the French Union for Women's Suffrage" do we know in which role she wrote to Wilson?
  • Kind of complicated and I hope I made it clear. The IWSA was an umbrella organization and the French auxiliary branch was the FUWS, so in effect she was representing both.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • when did she send the letter to Wilson? Suggest including this
  • I think the sentence beginning "Concerned with war crimes committed against women..." is too long and needs to be broken up
  • same as point 1 for Rosika Schwimmer, Hungarian ambassador/Hungarian suffragist? and Millicent Fawcett, British suffragist?
  • link Belgium for consistency
  • I disagree with you PM. You just run in a dispute here. May I ask you why should Belgium be linked here if your John Leak's nomination doesn't link Belgium? If youn think about that then it is looks really odd. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should be consistent within an article. If we accept that Belgium is so commonly known as not to be linked, then why link all the other countries that people should know? Frankly, I've seen too many YouTube videos where people can't even find Australia on a map of the world, so why assume people know where Belgium is? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not assuming that people know where Belgium is or some informations about that country. I definitely believe you I met some people who barely know about Belgium. Why do I ask to link other countries is because the countries who I believe should be linked are not common to the readers. They've not for nothing a seprate article. If we are talking about common terms then it should be only the current state not like the country France who've a lot of kingdoms and republics's articles. New Zeeland became indapented from the Britons in 1947 so it make sense that the article Dominion of New Zealand should be linked because it's before its curent state. Other articles like the UK or Japan did have some other officially names or even government systems. Like Japan had an absulute monarch and was called Imperial Japan. Belgium on the other hand has one article and one kind of government system in its modern history. Believe if we link Belgium here then I think we should link it in your article too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with the observations about geography (I have only met one traveler in years of international moving about who knew where Mérida, Mexico was), but my concern here is Sea of Blue. On the other hand, we could Ignore all Rules and link Belgium to Belgium in World War I, because as we said in the article, "significant changes were made to the political, cultural, economic, and social climate of the world". Knowing the context of the historical period is important and tying each of these countries into the time in question adds to our understanding of events, IMO. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • where it says "French suffragists alerted Wilson", is this a reference to M de W-S's letter or an second approach to him?
  • A second approach. Inserted 25 January.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • link Greece at first mention rather than second one
  • link Netherlands
  • link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review Peacemaker67, if we can figure out how to link Belgium, I think I have addressed all your concerns. If not, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The issue of whether to link Belgium or not is such a minor matter, I'm not going to argue the toss over it any further. All the rest of my points are addressed. This is a great article, very happy to support its promotion to Milhist A-Class. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Peacemaker67. I truly enjoyed working on it. Now to find those looted archives from Belgium and Liechtenstein (I previously wrote about the Dutch one). Who knows what other stories have been left out of our historic record that are hidden there? SusunW (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PendrightEdit

Kudos to you for an article that is both interesting and well written. Pendright (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


  • The women in question had been denied an opportunity to ...
Which women "in question "are being refered to?
  • Changed it to "Leaders in the international women's suffrage movement"  Done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Though the Inter-Allied Women failed to achieve many of their aims, it is significant in that their efforts marked the first time negotiation ...
Consider changing "it is" to "it was".


  • In parallel, the French feminists worked to persuade [the] male delegates to support [the] women's involvement,[9] as they were convinced that international co-operation and co-ordination were required to solve [the} domestic socio-economic problems. [The] Women who responded to the call to participate as either ...
Consider adding the definite article as noted.


  • The Paris Peace Conference negotiations took place over a five-month period from January to May 1919, ...
Consider replacing "a" with "the"

  • Though their conference did not begin until February, the women immediately got to work and a delegation, led by chair Millicent Fawcett, met with Wilson ...
  • Consider replacing "a" with "their" or "the."
  • Would chariperson be better suited than chair?
  • In the recent RfC[4] chair and chairperson were pretty evenly supported. Chair has been in use since the 18th century, whereas chairperson is a word of recent origin. At the time in question, it would have been likely that chair or chairman would have been used. As chair is clearly the ungendered term, it is to my mind, the better choice. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wilson suggested, instead, that [the] male diplomats on the commission form a Women's Commission ...
Consider adding the definite article "the".
  • The resolutions the Inter-Allied Women presented to chair Samuel Gompers,[27] covered a variety of issues including the health hazards of working conditions.
  • Would chairman or chairperson be better suited than chair?
  • See above. In the interest of keeping it neutral and less confusing, it seems weird to use chairman for Gompers and chair for the women. Chair is ungendered and to my mind should be consistent throughout the article. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider adding "the" before chairman/chairperson, and a comma afterward.
  • By the end of March, the women had persuaded [the] delegates to introduce a measure specifying that [the] women could serve in any office of the League of Nations.
Consider the deinite article as noted.
  • Changed at delegates, but not at women. They didn't just earn the right for the women present to serve, but for any woman.
  • Arguing that the civil status of women and children was inadequately addressed in international law, the Inter-Allied Women expressed concern over civil codes which allowed child marriages, condoned the prostituting, trafficking and sale of women and children, and treated women as the chattel of their husbands and fathers.
  • ... civil codes which allowed child marriages, condoned prostituting and trafficking and sale of women and children; treating women as chattel of their husbands and fathers.
  • Consider the above changes or something similar?
  • Changed to "... civil codes which allowed child marriages; condoned prostituting, trafficking, and the sale of women and children; and treated women as the chattel ..."  Done SusunW (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The resolution pointed out that while women suffered in time of war, they also undertook jobs soldiers, who were away fighting, could not do ...
A word seems missing between jobs and soldiers?
  • Inserted "which"  Done SusunW (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • They insisted women should be given equal access to all offices, committees and bodies of the League and that governments which failed to grant equality to women should be barred from membership.
Cosider adding a comma after the league, to break up the sentence that seems to have two independent clauses.

A pause here - Pendright (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Pendright for the review. I think I got the points made to here, but ping me if I did not adequately address them. SusunW (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Elliot SeeEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk),Hawkeye7

Elliot See (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Astronaut Elliot See died in a T-38 crash in 1966. A GA currently, Hawkeye7 and I improved it since then, and we believe it is ready for an A-class review. Kees08 (Talk) 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was the first attempt by the newly founded Fatimid Caliphate to push east into the heartlands of the Muslim world and replace the Abbasids, and the event which actually made them noticed for the first time in Baghdad. Although at times it seemed on the verge of overrunning Egypt, the enterprise was a failure, not least because it was a gamble, with the Fatimid regime itself too unstable to sustain such a costly effort for long, against the still relatively intact resources of the Abbasid empire. The article is relatively new, has passed GA, and I hope to eventually submit it for FA. Any feedback and suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome. Constantine 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Damn you're fast in those articles. Oh well it looks good I'd say.

  • coast between Ifriqiya and Egypt, and captured Alexandria Unlink Egypt.
  • I'd rather not; it is a common term, but I prefer to link to the countries/regions, because from bitter experience I know that people often know surprisingly little about "common terms". PS I've relinked to Medieval Egypt.
  • wife of Ali, they regarded the Sunni Abbasids Unlink Sunni.
  • Here I definitely disagree. Most people don't know what the Sunnis are, or that Islam has branches. The Sunni-Shi'a rivalry is an integral part of this article's subject.
  • Intresting here in Belgium the people I know know at least one difference between Sunni-Shi'a especially the Muslim comunity (btw I am not a Muslim so I don't really cheat by saying everyone who I know are also a Muslims). But it is possible that non-Muslims in other countries or regions don't know them. But works for me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • the gateway to the Levant and Iraq Maybe add modern or present-day before Iraq or use Mesopotamia instead of Iraq?
  • Relinked to Iraq (region), since the name Iraq was definitely current in the 10th century (and is the origin of the modern country's name).
  • cities on the coast at Tripolis Maybe add Greece before Tripoli because Lebanon and Libya have both alsoon 27 August 914 he a city called Tripoli.
  • Huh, that's embarrassing, it is the wrong link. Of course Tripoli in Libya was meant. I was mislead by the fact that in German and Greek, the name can be still either Tripolis or Tripoli. Fixed now.
  • on 27 August 914 he entered Alexandria.[12][11] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Fixed, also a couple of other occurrences.
  • raided south along the Nile and devastated This is a little treaky for me as a child back then we know about the rivier but I do not know or it is in the rest of the world knows it. Probably it is if children (not sure or they know the river these days) know then I guess we can unlink it.
  • Just as with Egypt, I prefer not to unlink; I have even added "River" to give a clue to the clueless.
  • are contained within this basket!".[30][21] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Fixed, as above.
  • as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent Does the source claims it was a sect at the time? Because in the present-day it is definitely not a sect.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, thanks again for taking the time. Please have a look. Constantine 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review - SupportEdit

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I have made some copy edits which you will want to check.

  • "The attempts to conquer the capital, Fustat" Optional: delete "The"; add 'Egyptian' before "capital".
  • Done.
  • "The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909, when they overthrew the reigning Aghlabid dynasty with the support of the Kutama Berbers. In contrast to their predecessors, who were content to remain a regional dynasty on the western fringes of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids held ecumenical pretensions: as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent from Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad and wife of Ali, they regarded the Sunni Abbasids as usurpers and were determined to overthrow them and take their place." A slightly long sentence. Suggest converting the colon to a full stop.
  • Reworked.
  • "cities on the coast at Tripoli and Cyrenaica" Mixing a city and a province reads oddly. If you keep it, it should be 'and in Cyrenaiac'. But maybe 'in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica?
  • Good point, reworked this part.
  • "the powerful Kutama general" "powerful" seems an odd descriptor. What was it that made him powerful?
  • Rephrased
  • "but Sunni sources claim" You write as if Sunni sources were in opposition to Imad al-Din. Were they? If so, could you elaborate? (Yes, I know, but it's a bit esoteric for the average reader IMO.)
  • Clarified this in the section where the sources are first introduced.
  • "... Barqa was evacuated without battle, but Sunni sources claim that the Fatimid troops committed atrocities …" Not sure about the connection. Suggest full stop after "battle". (And delete "but".)
  • Hmmm, you are right. Rephrased.
  • "the Syrian provinces were mobilized; already in September 914, the first Syrian troops began arriving in Fustat" Recommend swapping the semi colon for a full stop. (Delete "already")
  • Done
  • "which either way became impossible when" Recommend deleting "either way".
  • Done
  • "The Fatimid expedition itself was considered risky" Recommend deleting "itself".
  • Done
  • "Indeed, according to Michael Brett" Recommend deleting "Indeed".
  • Done
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks as usual for the copyedits and the good suggestions. Anything more? Constantine 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Nicely done. No, that was all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

149th Armor RegimentEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

149th Armor Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, I began to work on this article in February 2012, after 7 years of on and off effort nominated the article for elevation, and with the help of Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) the article was promoted. Now, on the way to a future FA Nomination, I would like to nominate this article for A-class review. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:149thArmorReg.png and File:149thArmorDUI.png: source links will not load
  • File:Manila_declared_open_city.jpg: source provided identifies this as a Japanese photograph, not one created by the US Army
  • File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg: the stamp mentioned in the note under the image description page does not appear on this image. Is any further information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: For the map size, would you suggest say 25% or 34% of page width for the map images?
I'd start with |upright=1.4 and see how that looks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason why the link would not open is that the Institute of Heraldry website has been down since July 2018
Is an archive link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have made a modification of the author field at Commons.
Okay, but the licensing tag is still US Army. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I am unaware of the exact photographer of the image. Would this image be a better one?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The credited author of that image, the National Guard Education Foundation, is an independent non-profit, not a part of the US federal government. If the authorship is correct, the tag is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have implemented the upright sizing for the maps.
I have added an archive link for the DUI image at commons.
What would be the correct license tag? The image is taken from a book published by the United States Army, and thus why it might be why Cave cattum (talk · contribs) utilized that tag. Another possible license could be this one.
What was the date of the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Nesnad (talk · contribs) uploaded the image File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg which appears to be from the Library of Congress. I have changed the license there.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, not seeing the stamp on that image that would identify it as being part of the set covered by the instrument of gift. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As for the alternate image of File:40th in Watts.jpg, it is utilized at this website. If the image does not have a specific author, and I am not seeing a specific license for the 501c3 that is the National Guard Education Foundation.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I don't know the first known publication of the image, but the book itself was initially published in 1953. If the image was taken during the Japanese occupation of Manila, it would have been taken in December 1941.
The File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg file is the same one as seen at this website, which for the rights being discussed on this website. It does not appear to be restricted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the five potential categories on the latter site: given that there are no visible stamps on the image AFAICT, that rules out categories 1 and 3. Of the remaining categories, one would be free, one would be unclear, and one would be non-free. On what basis are we determining it is free? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I believe that the opinion above is in error regarding File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg. The image on Wikimedia commons is cropped from the original image. It is also listed as being in a collection that is nearly entirely in the public domain. Furthermore, even if it was a UPI photo, as stated in that most photos pre 1991 did not have their copyrights renewed. Therefore, we can AGF that the uploader of the image, Nesnad, believed that the image was up-loadable onto Wikimedia Commons and clear of copyright issues.
I'm quite willing to accept that the uploader honestly believed the image was clear of copyright issues; however, that doesn't mean the uploader was correct in that belief. The first link you provide confirms that this was a UPI image from 1965, and the second that "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As no further comment was made about the Open City image, is Nikkimaria of the opinion that it has no copyright issues?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The current tagging of that image is incorrect, but based on the information provided above the Japanese tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have removed any image relating to the Watts Riots, to resolve that issue regarding the correct license tag.
I have placed the Japanese license tag on the Open City image.
Is there anything else that needs to be resolved?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Calais (1346–1347) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ten years into the Hundred Years' War, after an eleven month siege, the French port of Calais fell to Edward III. This article attempts to give some idea of the military and political background to the siege, an outline of its impact on other theatres of the war and a sketch of its immediate and longer term consequences, as well as the major features of the siege itself. No doubt it fails to do this in various ways, but hopefully you can nudge it back on track. All input gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by ConstantineEdit

As usual, a well-written, well-researched, and interesting article. I've added some links to technical terms that the average reader might not be familiar with, and made some copyedits going through it, feel free to revert as you see fit.

All of the changes seem to me to be improvements, but I expected no less.

I only have a few comments:

  • "Parliament grudgingly agreed to fund the siege". Why "grudgingly"? Is it somehow connected to the fact that "Edward declared it a matter of honour "?
  • Good point. No. Elaborated. (Edward's declaration was probably intended to put pressure on Parliament, but that is OR.)
  • "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies" I assume trying to mediate? Then state it explicitly, as it is already indicated further below.
  • At first mention I had introduced their mission as "had been attempting to negotiate a halt to hostilities since July 1346" so that seemed redundant. See what you think of my revised formulation.
  • And change "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries" into "The two cardinals..." since they are already mentioned earlier.
  • Good point. Changed, although differently to how you suggest.
  • I would recommend adding the dates of the works (and possibly also the painters, as far as known) to the two kings' portraits; it should be made clear that these are ahistorical representations. Likewise add a descriptive caption for the infobox picture, as this is a generic medieval siege, not an illustration of the siege of Calais specifically.
  • Dated to their centuries of origin. Artists not added. Infobox image caption added.
  • Map not ordered by me, but I thought that I had checked that. I have asked the map orderer to confirm the source (although I am pretty sure that I know what it is) and will then update the infopage.

Otherwise I really have nothing to remark on. The context is well presented, and the narrative coherent and lucid. Well done. Constantine 09:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Thanks for stopping in on this one. Your queries addressed above, although you may wish to hang fire until I have added the map source. I shall re-ping once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Constantine Sources for the map added. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: On the papal emissaries, these were always the two cardinals, or not? If so, then introduce them at the first mention. I would simply move "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries from Pope Clement VI had been attempting to negotiate a halt to hostilities since July 1346, with no success." up and merge it with "Pope Clement VI's emissaries continued to travel between the armies, but neither king would speak to them" and then "In an attempt to save face, Philip now admitted the papal emissaries, whom he had until now ignored..." or something like that. Otherwise the changes look good to me. Constantine 13:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies Constantine, I was being slow on the uptake. Fixed. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it looks good now. Once again, well done :). Constantine 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Back to the game.

  • number of German and Breton mercenaries and allies. Link Breton.
  • The English fleet paralleled the army's route Wiktionary and yourdictionary claim that parallelled is British but Oxford doesn't support this claim. So which one should this article uses?
I write in standard British English and not Oxford English.
  • @Gog the Mild: I know you do write it in standard British English, but likewise Wiktionary and yourdictionary claims that parallelled is British English. Of course I am not British and this could be both correct, I am not sure that's why I ask it better to a real Briton than trusting my sources like those dictionaries. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I misunderstood. Well I think that I know, but let's refer that to a language expert as well. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Put not your trust in Rileys: I am not an expert – just an amateur grammar fancier. But for what it's worth my view, backed by the OED and all four editions of Fowler, is that "paralleled" is the only acceptable past tense of the verb. Tim riley talk 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. I have left it in that format. I assume that you took into account that I do not write in Oxford English? Do you have a view on north-west etc immediately below? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ha funny "just an amateur grammar fancier". Well I'm happy to get an answer by you Tim. Really weird that Wiktionary uses this kinda verb and claiming that it is British. I understand that yourdictionary could be wrong because their web page doesn't look like it can be trusted it is also possible that they copy-pasted from Wiktionary. Anyway thanks for your involvement. Also Gog I use British dictionaries like Oxford and Cambridge I only don't like the -ize concept. Because I can barely say it in my tongue and it sounds/looks wrong to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One of these days the Oxford University Press will finally admit that ize endings – familiar to students of Ancient Greek and unthinkable to anyone else in England – are absurdly old fashioned. I'm not sure I shall live to see that happy day. Tim riley talk 21:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • north-west VS north west.
Well, usually I write it as two words, eg "campaigning in the south west", but I have been told by those who know that when used adjectively, as in "financial centre of north-west Normandy" it should be hyphenated. Mr Riley, I wonder if, as expert in such things, you could confirm or otherwise this view?
  • Hmm intresting and when do you use it without hyphenates?
At a quick glance this looks like the difference between an attributive and a predicative adjective or adjectival phrase, as in 'an up-to-date list' but 'the list is up to date'. But I don't care to venture a view on hyphenating geographical directions when used attributively. Tim riley talk 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: I have queried a (retired) modern languages professor and they confirmed that a hyphen should be used when a compound direction is used adjectively; and that in other cases it is acceptable to use two separate, unhyphenated words. The article now complies with this; it didn't before, so a good spot. I think that that is all of your queries addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Flanders in the body.
  • Link Calais. in the body
Whoops. Done.
  • for the rest of the war,[61][28] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • to be deployed overseas prior to 1600.[57][42] Look what I found. Could you see the issue? I do.
 :) Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Rhine Campaign of 1795Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Rhine Campaign of 1795 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... part of a series on the French Revolutionary Wars that ripped up Europe, and the better part of the world, in the 1790s. Extensive renovation since last A-class review. I look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this for GA, during its first visit to ACR and made a few suggestions while Auntieruth was subsequently working on it.

  • Optional: "Political terrain"? Perhaps 'Political background'? ″altered″
  • "the Rhine Ditch". Why is this in italics? removed
  • "Further to the north, the river became deeper and faster". Does your source definitely support this? I thought that in this stretch it became broader and slower, and meandered more. explained.
  • " For the French, the more German territory they could control, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." I am not sure that this actually makes sense. fixed
  • "For the French, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." In what way was the approach "reliable"? removed
  • Optional: "not only in terms of war aims but also in practical terms: the French Directory believed that war should pay for itself". I would replace the colon with a full stop. fixed
  • "and prepared for invasion". Is that 'and prepared to be invaded', or 'and prepared to invade'? fixed
In what way? It looks the same to me.
  • "By 1795, Pichegru was leaning heavily toward the Royalist cause. During the campaign, he accepted money from a British agent". Should events "during the campaign" not be covered in the section "Campaign of 1795", rather than one after the Aftermath section? In any event, I don't see what this paragraph has to do with the "School for marshals". No, Marshals is a title.
  • "The Army of the Rhine and Moselle (and its subsequent incarnations) included five future Marshals of France" You then list eleven men who served in the Army of the Rhine and Moselle and its subsequent incarnations and became marshals. So was it five or eleven or have I missed something? okay, it was 5 in Phipps' text, and 11 when you count them, so I took out the number and replaced it with "several"
  • an army could also use the river's flow to approach the Austrian capital" How? (Assuming they are marching and not swimming.) Yes, you know and I know the answer, because we are aficionados, but a reader wouldn't. removed. not really relevant to 1795 campaign
  • "engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers" I think that you need to standardise on either "French" or "Republican French" throughout the article. fixed
You have one "Republican French" left, in " Wurmser, engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers, commanded by Pichegru".
  • I would have thought that cadre was standard English and didn't need to be in italics. fixed

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I got everything. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking good. Two outstanding queries above. Resolve them and give me a chance to have another browse through and I think that you will be getting a well earned support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
got them! :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, Ruth, great to see you back. I reviewed this in the earlier ACR, and have checked the edits since then. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Much of the territory of these polities was not contiguous, a village... --> suggest a semi colon instead of the comma here done
  • Dufour's division was cut to pieces and Dufour was captured --> probably could replace the second "Dufour" with "he" here to save repetition done
  • Of the lessons learned in both 1794 and 1795, the Habsburgs may have concluded that they could not rely on their allies --> suggest attribution in text here, for instance, "Rothenberg speculates that that of the lessons...", or something similar fixed
  • is the surname "Pattison" or "Dunn-Pattison"? If the latter, then the work appears out of alphabetical order in the Sources fixed
  • further to the above, currently this author's name is presented as "Pattinson" in the article but the link is at "Pattison" fixed
  • in the Sources section, the ISBN that is provided for Phipps appears to be the same as that provided for Rothenberg 2007 fixed
    • G'day, Ruth, I have adjusted this for you with this edit as I think you may have missed it earlier: [5] Can I please get you to check this is the correct isbn for your edition? (I was guessing at this from Worldcat). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent fixed
  • "Rothenberg, p. 39" and "Rothenberg, pp. 37–39" probably should employ something to clarify which work by Rothenberg (1973 or 2007) this refers to fixed
  • "fumbled" and "bungled" -- not sure about these terms as they seem potentially loaded I'm not sure what else to call them. It was a complete debacle, misuse of resources, loss/waste of manpower....
    • Would something like this work: "The promising start to the French offensive ended when Pichegru lost an opportunity..."? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • changed per above, although that replacement text is an understatement! auntieruth (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • sources: look pretty good to me, although I caveat I am not an expert on this era. One query, though, the Rickard/History of War sources --- I have seen some editors express doubt about these elsewhere on Wikipedia. What is your take on their status as reliable sources?
  • Which is why I only cited them once, as background. They are very basic sources that sketch the bare outlines of the battles or skirmishes. I confirmed everything there with Smith. Since you questioned them, I took out the citation, and changed the header to "resources". auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Works for me, thanks. In terms of reliability, Rickard appears to have some military history credentials per this [6], and the site also has other published authors contributing to it, so it is potentially ok as a source at least for some of the articles that fall in the authors' sphere of expertise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size fixed
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: first source link is dead I removed the dead link.
  • File:Battle_of_Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim_1795.jpg: source link is dead. fixed Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Dvenadsat ApostolovEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng and for any infelicitous prose or unexeplained jargon in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from ParsecboyEdit

  • I spy "armour" in the infobox and a "harbour" in the prose
  • The initial battery of all medium-caliber guns is interesting, as this was before the "hail of fire" school of thought came into vogue in France and Germany, IIRC - is there anything more that could be said about this?
    • No, it appears that there was no real rhyme or reason for deciding the armament of Russian ships of this era. Calibers proposed for the main armament ranged from 9 to 12 inches.
      • Fair enough
  • Move the link to Hull (watercraft) to the first use of the term
  • On a related note, you have two sentences in a row that start with "Her hull was..."
  • "She was assessed" - by whom?
  • "the ship's s were raised" - something's wrong with that link
  • " guns is unknown" -> are
  • "The bulk of the armor used in Dvenadsat Apostolov was compound armor" - this seems a little repetitive to me
  • "to rearm her as with smaller guns" - this doesn't read right to me

Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me, nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

My Lord not the first reviewer here. ;)

  • at the cost of 75 long tons (76 t) in September I don't reckon we need to link long tons.
    • Don't be so sure. How many people know the difference between short and long tons?
  • I'm not see what that has to do with linking long tons or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • pairs of 12-inch (305 mm) Obukhov Model 1877 30-caliber guns By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
  • The four 6-inch (152 mm) Model 1877 35-caliber guns Same as above.
  • at a muzzle velocity of 1,870 ft/s (570 m/s) to a range Link both ft/s and m/s?
    • Sure, why not?
  • thinned to 12 inches abreast the magazines No metric units?
    • Converted on first use.
  • armor was 10–12 inches (254–305 mm) thick Remove 305 because if you convert the sentence above then this 305 shouldn't be there.
    • Converted for the 10 inches, but it would look funny if I only converted one.
  • supplied by Charles Cammell of Sheffield, England I don't reckon England ought be linked.
  • invented by Lieutenant A. P. Ygrumov and also to evaluate Is there a link for A. P. Ygrumov?
    • Nope.
  • prevented an attempt by Captain Kolands to blow up Kolands who?
    • No first name given.
  • The Naval Technical Committee proposed to reboiler Link for Naval Technical Committee?
    • Nope.
  • rearm her with four ten-inch guns in two turrets No metric units?
    • Already converted
  • The four 6-inch (152 mm) Model 1877 35-caliber guns Remove the "(152 mm)" there is already one previously.
    • Don't think so.
  • she was used on various harbour duties British harbour.
  • when they evacuated the Crimea in 1920 Link Crimea.
    • Linked in the lede
  • Note All dates used in this article are New Style I reckon it could be handy if you add the amount of days differences of both calendars (which was 12 days before 1900 and 13 since 1900).

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You're losing a step! Gotta up your game if you wanna be first! ;-) See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Nymphe (1863)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Nymphe (1863) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And now for something (sort of) completely different - to give you a break from all of that steel, here's a bit of wood and sail. This ship saw service during the wars of German unification, including the Battle of Jasmund in 1864, and was later used to protect German interests in Asia and finally as a training vessel. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • a blockade of the Baltic and North Sea ports of Prussia Maybe link Prussia?
    • Added a link, but earlier
  • island of Rügen; off the Jasmund peninsula Capitalise "peninsula".
    • Done
  • May I ask you did Prussia uses metric units? Because the article uses primary metric but this sentence after Sjælland closed to 1,600 yards (1,500 m) uses US/imperial units as primary units.
    • Good catch, flipped the units
  • Ehm you indeed flipped them, but you changed "m" in the "British metre". Please rechange it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nymphe took the 15 cm gun from Delphin No US/imperial units?
    • Added
  • French merchant shipping in the Atlantic Ocean Unlink Atlantic Ocean.
    • Done
  • She reached Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 14 October, where she stayed for two weeks Unlink Rio de Janeiro?
    • Done
  • After crossing the Indian Ocean Unlink Indian Ocean.
    • Done
  • then sailed north into Oceania Unlink Oceania.
    • This I'd prefer to keep linked - it's not a common term
  • I only ask to unlink those names if I remember them as a child. Then I am sure it needs to be unlinked. However this one is more a linguistic issue, as a Dutch speaker you'd say Oceania and not Australia as a primary name to the region. While English speakers do uses more Australia than Oceania. If one of my comments are again little linguistic issues then feel free to say that. Cheers.
  • the ship traveled overland to Bangkok, Siam Unlink Bangkok and link Siam.
    • Done
  • she crossed the Pacific to San Francisco, United States Unlink San Francisco?
    • Done
  • and on the way she stopped in Lisbon Add Portugal after Lisbon.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • But this one deserve a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest making "She had one sister ship, Medusa, and the vessels were wooden-hulled ships armed with a battery of sixteen guns." the second sentence of the lead
    • Works for me
  • also in the lead, "in the process of being recalled to Germany" begs the question of where she was. Suggest adding "from the Mediterranean Sea"
    • Good idea
  • also in the lead, suggest "on the armored vesselsFrench ships" to avoid repetition
    • Good ieda
  • also in the lead, suggest "she touredvisited numerous citiesports"
    • Done
  • suggest "sufficient experience to operate the steam machinery"
    • A much better version - thanks
  • link ship commissioning
    • Done
  • "had arrived off Swinemünde"
    • Fixed
  • per MOS:TIME, 7:30 needs a leading zero
    • Fixed
  • suggest "the range grew too farlong"
    • Done
  • suggest "she was nevertheless never in serious danger
    • Done
  • suggest mentioning that Geestemünde was a new naval depot when it is first mentioned, and link Geestemünde
    • Good catch
  • suggest "On 21 July, she was assigned to the defenses of Neufahrwasser that protected Danzig."
    • Good idea
  • "he sortied and began"
    • Fixed
  • same time issue with 1:15 and 3:00
    • Fixed
  • the lead mentions lack of damage to the French ironclads but there is no mention in the body
    • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "where she helped to settle disputes" do you mean Blanc here? I assume he was the one doing the talking, or was it just the presence of the ship that smoothed things over?
    • Clarified
  • suggest "but theseit too lacked a usable harbor"
    • Done
  • the sources all appear of high quality and reliable.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again PM. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No prob. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of MonmouthEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Battle of Monmouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has undergone significant expansion recently, using a relatively recent, scholarly source that focuses on the subject. I hope to put this up for FAC if the article passes ACR. I have done my best to review the images and add appropriate copyright tags supported by sources where necessary; I hope that I have done enough there to pass muster. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sirhenryclinton2.jpg: American Museum link is dead
  • File:Battle_of_Monmouth_Monument_at_Courthouse.jpg should include an explicit tag for the monument. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
CPR administered to the American Museum link, and patient has made a full recovery. PD-US-expired added to monument image, supported by date monument was dedicated as provided with source in summary info. Hope that's all in order now, and thanks as always. Factotem (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Ramillies (07)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Ramillies (07) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ramillies was completed after the Battle of Jutland and only played a minor role in World War I. She supported Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and during the Greco-Turkish War from 1919–1922. After the Italians joined the war, she escorted convoys to Malta and supported the raid on Taranto that crippled the Italian battlefleet. Ramillies was transferred to the Indian Ocean a few months before the Japanese joined the war. During the invasion of Madagascar in 1942 she was torpedoed by a Japanese midget submarine. In 1944 the ship bombarded German positions during the landings in Normandy and in the South of France. She was placed in reserve in early 1945 and scrapped in 1945. Parsecboy and I have thoroughly overhauled the article and we believe that it meets the A-class criteria. We'd like reviewers to look for any bits of AmEnglish that might be found as well as any unlinked or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PMEdit

I thoroughly reviewed this article at GAN last month, and consider it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, gentlemen, looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • in the infobox, 4 Shafts; 4 steam turbine --> "4 shafts; 4 steam turbines"
    • Fixed
  • during the First World War in the mid-1910s: are both date references necessary here? Maybe just "during the First World War", or given that some were laid down before the war, maybe just "during the mid-1910s"?
    • Good point
  • colors --> "colours"
    • Fixed
  • landing party of 50 Royal Marines that...: remove the link to Royal Marines here as it has been linked earlier
    • Done
  • After the Battle of Jutland: link Battle of Jutland?
    • Done
  • AA machinegunss: typo
    • Good catch
  • inconsistent: "launched on 12 September 1916" (body) v "Launched: 12 June 1916" (infobox)
    • Corrected the box
  • On 5 October, Ramillies was ordered: as it is a new section, it probably doesn't hurt to add the year here
    • Works for me
  • returned to Devonport for a refit[21], suggest moving the citation outside the comma here

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • speed of 23 knots (42.6 km/h; 26.5 mph) both km/h and mph shouldn't be linked.
    • Fixed
  • as well as ten 20 mm Oerlikon guns I'm not a specialist in cannon and weaponry but shouldn't guns be cannon?
    • Yes indeed
  • Ramillies and Revenge were sent to Georgia to monitor Suggest to replace the country Georgia's link with the Democratic Republic of Georgia's link.
    • Good idea
  • Turkish Nationalist forces advancing on Ismid Shouldn't it be Izmid?
    • Ismid is one of the accepted Latinizations
  • visited the ship on 16 August in Hvalfjörður, Iceland Unlink Iceland.
    • Done
  • which was to be based in Colombo, Ceylon Replace link of Ceylon with British Ceylon.
    • Done
  • Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo's powerful Kido Butai American Vice Admiral.
    • Fixed
  • force for the invasion of Madagascar (Operation Ironclad) Link Madagascar with the article French Madagascar.
    • Good idea
  • on the northern end of Madagascar in the dark Unlink Madagascar.
    • Done
  • outside the Imperial War Museum in London Unlink London.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries soldier another support for another ship. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PendrightEdit

@Sturmvogel 66: or @Parsecboy: Your nominating statement said, in part, “We'd like reviewers to look for any bits of AmEnglish that might be found” ... I take this to mean, where found or possible, minimize Amarican English and maximize British English. Am I in the ballpark? Pendright (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: and @Parsecboy: hey gentlemen just a small reminder here that the comments by Pendright are here almost two weeks. Could someone please address them? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


  • The ships were developments of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, with reductions in size and speed to offset increases in armour protection whilst retaining the same main battery of eight 15-inch (381 mm) guns.
  • Consider "the" before developments and change develpments to "development"?
Second thoughts: I wonder if development(s) is the right word here - as I read it again, the ships resembled or were similar to the Queen Elisabeth-class battleships?
  • Conider inserting "the" btween in & armour
  • Considder insertng "their" between in and size.
  • ...the ship went to Turkey twice in response to crises arising from the Greco-Turkish War, ...
Consider adding "the" before the word crises.
  • In May 1940, she was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet as war with Italy loomed.
Consider "a" before war.

  • In 1944, she was updated for coastal bombardment duties, which she performed later that year ...
In practice, I've yet to see a user of British English place a comma before the word which as American English requires. The rules do differ, but I’m unsure of the application so 'll leave the call to you. However, wherever I find American English used in this regard – I’ll bring it to your attention.

Design and description:

  • During the early 1920s a Fairey Flycatcher fighter was deployed from that same platform.
Consider a comma after the 1920s
The University of Bristol (on Google) points out that the introductory phrase or element sets the stage for the main part of the sentence.

Major alterations:

  • A pair of octuple mounts for 2-pounder (40 mm (1.6 in)) Mk VIII "pom-pom"s were added on platforms abreast the funnel and directors for them were fitted on the foremast.
  • In April of that year 10 more Oerlikons were added and an additional three in 1944–1945.
Consider a comma after year

Construction and the First World War:

  • ... shipyard in Dalmuir, Scotland on ...
Consider a comma after Scotland.

Interwar years:

  • On 16 March 1920, Ramillies, and her sisters Revenge, Royal Oak, and Royal Sovereign landed parties of Royal Marines and sailors ...
Consider this: On 16 March 1920, Ramillies and her sisters, Revenge, Royal Oak, and Royal Sovereign, landed parties of Royal Marines and sailors ...
  • She decommissioned for an extensive refit at Devonport in September 1926, which concluded on 1 March 1927, when she recommissioned for service.
Comma before which?

Second World War:

  • The German ship never entered the Indian Ocean, however, and so Ramillies was transferred back to the Mediterranean Fleet in May 1940 ...
  • The German ship shoud be "A" German Ship
  • Deleting however & and should make it a clearer sentence.
  • Ramillies was unsuccessfully attacked by the Italian submarine Pier Capponi as she approached Grand Harbour.[47] and then escorted the aircraft carrier Illustrious
... Grand Harbour.[47] and then escorted the?
  • She continued convoy operations in the North Atlantic through August, and during this period, she escorted Convoy HX 106, which encountered the German fast battleships
  • Comma before which?
  • Why the comma after period?
  • In October 1941, the Admiralty decided the ship was to be transferred to the 3rd Battle Squadron, which was to be based in ...
Comma before which?
  • He therefore divided his fleet into two groups: Force A, which consisted of the ...
Comma before which?
  • ... Somerville received a report that the Japanese fleet was approaching Colombo, which they attacked
Comma before which?
  • ... "although the vessel is now 26 years old and felt by most to be of little value owing to reduced size and slow speeds, the Ramillies is in exceptionally good shape, and I should wonder whether or not the capital ships of today with their lighter scantlings would survive a blow as well as this old girl, some 26 years after they were built."
... they were buit?
  • She joined three American battleships and the reactivated Lorraine, which had since joined the Free French Naval Forces.
Comma before which

Done - Pendright (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John LeakEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

John Leak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The latest in my project to get all South Australian VCs to FA. Leak was a British migrant who settled in SA after the war and died here. Very reticent to talk about his war experiences, he faded into obscurity despite his VC. The article went through GAN a while ago, and I think it includes everything that there is available on him, including the most recent book on Aussie VCs by Blanch and Pegram. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments: G'day, PM, nice work. A rather enigmatic individual. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • suggest linking Battle of Pozières in the body of the article
  • trenches — OG 1 and OG 2 --> unspaced emdash, or spaced endash
  • an lengthy bombardment --> "a lengthy bombardment"?
  • Charles Bean, as "among the heaviest that occurred either on the Somme or at Verdun".: suggest adding a citation after the quote
  • On 31 July, Leak was... suggest maybe splitting the paragraph here
  • On 23 February he went --> suggest adding an introductory comma after "On 23 February"
  • Ultimately, the sentence was suspended: do we know why? I assume his past deeds and possible shell shock might have been taken into consideration, but that is just speculation
  • I had the same thought, but there isn't anything in his court martial file to indicate why the decision was taken. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On 30 December 1918, after his... suggest starting a new paragraph here
  • On 10 April he attended...: suggest adding an introductory comma (as per above)
  • At some point his wife disappeared from his life: are there any more details about this? Did she leave him, or literally became a "missing person" who potentially met with some unfortunate fate?
    • This source suggests she did not join him in Australia when he returned: [8]. It also talks about some of the confusion about his age (for instance the headstone stating he was only 76 at death, which would mean he was born in 1896). I wonder if has solved the question...but, of course, that doesn't help us here at the moment
  • It isn't clear, I've gone for this vague formulation because we need to explain his second marriage, but none of the sources say what happened to her. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The VC online source I've listed above says "Beatrice was left behind in Wales and never joined him in Australia". I feel this is pretty clear, but maybe I am missing something here? Also, currently the article says "Leak and his new wife sailed for Australia" -- which is cited to the NAA record. I couldn't see mention of the wife in the record on p. 64. Given that it seems likely she didn't make the journey, I'd suggest at least just saying "Leak sailed for Australia". This source also says she didn't make the journey: [9]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit unsure of how reliable either source is regarding this issue. The Brisbane Council website is reliable for the street name, but I think it is dubious for Leak's personal details. If Blanch and Pegram didn't see fit to make it clear in their recently published work, I wonder how reliable vconline is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • G'day, PM, fair enough, although the site does have a comprehensive bibliography [10] (but alas no specific citations) and it might be possible to contact them to clarify what source they have used for the information about Beatrice not leaving the UK, per their contact page here: [11] It might be possible then to view whatever source they used and cite that if considered reliable. If you don't feel like you want to do this, no worries, it probably is a bit above and beyond; however, I feel that there is sufficient doubt about the sentence (in our article) On 9 February 1919, Leak and his new wife sailed for Australia...., particularly as it is cited to the NAA service record, which as I state above I cannot see where it mentions the wife. As such, at the very least I think this sentence should be revised to remove mention of the wife, unless you have a source that specifically states that she came with him (from memory I think They Dared Mightly might say this -- but I don't have the book at the moment). Anyway, I have to go away for a while at short notice to deal with some drama interstate, so will check back in a week or so when hopefully I will be back home. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This was rather sloppy of me, I should have rechecked the sources. After mentioning the marriage, Wigmore and Harding say "They then returned to Australia on 9 April 1919", as does Staunton. I've added those citations for the return trip leaving the NAA citation just for the arrival in Qld. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Works for me, but I do hope that one day a reliable source will emerge that resolves this ambiguity as I feel that there is a rather sad story here that probably deserves to be told. Anyway, great work as always. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1964, Ada died suddenly: do we know the cause?
  • Leak died at Redwood Park: do we know the cause?
  • the article is in the category "Australian people of English descent", but is this accurate? If his parents were both Welsh, wouldn't Category:Australian people of Welsh descent be more appropriate? I note, however, that the Mays source says "Cultural Heritage: English", so I suppose that is why it sits in the English descent category. Probably fraught with danger moving it either way, I suppose (minor quibble, probably no action really required)
  • Image review:
    • the caption for "File:John Leak VC AWM A03589.jpg" says "married a month later" -- but this doesn't gel with the timeline presented in the article. The photo was taken in November 1916, but Leak didn't marry Beatrice until December 1918
    • licences seem correct to me (no action required)
  • Sources:
    • in the Books section, slightly inconsistent "Sydney: Angus & Robertson" v. "Sydney, New South Wales: Angus & Robertson"
    • in the Books, the Staunton work has a secondary title that could be added: "Victoria Cross: Australia's Finest and the Battles They Fought"
    • in the Websites, slightly inconsistent use of italics. Compare "Australian War Memorial" with "Australian War Memorial"
    • sources appear reliable to me (no action required)
  • there are no dab links and no actionable dup links (no action required)
  • I believe there is a street named for Leak in Glenelg -- vaguely remember it from when I lived there many years ago. Not sure if its mentioned in any sources, though, for you to cite
  • No worries. However, there is also a street named for him at Gallipoli Barracks, which can be sourced to this: [12]. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Strangely enough, real life took me to Leak Street just yesterday. It was a rather humbling experience in what was otherwise a rather disappointing week which tested my faith in human beings in general...sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments This article is in excellent shape. I have the following comments:

  • " the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces" - not sure about the "at that time" here - presumably it's because it's referring to the VC, and not the VC for Australia, but this distinction might be pretty minor for the lead (especially as the medals are essentially identical, with the VC for Australia being the 'Australianised' version of the VC). I'd suggest discussing this when it appears in the body of the article.
  • I think it is ok to make the distinction in the lead, it is commonly made when describing say, Keith Payne's VC, as distinct from the Afghanistan ones. As the media did when Payne was in Adelaide for ANZAC Day recently. The Victoria Cross for Australia is a unique award with different approval requirements with the same short name. I would make the same distinction for Roberts-Smith, Donaldson etc. I've also piped Australian armed forces as distinct from ADF, which is a more recent creation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "and joined the fifth reinforcement draft " - this implies he had a choice over where he went. I'd suggest replacing "joined" with something like "was assigned to"
  • The first three sentences of the para starting with "He was evacuated" refer to Leak only as "he". I'd suggest mixing this up a bit.
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life" - this is slightly unusual wording - presumably nothing is known about what happened? (even whether there was a divorce?)
  • the reliable Australian sources say that his first wife travelled with him to Australia, but that he remarried later, nothing about what happened to her. See my discussion with AustralianRupert above about this. I've therefore left it suitably vague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we know what the current location of Leak's VC is? (presumably still held by the family?). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good question, but as is often the case with these VCs, there is no coverage of it because it doesn't appear to have changed hands. Presumably in the hands of the family. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If the family still holds it, I imagine they don't want to advertise the fact due to the risk of theft (as the NZ case shows is a major issue), so fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Anzac Cove beachhead on the Gallipoli peninsula in the Ottoman Empire Capitalise "peninsula".
  • had been withdrawn back to Egypt for re-organisation Unlink Egypt 'cause of common term.
  • Leak's battalion was allocated a 500-metre (550 yd) Does Australia uses metric units at the time?
  • had fought in the Battles of Broodseinde and Passchendaele Maybe add Belgium after "Passchendaele".

That's anything from me I think. CPA-5 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries soldier. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): LouisAragon (talk)

Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was the second time Basra had come under Safavid control. Though the Safavid military had considerably weakened by this period, the Safavids took the opportunity, ousted the Arab rebels led by Shaykh Mane from the city (they had revolted earlier against their nominal Ottoman overlords), and garrisoned it with their own troops. Not wishing to break the peace with their arch rivals the Ottomans, and due to persistent pressure on the city by the Arab rebels, the Safavids decided to withdraw from Basra in 1701, allowing the Ottomans to retake control of the Persian Gulf city. This event is especially interesting as it shows some Safavid "decisiveness" in a period generally known as a period of decline, weakness and unassertiveness. I recently took this article to GA and have decided to nominate it for A-Class on Gog the Mild's recommendation. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

That's right: blame me Face-wink.svg .

  • All images need alt text.
    • Done.
  • Sources: Longrigg requires a subscription, this should be noted.
    • Done.
  • Al-Muntafiq and Constantinople are duplinked.
    • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the standard bits done. I will hold back on a full review for now to give other editors a chance. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • city of Basra by the Muslim Safavid dynasty of the Persian Unlink Muslim.
    • Done.
  • the Safavid-appointed governor of Arabestan Province --> "the Safavid-appointed Governor of Arabestan Province"
    • Done.
  • @CPA-5: Why do you think that "governor" here and in the six other cases below, should have an uppercase G, given MoS:titles of people?
  • The noun "governor" is a title too and should be capitalised like MOS said "A title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name is capitalized: when the Queen and the President met on 22 April 2016." Okay there are more governors in this article but all of them are specified in a region so if you say "the governor of Baghadad" then the governor should be capitalised because you know who he is. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this, I know about capitalizing Queen and President in certain circumstances, but having to capitalize "governor" and some other of such nouns (see below) is a new one to me.

"fiercely independent" Arab (in the south) Unlink Arab.

    • Why exactly? Its the first time mentioned in the body of the article.
  • You're not wrong it is indeed the time mentioned in the body but it should be unlinked because of MOS:OVERLINK
  • relief with which travelers coming from the west American travelers.
    • Why American? I re-checked the source and I couldn't find any mention about the travellers being American. Or am I missing something?
  • No no I mean it is written in American English and I assume that this article is written in British English.
  • en route to Mecca and Medina. Unlink Mecca and Medina.
    • Why exactly?
  • As a non-Muslim I can tell that both cities are popular in these days. It's the same with Jerusalem, - see MOS:OVERLINK
  • during the Ottoman-Safavid War of 1532-1555 --> "during the Ottoman–Safavid War of 1532–1555"
    • Done.
  • Ottoman governor Ali Pasha sold Basra to a certain Afrasiyab --> "Ottoman Governor Ali Pasha sold Basra to a certain Afrasiyab"
    • Done.
  • some 45 kilometres (28 miles) to the north of Basra No country used metric units so please switch over to miles or the local units as primary units.
    • "No country used metric units" -- First time I'm hearing this in a review. Could you please elaborate?
  • Well I mean at the time so imperial units should be primary here.
  • the Ottoman governor of Baghdad established direct control --> "the Ottoman Governor of Baghdad established direct control"
    • Idem; I don't see why "governor" should be capitalized.
  • We know that there is one governor of Baghdad at that time so he or she is recognisable already like you the Queen is also recognisable even we don't use her name.
  • ousted the Ottoman governor and troops --> "ousted the Ottoman Governor and troops"
    • Idem.
  • captured Basra, prompting Shaykh Mane to flee.[8][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Done.
  • The Iranian-appointed vali of Arabestan province --> "The Iranian-appointed Vali of Arabestan province"
    • Idem.
  • the governor of Kohgiluyeh, to move on Basra.[9][2][1] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Done.
  • the governor of Dawraq (modern-day Shadegan, Khuzestan) --> "the Governor of Dawraq (modern-day Shadegan, Khuzestan)"
    • Idem.
  • to the Ottoman Sultan Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703) --> "to the Ottoman sultan Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703)"
    • "Sultan" should be capitalized as far as I can see?
  • Husayn to offer the Basra to the Ottomans.[9][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Done.
  • the city of Basra and demanded --> "the City of Basra and demanded"
  • from its Safavid governor, Ebrahim Khan.[10][2] --> "from its Safavid Governor, Ebrahim Khan" and suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Idem.
  • blockaded Basra, which caused a famine.[10][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Done.
  • against the Safavid governor and looted --> "against the Safavid Governor and looted"
    • Idem.
  • between the Ottomans and the Iranians.[4][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


@CPA-5 and LouisAragon: I hope that you don't mind me moving the discussion down here to keep it focused.

Firstly, are we all agreed that we should "apply lower case to titles when used to describe a position", per point 1 of MoS:titles of people?

Secondly are we agreed that "when preceding a person's name as a title, begin such words with a capital letter" and "a title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name is capitalized" per points 2 and 3 of MoS:titles of people?

If not, can we discuss; if we are then it is, it seems to me, a case of whether when the article states "from its Safavid governor, Ebrahim Khan" or similar "governor" is used A. to describe a position, or B. preceding a person's name as a title. (It seems obvious that it is not a title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name, as the name is straight after it.)

If we are agreed so far, then it is my opinion that this formulation is not a title, any more than "Safavid" is, but is a description of the position.

Obviously I could be mistaken. In which case I would welcome someone pointing out where. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Shah_Ismail_I.jpg: source link is dead
  • Unfortunately, I couldn't find a newer link.
  • File:Imam_Ali_Shrine,_Najaf.jpg: as Iraq does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work.
  • Done.
  • File:Sultan_Husayn_by_Bruyn.jpg is tagged as lacking a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.

Comments by ConstantineEdit

Will start reviewing shortly. Constantine 16:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I will comment here as I go through the article. In the lede section (without having yet read the body of the article other than a cursory glance) I already have quite a few remarks.

  • "The Safavid occupation of Basra..." Either add the date directly there or call it, per the nomination blurb, "The second Safavid occupation...". For events that have been repeated, the disambiguations should somehow be factored into the bolded title. And in this context, it should also be mentioned that the Safavids had held the city before, when that was, and how they had lost it.
  • "of the Persian, or Iranian, Empire" too much for the lede; pick one and stay with it throughout, at least in the lede. In the main article you can add details. Personally I lean towards Persian because that is the historic term, "Iranian" makes the casual reader think of the Islamic Republic, but it is your call.
  • "In 1695, Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis", what was this Shaykh? Something along the lines of "In 1695, the local Arab tribal leader Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis..."
  • "the Muslim Empire" no capitalization, this is not a proper name.
  • "which controlled much of the Balkans and the Middle East." rather irrelevant that they controlled much of the Balkans; let's not confuse the reader.Focusing on Basra, two things are of importance here: a) that the Ottomans were the other major Muslim power in the wider region and rivals to the Safavids, and b) that they had ruled Basra up to 1695 (and would again after 1701).
  • "They gained control of the city of Basra" Who is "they?" Currently it reads as if it was the Ottomans.
  • "and wanted to attack Hoveyzeh, the provincial capital of Arabestan Province." Why? What was that attack in aid for? How would it help them retake Basra? Without context it looks like a dispersal of effort.
  • "the Iranians took control of the city" per above re "the Iranians". In this case I would strongly recommend using "the Safavids" throughout. Pre-modern patrimonial empires are best referred to by the ruling dynasty.
  • I think that the "Background" section is not really represented in the lede section, although it comprises more than half of the article body. This should be rectified, per WP:LEDE.

Will continue later with the main body of the article. Constantine 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cplakidas:. Your remarks prompted me to conduct a large-scale overhaul. I added quite a bit of content to the lede as the story and background are quite complex. Probably added too much, but I can always trim it down. Looking forward to the rest of your comments and suggestions.
Up to "Prelude" section
  • "Basra was of particular geo-political importance in the 16th and 17th centuries as it lay on the frontier of the Ottoman and Safavid empires and the Arabian Desert.[1] As an important port it played a pivotal role in the growth of the Indian Ocean trade." I've some minor tweaks here. Other than that, I think these phrases mix up two different things: one is the political environment (Basra on the Ottoman-Safavid border) and the other is its geographical environment (at the edge of the Arabian Desert and a port for Indian Ocean trade). I would put these two in separate statements.
  • Done, please let me know if you disagree.
  • "in the orbit of the Ottomans as that of the Safavids" suggests influence, not rule over. I would suggest merging this with the next sentence
  • Done.
  • "Despite Basra's significance, it was located in a troubled region" why would its significance have bearing on its location in troubled regions? Strategically important areas have a bad habit of being in, or themselves, "troubled regions". Plus the explanation given, regarding the weather, is not really what is usually meant by "troubled region". Perhaps something like "During this period, furthermore, the wider region around Basra was unstable/troubled. Large parts of present-day Iraq..."
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • "be it merchants or pilgrims en route to Mecca and Medina" relink "pilgrims" to Hajj
  • Done.
  • link "Turkoman" to Oghuz Turks
  • "In 1508, during the reign of King (Shah) Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), the first Safavid ruler," move "the first Safavid ruler" before "King".
  • "This was the first time Basra had come under Safavid suzerainty." rather redundant, as you have just said that Ismail was the first Safavid ruler.
  • "They would often act as Safavid proxies and were led by a Safavid governor. They participated in campaigns against the Arabs of southern Iraq and Basra." merge, something like "They would often act as Safavid proxies in campaigns against the Arabs of southern Iraq and Basra, led by a Safavid-appointed governor"
  • " they were nominal Safavid subjects" nominally perhaps?
  • "a buffer between" link to buffer zone or buffer state
  • " the Bedouin ruler of Basra" I would suggest moving the "Bedouin" part at the start, when you first introduce the al-Mughamis. "The Bedouin Arab tribe of Al-Mughamis, a branch..." or something similar
  • "exercised a great deal of independence" -> "enjoyed a great deal of independence at the time"
  • "was tenuous at the time" -> "was initially tenuous"
  • "a force to Basra" -> "a military force to Basra", plus a question: did this mean that a garrison was installed in the city? If so, state it explicitly.
  • "Though Safavid control of central Iraq lasted for the relatively short period of 42 years," the relevance of this is not immediately apparent here. Make a link with Basra and the Ottomans, e.g. "Though Safavid control of central Iraq lasted for the relatively short period of 42 years before they were replaced by the Ottomans..."
  • "inhabited by many Shi'ites" the significance of this will be lost to the average reader. Add somewhere that the Safavids were Shiites, while the Ottomans Sunnis.
  • "returned to Constantinople" relink to Istanbul, the Constantinople article is only for the Byzantine period
  • "Yet, apparently the Ottomans agreed to form a working relationship with Afrasiyab;" the "yet" appears unnecessary
  • "However already by the 1620s, Basra had long been an autonomous domain of the Afrasiyab dynasty, with the Ottomans only ruling in name" redundant, already covered by the previous sentence.
  • "Shah Abbas the Great" -> "The Safavid Shah Abbas the Great", as otherwise it may not be clear
  • "had come on friendly terms" -> "had come to friendly terms"
  • "retreated as there were more critical tasks" -> was withdrawn to deal with more critical tasks"
  • "fighting against Ali Pasha of Basra" this may be confused with the previous Ali Pasha. Perhaps simply "the Ottoman governor/pasha of Basra"?
  • "continued and harsh Ottoman mistreatment", "and harsh" is rather redundant
  • "to plea for the ban" -> "to plead for the ban"
  • "Contemporaneous traveller Jean Chardin" -> "The contemporaneous traveller Jean Chardin"
  • "came to Isfahan in 1675 to ask Suleiman I" link and add regnal dates and the title "Shah" here, rather than further below
  • " a punitive expedition to Basra." punitive for what transgression?
  • ", however, it did not last." -> "for the time being" or leave out altogether
  • "in relation to regaining Iraq however did not change" "however" is redundant
  • "his unassertive stance" -> "his unassertive nature" perhaps?
  • "Sultan Husayn was a Safavid ruler who actively", remove "was a Safavid ruler who"
  • "Shia", "Shi'i", and "Shi'ite", for example at "encouraged pilgrimages to the Shi'ite holy shrines in Iraq; during his reign, Iranian pilgrims were known to visit the holy Shia sites in unprecedented number" agree on a common form, perhaps "Shi'a" for the sect and "Shi'ite" as an adjective.

Overall, the section is really interesting, but I fear it unbalances the article (per WP:SS). I would strongly recommend trimming/merging information as far as possible to retain only the general outlines. Some parts, e.g. Shah Abbas'/Emamqoli Khan's campaigns could definitely be summarized without much loss; for example, the fact that the army was 30,000 strong, or who led it, or why he withdrew, is rather irrelevant to events that happened 70 years later. The important fact is that Abbas tried repeatedly and failed.

Will revisit the new lede and the rest of the aritcle later today. Constantine 15:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "had also plundered a number of hajj caravans " -> "had also plundered a number of pilgrim caravans" for consistency
  • "which signified Shaykh Mane's expansionist ambitions" how exactly?
  • "of Arabestan province" -> "of the neighbouring Arabestan province"
  • "was also concerned. Some 5,000 dissatisfied members of the Moshasha". If the vali was concerned because of the links of the Moshasha with Shaykh Mane, then say so explicitly.
  • "Farajollah Khan and his Moshasha forces" perhaps "his loyal Moshasha"?
  • "the former emerged victorious and captured Basra," then this should not be under "Prelude"
  • "On 26 March 1697 the Safavid troops took control of the city" I am confused, when had they lost it again? Last Basra was mentioned, it had fallen to Farajollah Khan...
  • "In late 1697, Shaykh Man...This forced Sultan Husayn to offer the Basra to the Ottomans." for chronological consistency, this should be mentioned before the mission to Constantinople
  • "entertained an Ottoman embassy in Isfahan between December 1698 and April 1699" not sure why this should be a quote; this is not an opinion or judgement, but a statement of fact
  • "the contemporaneous Carmelite records refer to Davud Khan as a "dog"' link the Carmelites, and why is this appelation important to know?

Constantine 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The reworked lede looks much better. Just a few suggestions:

  • "the provincial capital of Arabestan Province" remove either "provincial" or "Province" to avoid repetition
  • "the Safavids under Shah Sultan Husayn (r. 1694–1722) reacted by sending a Safavid force" for the same reason, remove the second "Safavid"
  • "On 26 March 1697 the Safavids took control of the city" again, as in the text, it is implied that the Safavids took the city when they ousted Shaykh Mane; this would seem to contradict that. The sequence of events is rather unclear.

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of SluysEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Sluys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this article to GA nine months ago and have worked on it on and off since. Suggestions for further improvements would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, silted-up as it is a compound adjective
  • in the lead, suggest "the French of 230"→"the 230-strong French fleet"
  • suggest using River Orwell rather than just Orwell, 'tis is an obscure waterway
  • it is a bit weird using Sluis and Sluys in the same article. If Sluys was what it was called then, perhaps stick with that? Or use "Sluis (also Sluys)"?
My mistake. Done.
  • mention in the lead that the French ships were being separated and in a state of disorganisation when they encountered the English fleet
  • link Genoa and Monaco, also Flanders
  • drop the italics for castles
Replaced with inverted commas.
  • link Displacement (ship)
  • link Southampton and Hastings
  • "6 galleys,"→"six galleys" this occurs later as well
Both done
  • link Dieppe, Le Treport and Mers
  • link Admiral of France at first mention in the body
  • full stop and no space after corsair
  • who were "Edward's continental allies" referred to here? Gascony? The Flemish? Given some allies re-appear later, perhaps this needs an extra sentence?
Rewritten to cover this. Thanks.
  • link Zeeland
  • Genonese
  • move link to Zwin up to first mention
  • suggest a comma after "English slipping past"
  • link Bruges
  • again, who were the "hard-pressed allies"
Done. (I hope.) See my comments elsewhere.
  • the sentence beginning "The French were anchored..." seems redundant?
Good point. Largely deleted and the paragraph reordered to be clearer.
  • "fouled against each other" seems a strange phrase. What does fouled mean in this usage?
Replaced with "entangled with each other". (See Foul (nautical).)
  • "Béhuchet's tactics proved disastrous" do you mean his decision to rope the boats together? Or to separate them?
  • Flemish allies? But earlier it says that Flanders was neutral?
Good point. Earlier mention t the Flemings earlier neutrality deleted. It's not really germane and confuses the reader. I hope that this, togother with the mention of the Flemings rebelling and joining the English, is sufficient explanation for a reader to follow.
  • link Harfleur
  • "to run men and munitions to Scotland" perhaps indicate why?
Tweaked to try and clarify.
  • link Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands

That's all I have. Mostly wikification, but a few substantive queries to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks as usual for your thorough going over. It has been interesting seeing what I was missing tem=n months ago; sorry that it meant that you needed to point out all of the Wikification. All of your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Great work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • He jailed them, causing the Genoese crews to mutiny As a non-Briton I can see that the word "jailed" isn't a British English word but instead it is an American English word. Please change it to gaoled.
Actually, jail is the normal UK usage today, and has been for about 50 years. As it says on Wiktionary, gaol is "dated". The Guardian newspaper's style guide comments "Jail, not gaol (inexplicably, the Guardian persisted with this style well into the 1980s, long after everyone else had changed)".
  • @Gog the Mild: I knew this answer would come. I use the dictionaries who still use gaoled. Like Collins [13], [14], Merriam-webster [15], even my favourite one Oxford Dictionary does [16] and many more dictionaries the only dictionaries who says it's dated or even archaic are Urban Dictionary [17] and Cambridge Dictionary [18]. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: "the only dictionaries who says it's dated or even archaic are Urban Dictionary [19] and Cambridge Dictionary [20]". Plus the two RSs I provided links to above. Plus Wikipedia - "dated, British and Australian English". My trusty paper Chambers which I have had since 1972 gives preference to jail. Even my 1962 two volume Oxford Dictionary accepts jail as a UK usage. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I told you dictionaries not reliable sources which can be anything and everything. This looks the same scenario as the word "connexion" which is by some sources and Wiktionary dated but others like Oxford, Collins and Merriam-webster says it's still not dated. So I guess "it's not dated" if some dictionaries still use it. Yes modern-day English uses the word "jail" a lot of more than gaol but gaol is still official and dozens of reliable dictionaries says "goal" is British and "jail" is more a standardised version of the two. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey Tim could you be kindly to have a look in the gaol VS jail discussion too? Which one is the most correct in British English and most British one? Also Gog I reckon this discussion is waiting for an answer. Because this one is standing here for awhile it's like we forgot this one. Anyway I think we shall wait for our "a language expert" (aka Tim) his answer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Apologies. I hadn't realised that you had meant the above as an actionable comment. If you look at the MoS spelling chart under "UK & Ireland" you will see "jail, gaol" in a green box. The MoS states, above the chart, "boxes in green show use of British spellings". I take this to mean that the MoS finds either of these variants acceptable as British English. I note in passing that New Zealand and Canada have only "jail", and it is still in a green box as a "British spelling". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • a senior advisor, insisted that putting to sea "American advisor"
Well spotted. Changed.
  • believed that it totalled between 120 and 150 ships.[25][20][26] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • small number of other English combatants.[43][38] Same as above.
  • the passage of enemy ships, "like a line of castles".[29][20] Same as above.
  • lines across the three miles wide estury No metric units?
D'oh! Done.
  • This one is a little odd. In the former sentence lines across the three miles wide estury it says 3 miles but you changed it to 2 miles was the 3 miles sentence incorrect then?
  • No, it means that I was typing with my thumb. Thank you for being on the ball.
  • that the attack took place at 3:00 p.m.[b][31] The article has two kinda letter notes. The first one has the letter before the citation and the second one is been at 11:23 a.m. on 24 June.[20][c] where citation is before the letter note.
Good spot. Standardised.
  • Ref 30 "pp. 381–84." --> "pp. 381–384."
  • number of other English combatants.[43][38][43] Two 43s refs.
Sorry. I copy and pasted to reorder the refs when I thought that I had cut and pasted. Sorted.
  • rest of the French were immobilised.[38][35][39] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • and, to a lesser extent, other Mediterranean ports. [7][8] The space isn't necessary.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again CPA-5, I do appreciate the ceaseless way in which you check over the sloppiness in my articles, and the thorough way in which you don't let anything get past you. All of your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You forgot a spot "ref 30 pp. 381–84. --> pp. 381–384." Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Hello gentleman me and Niki are waiting for already over 10 days for your changes. Could you please address or reply to those comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Apologies. I seem to have got half way through and then abandoned it. Your points now addressed and I shall set to work on Nikkimaria's. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC) PS Thanks for the ping.

Image reviewEdit

  • File:BattleofSluys.jpeg: source link is dead
Replaced with a link to the original image in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France.
  • File:Kogge_stralsund.jpg needs a US PD tag and more details on the source
I struggled, and so have replaced with an image which I hope is better licenced.
  • File:Edward_III_noble.jpg needs a tag for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I wonder if you could help me with this one? I am not entirely, or even at all, sure what you are asking for. (I am guessing that it is a 3D AND 2D copyright issue.) I thought that the Classical Numismatic Group double licencing covered it, but I am a neophyte. I have looked at about a dozen coins in other FAs and can't see where this image's licencing is inferior. Is there a Wiki-policy or something you could point me at? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct, it's a matter of 3D vs 2D copyright - the current tagging covers the photograph of the coin, but not the coin itself. The coin is in the public domain due to age and just needs a tag to say so. See the Commons page on currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you. I think that that set me straight. I found the multiplicity of Commons guidance pages unhelpful - I probably didn't find one that was pitched at my level of ignorance - but going back to your advice above and first principles I hope that it is now correctly licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of KharistanEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Battle of Kharistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One more in my series of articles on the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. This battle was the turning point of the wars between the Umayyads and the Türgesh, and was something of a miraculous success for the Muslims, who had been driven back into Khurasan. The article passed GA back in 2016 and had fallen off my radar since, but I think it is comprehensive and up to A-class standards. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by ChetsfordEdit

A very good article that is as comprehensive as can be expected for an 8th century battle. Article is thoroughly sourced with all references originating from reputable, academic presses. The form checks (DAB, alt text, etc.) look good. There is a logical and cogent organization and a neatly formatted infobox with map. The lead is of appropriate length for an article of this size. An image might be nice but, having followed all the personal name links in the article, I can find none that would be appropriate so that's that. Anyway, I have only one comment and this is suggestive only:

  • "In the ensuing clash, the Türgesh right under Ibn Surayj was victorious, reportedly reaching Asad's tent, but after an attack from the rear, reportedly on the suggestion of the ruler of Juzjan, the Türgesh and their allies broke and fled, leaving behind their encampment with their women, including the wife of the khaghan, who was stabbed by a eunuch servant to prevent her from being taken captive." - Through grammatically correct, this is an exceptionally complex sentence with no fewer than eight (8!) commas, making it difficult for the reader of average or lower intelligence to comprehend (e.g. me).

Chetsford (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Chetsford for your time and comments. I've broken up the sentence. Cheers, Constantine 12:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "thereby forestalling the collapse of Arab rule over Khurasan". Optional: that reads a bit clunkily to me. Can you phrase it more felicitously?
  • "but had been increasingly hard-pressed by Türgesh attacks". Would it be possible to introduce the Turgesh, here or in the paragraph above? Who they were, where they came from or why they were attacking - just a bit of context.
  • I've generally revamped the lede a bit, have a look
  • "his army's baggage train was annihilated". I don't think that you mean "annihilated", I think that you mean something like 'captured'.
  • The baggage train also included an armed escort, which was indeed annihilated; changed wording accordingly.
  • "Asad's successor Nasr ibn Sayyar was able to use the collapse of Türgesh power to restore the Arab position in Transoxiana almost to what it had been before the Türgesh intervention." Do we have any idea by what date this restoration was effected?
  • Added
  • I have only got to the end of the lead and already I am a little confused by one side being variously referred to as "Umayyad", "Arab" and "caliphal". It may be helpful to chose one and stick to it.
  • I've tried to make the connections somewhat clearer, and I'll keep that in mind, but I cannot eliminate the other designations altogether (it must be also mentioned, for example, the the Umayyads were Arabs, because Ibn Surayj was also an Arab, etc).
  • I assume that " conquered by the Arab Muslims" and "loyalty ... to the Umayyad Caliphate" refers to the same thing?
  • Moved the first mention of the Umayyad Caliphate up to address this.
  • "from 720 on the Türgesh launched a series of attacks". "on" seems to me to be redundant.
  • Removed, and added circa, since the exact date is a bit unclear (720/21).
  • "in 728 a large-scale uprising broke out with Türgesh aid" seems a little clumsy. Was the aid delivered after an uprising broke out, or did the Turgesh incite it, ie aid its outbreak?
  • Clarified.
  • Clarified (I can't believe I had omitted that).
  • "already served as governor of Khurasan before". One of "already" or "before" needs to go.
  • Replaced both with the years of his first tenure.
  • "Asad was informed barely in time". A better turn of phrase would be something like "Asad received [very] little notice …"
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • "virtually annihilated the Arab baggage train" See above. They may have annihilated the escort and captured the baggage train, but I doubt that they "reduced to nothing, destroyed, or eradicated" the baggage itself.
  • Clarified.
  • "messages arrived at Balkh that the Türgesh and their allies, some 30,000 strong, were at Jazza" It may help to know how far apart these were.
  • Jazza is unidentified; at long last I was able to find a source that deals with its possible location, but there is nothing definite to go on, other than that it was near Balkh.
  • "The Umayyad governor" Is this Asad? If so, it would be better to say so. If not, he needs introducing.
  • Clarified.
  • "with some reaching as far as Marw al-Rudh". Any idea how far this was?
  • Added.
  • "(6.2–7.5 miles)" I think that '6-7' would suffice.
  • Done.
  • "while the rest of his force consisted not only of his Türgesh but also of contingents". Optional: 'while the rest of his force consisted not only of his Türgesh but also and of contingents'.
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • "sending the captive Türgesh women to the local Iranian dehgans" Would it be possible to have a one or two word translation of dehgans in parentheses after it?
  • Done.
  • "soon beset by heavy rain and snow" "beset" Face-smile.svg Really? 'hampered'?
  • Done.
  • Who is "Caliph Hisham"?
  • And should he be linked?
  • I really don't know how I missed that. Clarified and linked.

I have also made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.

  • They are fine, thanks a lot.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine, apologies for the delayed response; you didn't ping me and I only just realised that you had addressed my comments. Your changes are all spot on, my concerns are all addressed, and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Map is appropriately licensed, but I wonder if there are any additional images that could be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the topic and period are rather poorly represented in Commons or elsewhere. I've been looking for either a medieval miniature on these events or some archaeologically-relevant photo, but to no avail. There are some excellent depictions of Umayyad and Turkic warriors by Angus McBride that could be used but, alas, copyright. Constantine 12:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Not much to say except these.

  • had been conquered by the Arab Muslims of the Umayyad Caliphate Unlink both Arab and Muslims.
  • Done, and reversed order.
  • as far as Marw al-Rudh, some 350 kilometres (220 miles) south I reckon that kilometres and miles should be switched.
  • farsakhs—roughly 10–12 kilometres (6–7 miles)—from the capital of Juzjan Same as above.
  • For both, why? The metric system is the most familiar for an international audience.
  • Well I think we should miles instead because at the time no country in the world uses metric so probably every old English source is written with miles and yards. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @CPA-5: I am indeed a fan of retaining archaicisms when warranted, but the article is meant for a modern audience. The primary sources, being Arabic, don't use either miles or km, but farsakhs, which is what I have rendered into modern equivalents with km taking precedence for the reason stated above. On the distance between Marw al-Rudh and Balkh, this was calculated using this tool rather than from a written source. Cheers, Constantine 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you translate the title of the Sims-Williams and Nicholas's source?
  • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, please have a look. Best, Constantine 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: a friendly reminder :). Constantine 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Douglas Albert MunroEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Douglas Albert Munro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SM1 Munro is the most celebrated member of the U.S. Coast Guard. He was KIA leading a Coast Guard small boat flotilla against Japanese forces to cover the retreat of the 7th Marines at the Second Battle of the Matanikau and is the Coast Guard's only Medal of Honor recipient and the only non-Marine listed on the Wall of Heroes of the U.S. Marine Corps. After his death, his 48 year-old mother volunteered for military service and was commissioned a Lt JG in the U.S. Coast Guard. His uncle, Francis Fairey, was the one-time commanding officer of the Irish Fusiliers of Canada and a MP for Victoria, B.C. Munro is also the namesake of a very snappy quick march composed by Lewis Buckley. This was recently a Start-class article but has just now passed to GA status. Chetsford (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Munro.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:USCGC_Spencer_WPG-36.jpg, File:USS_Hunter_Liggett_(APA-14)_c1944.jpg
  • File:Douglas_Munro_signature.png: don't think the USGov tag would apply here, as it wasn't made "as part of that person's official duties"
  • Douglas_Munro_March.ogg: what is the copyright status of the composition? Authorship details for it should also be included in the description. Similarly File:Munro_Bust_at_Coast_Guard_HQ.jpg and the bust, File:Douglas_Munro_statue_in_2018.jpg and the statue, File:Bust_of_Douglas_Munro.jpg
  • File:USS_Douglas_A._Munro_(DE-422)_underway_off_Korea,_circa_in_1951_(AWM_P05890.038).JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Nikkimaria - these are now all updated (or removed, where applicable). Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetleEdit

My initial comments:

  • There's a lot of photos in this article. I see that one gallery exists on this page; it might be helpful to move some of the others to a gallery so as to not clutter the article so much.
  • General practice for citing long works like journal articles is to use a shortened footnote style or something similar to call the specific pages germane to each claim. This helps with WP:Verify.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Indy beetle - I've removed half of the images per your suggestion. "General practice for citing long works like journal articles is to use a shortened footnote style or something similar to call the specific pages germane to each claim. This helps with WP:Verify." I believe everything exceeding two pages in length currently uses Template:Rp to cite specific pages. Per WP:CITEVAR, I exclusively use <ref> tags versus paranthetical citations as <ref> tags are a superior form of citation, requiring the reader only undertake one mouse action (a click) to discover full source details instead of two mouse actions (a click to discover the source name and then a bottom page scroll to compare the source name against the full record). Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but in that case including the list of all the page numbers referred to in regular <ref> citation for Guardian of Guadalcanal or any other work is unnecessary, if they are covered by the Rp supplements. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, these have now been removed. Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)



  • ... was an American Coast Guardsman who was ...
Munro is introduced to readers as a Coast Guardsman before knowing he is actually in the United States Coast Guard.
  • As of 2019, he is the ...
Consider: As of March, April, or spring 2019, since the year is not yet over - even tho it is unlkly to change. The year 2018 is also an option.
  • ... South Cle Elum, Washington ...
Consider a comma after Washington state.
  • ... shortly before U.S. entrance into World War II.
  • Consider adding the definite article the before U.S.
Not addressed! Pendright (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: still to be addressed! Pendright (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • MOS: When an abbreviation is used, first introduce it using the full expression - United Sates along with the abbreviatin (U.S.).
  • Along with his shipmate Raymond Evans he was known as ...
Consider: Along with his shipmate, Raymond Evans, he was known as... or, Along with Raymond Evans, his shipmate, he was known as ...
  • During the Second Battle of the Matanikau in September 1942, Munro was tasked with leading the extrication of a force of United States Marines that had been overrun.
Overrun by whom?
  • He died of a gunshot wound in 1942 at the age of 22 while using the boat he was piloting to shield a landing craft filled with Marines from Japanese fire.
Is it necessary to repeat "in 1942", since it is stated in the above sentence?
  • The anniversary of his death is annually observed in Cle Elum, Washington and at the ...
Consider a comma after Washington state.

Early life and education:

  • Douglas Munro was born in 1919 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada to ...
Consider adding the date and month to 1919 and a comma after Canada.
A comma is now needed after 1919. Pendright (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ... settling in South Cle Elum, Washington where ...
Consider a comma after Washington state.
  • During World War II he served as a captain in the Washington State Guard, a home guard raised by Washington due to its "insecurities over its exposed location" and a concern by Governor of Washington Clarence D. Martin that the state would be unable to defend itself from invasion while the Washington National Guard was mustered into federal service.
This long sentence contains references to the Washington State Guard, a home guard and the Washington National Guard, surely to leave readers confused; overall it needs some rewriting for clarity. A footnote might be in order too.
  • ... representing Victoria, British Columbia as a member of ...
Consider a comma after Britsh Columbia.
  • Following the death of her son, then 48 year-old Edith Munro joined the Coast Guard Women's Reserve.
The USCG Womens Reserve was beter known as the SPARS
  • In 1939, with the threat of war growing, Munro decided to withdraw from university ...
Consider a commas before university.
My error, sorry! Instead, consider a the before university. Pendright (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ... eating large amounts of food in order meet the Coast Guard's minimum weight standard.
Add the missing word "to" between order and meet.
  • General commsnts: to this point, quotation marks have been used several times, but without attribution. Italics are required for emphasis.

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pendright - thank you very much for this review. All of the above should now be rectified, but please let me know if I missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: There are three minor items (above) that need your attention. Pendright (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


  • In mid-1941, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the government began emergency mobilization and the United States Department of the Treasury surrendered authority for the Coast Guard to the United States Navy.
United States Department of the Navy was established by an Act of Congress on April 30, 1798 ... to provide a government organizational structure to the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps (from 1834 onward) and, when directed by the President (or Congress during time of war), the United States Coast Guard, as a service within the Department of the Navy, ...
The USCG was transferred, not srrendered, to the United Stats Department of the Navy, the civilian authority over these military sevices.
The USCG was transferred to the Department of the Navy, not the Navy? Pendright (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Munro and Evans were among Navy and Coast Guard personnel who staffed Naval Operating Base (NOB) Cactus at Lunga Point from which small boat operations were being staged.
What was the function of small boat operations.
  • According to U.S. Marine Master Sergeant James Hurlbut, Munro and Evans lived at the base in an approximately 80-square-foot (7.4 m2) house "they had made from packing boxes and scrap material" which he also described as "quite a swank establishment for Guadalcanal"
  • Is the hypen necessry after the number 80?
  • Is a house the best choice of words here?
  • Consider a comma after the word material.
  • Is it 80 square foot or feet?
  • On September 20, 1942 Munro volunteered to lead a small boat search and rescue mission seeking to recover the crew of a Navy airplane that had been forced down off Savo Island. During the operation, Munro's craft came under intense fire from Japanese shore positions, though he was able to maneuver the boat back to base with only minor injuries to his crew.
  • Considder a comma after the year 1942.
  • Was the mission sucessful or unsucessfu?
  • consider: back to his base or back to the base
Not addressed? Pendright (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ... the destroyer USS Monssen, ...
Consider adding the ships' hull number.
  • ... after Monssen was forced to break away to defend the cargo ship USS Alhena which had come ...
consider a comma before which.
  • Munro was placed in charge of two landing craft tanks (LCT) and eight Higgins boats
Link Higgins boats
  • ... Monssen was forced to break away to defend the cargo ship USS Alhena which had come under threat from a Japanese air squadron.
Consider a comma after Alhena.
  • ... Dexter reportedly asked Munro and Evans if they would take charge of the mission, to which Munro answered "hell yes!"
Consider a commas after answered.
  • ... one of the LCTs soon became grounded on a sandbar. Munro directed the other LCT to help extricate the grounded vessel as he, once again, maneuvered his own boat to ...
  • Is the word soon essential?
  • The term once again seems redundant?

Burial and decoration:

  • Munro's remains were recovered from Guadalcanal in 1947 and he was reinterred at Laurel Hill Memorial Park in Cle Elum ...
Consider: Munro's remains were recovered from Guadalcanal in 1947 and they were reinterred at Laurel Hill Memorial Park in Cle Elum ...

Dates of rank:

  • The Dictionary of Naval Terms, published by Naval Institute Press (2005) describes officers as holding a rank and that a rate or rating is more often used for enlisted personnel.
  • Decorations:

In addition to the Medal of Honor, Munro was recipient of the Purple Heart, the Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal, the American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (with one battle star), and the World War II Victory Medal, most of which were awarded posthumously.

Monro was awarded the Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart, but he earned the remainder.
  • Headins:
Consider consolodating some of the many headings.
  • Alternative text:
Consider using it to help the vision impared.
  • General commsnts: quotation marks continue to be used, but generally without attribution. Italics are required for emphasis.

D0ne - Pendright (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, Pendright. I've made all these updates (let me know if I missed something) with two exceptions. The hyphen in 80 feet is automatically created by Wikipedia when using the length conversion tool so I can't change it. Also, I can't find any instances of the use of unattributed quotation marks in the article? Chetsford (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: – thank you for your responses – I’ve noted (above) the few you overlooked. Outside of this, we're good here. Pendright (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • Born in Canada to an expatriate American Unlink Canada.
  • shortly before United States entrance into World War II Unlink US.
  • on October 11, 1919, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Again unlink Canada.
  • family from Canada to the United States in 1922 Again unlink US.
  • British Columbia provincial government.[4]:122[7][5] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Sons of the American Legion.[3]:2:2 Wait double 2?
  • "the Gold Dust Twins".[d][13] Suggest ordering the letter note here.
  • expressed a desire to become a career coast guardsman.[8][4]:30 Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Coast Guard as part of preparations for War Plan Orange.[11][15][14] Same as above.
  • between land forces and offshore vessels.[18][17] Same as above.
  • Established on August 9 by Coast Guard --> "Established on August 9, by Coast Guard".
  • Japanese positions with her 5-inch guns, managing No metric units?
  • which Munro answered, "hell yes!"[21][3]:4 Same as above suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • memorial service was held on November 1 --> "memorial service was held on November 1,".
  • she was underweight.[26][9] Same as above suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • extent of their rank and rate".[30][46][30][46] Two 46s?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John Gildroy GrantEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

John Gildroy Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Next up in the series I've been working on for New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients of the First World War is John Grant, who earned his VC at the Second Battle of Bapaume. His postwar life was somewhat tragic in that he appears to have suffered a form of PTSD that affected his personal circumstances. The article went through a GA review back in July 2018, and I've done a little tidying up since. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Lt_John_Grant.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It was published in 1921 as an illustration in this book. It may have also been published in 1919 in a newspaper although it is a bit grainy so can't say with 100% certainty (although I suspect it is the same image). I have added a 1923-abroad tag. Zawed (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Zawed, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • in the lead, Discharged from the NZEF, he returned to civilian life: suggest mentioning part time military service here, also to summarise the article
  • do we know where Grant undertook his schooling?
  • After a bit of hunting, I found a historic news item that mentioned this. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • do we know where Grant undertook initial training?
  • No, I would say most likely Featherston but don't have a firm secondary source for that. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. It might be possible to confirm through his service record, and it would be okay to cite it in my opinion for that simple fact. Only a minor detail, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It duly embarked for the Western Front: do we have a date for this?
  • Have added. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It fortunately missed: probably best to avoid words like "fortunately" as it can be perceived to promote a point of view
  • Have reworded. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest linking platoon, company and officer
  • He was wounded in November: suggest "early November", also do we know which battle this was in?
  • Have done, don't know the engagement in which he was wounded. Probably mopping after Le Quesnoy but again don't have an explicit source for this. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • attention of the authorities but on investigation...: does this imply that they did not do anything to assist because of the finding? If not, I suggest maybe tweaking the wording slightly. Maybe it might be best to just split the sentence, as such: "attention of the authorities. On investigation..."
*Have done. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • These were James Crichton, a private at the time, Reginald Judson, and Harry Laurent, both second lieutenants --> " These were James Crichton, a private at the time, and Reginald Judson and Harry Laurent, both second lieutenants": parallel list items
  • Done.
  • did he marry and have children? Some web searches seem to indicate this, e.g. [21][22]
  • Have added this. I searched for a historic news item for his wedding but wasn't able to find one. @AustralianRupert:, thanks for the feedback, I have responded to your various points as above. And thanks to CPA-5 for the ping. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zawed: Hey mate just let you know that AR's comments are here already a month. Just a little reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • "1915–29" --> "1915–1929"
  • in October 1915 with the 7th Reinforcements Is there a link of the 7th Reinforcements?
  • No; these were groups of reinforcements for the NZEF rather than distinct units. Once they arrived in the Middle East they would have split up to join the various units in the field so each group, such as the 7th Reinforcements, really only existed from training in NZ through to arrival. Zawed (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • He joined the 1st Battalion Same as above?
  • No and it is more likely that there would a regimental article than a battalion one. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • evacuation from the Gallipoli Peninsula Link Gallipoli Peninsula.
  • his return on 29 October 1919 and he was Remove 1919.
  • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5:, thanks for the comments and the ping above for AR's feedback. I have responded as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries Zawed I was just wondering or you forgot this nomination or not. Anyway here is my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments:

  • I would add to the lead a summary of what he did for the VC
  • link PTSD in the lead
  • add Category:New Zealand people of Scottish descent
  • is there anything that can be added to the battles he participated in? Such as whether they were successful or not, and the number of casualties suffered by his battalion in each one?
  • suggest hyphenating posttraumatic stress disorder
  • suggest stating that Laurent was also from Hawera when he is first mentioned, then trim the second mention as we will already know he was from Hawera and a VC recipient
  • suggest "is alternately displayed"
  • I reckon you could integrate mention of Hill into the narrative rather than a note

That's all I have. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Standardize use of title case or not in citations and references.
  • Suggest adding "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book templates to make them match the use ampersands in the citations.
  • References used are high-quality and reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

George Washington's political evolutionEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

George Washington's political evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article covers George Washington's evolution from a young man 'on the make' to the first president of the United States and father of his country. Although the main focus is political, Washington's military service played a significant part in his political development, so I'm hoping that it will be acceptable to put it up for review here. A peer review did not attract any attention, but the article has just succeeded at GAN. I'm keen to get more critical eyes on the article before a possible run at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding to the map caption an explanation of what the colours mean
Done Factotem (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Lawrence_Washington.jpg needs a US PD tag
The best I could find is a source indicating that the portrait wasn't sold from private ownership until 1936, so suspect no copyright expired tag will possible. Replaced with, which is a copy that was published in a book published in 1889 (and added link to source to the commons info for it as proof). Factotem (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_The_First_Continental_Congress,_1774.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_Apotheosis_of_Washington,_War.jpg
I changed File:Flickr - USCapitol - Apotheosis of Washington, War.jpg so that both these images are licensed as the work of an employee of the Architect of the Capitol. Obviously I'm missing something here; would you mind elaborating? As works of art commissioned by the US Congress and displayed in the US Capitol building, aren't they federal works in the public domain, as stated in the licence tags? Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There's not enough information given to say for sure, particularly for the first. It is stated to be a canvas - is it known to have been commissioned by Congress for display? That something is displayed in a US federal building doesn't automatically make it a federal work. For the second, is the artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The first was completed by Allyn Cox, the second by Constantino Brumidi. The WP articles indicate that both were commissioned by the federal government, though obviously WP is not a valid source. Bear with me please, I'll do some scurrying around the internet for some decent sources. Factotem (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The Architect of the Capitol website provides information on Allyn Cox, the Cox Corridors (where the first image is displayed), and Constantino Brumidi. I've added these links to the commons pages. The site does not explicitly state that they were commissioned, but both artworks are part of the frieze that decorates the rotunda, which I believe is in areas I believe are open to the public - Brumidi's Apotheosis in the rotunda and Cox's work in the Great Experiment Hall (part of the Cox Corridors linked above). And the canvas was applied to the walls, so Cox's work is not a painting but a mural. Factotem (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif: licensing tag doesn't make sense here - are we saying that Wageman was a US Government employee? Same with File:Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you as always. I had a mad panic just after submitting this for ACR when I realised that I had forgotten to review the image licensing, then spent a good part of the afternoon going through them all and fixing that as best I could. I'm quite relieved that relatively few have been flagged, and that I have hopefully not wasted too much of your time. Initial comments above. The rest will need a bit of research, if you could bear with me. Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif - I've replaced it with,_Massachusetts,_July_3rd,_1775_MET_DP853566.jpg, which has a {{Cc-zero}} license. I've not seen that before, and it looks a little suspect to me. If that doesn't fly, then both the source and the image itself state that it was published by Currier & Ives in 1876, which I believe makes a {{PD-US-expired}} licence valid if necessary. Factotem (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
According to this site, the museum places images of artworks it believes to be PD under a CC0 license. This is a bit weird - if it's PD, CC shouldn't be applied at all - but could be gotten around by saying that the museum believes the artwork to be PD. I wouldn't use the US-expired tag unless we can demonstrate publication at that time, as the source doesn't seem to say explicitly when or if this was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The source says publisher is Currier and Ives, and gives a date of 1876, and the caption below the image itself states the same. If that does not convince, can I simply add text to the commons description along the lines of The Metropolitan Museum of Art believes this artwork to be Public Domain? Factotem (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif, I could not find any source to confirm the artist was a government employee, so I've replaced it with, to which I've added numerous sources to support the artist biography and 19th century publication. Factotem (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI: I've replaced the infobox image with I believe the new image is correctly licensed. Factotem (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by ChetsfordEdit

This is a very good article but I need to marinate a bit on whether or not to support it or remain neutral, only because I'm unclear as to the actual subject of the article. The title seems to indicate it's a study in personal ideology, however, the content of the article veers heavily into biography with dates and facts of occurrences and actions without (sometimes) a clear linkage to their philosophical import. To be clear, though, I have no intention of opposing it, I just need to cerebrate upon it a bit. My only functional comment is that "The Intolerable Acts being forced down the throat of America" may not be an entirely NPOV descriptive caption for the drawing titled America Swallowing the Bitter Draught. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. Much appreciated, and some valuable feedback. I've fixed the caption. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the article is meant to be about how a relatively minor member of the colonial Virginia aristocracy who started out in life agressively pursuing his own self-interest ended up as the first president of the United States. It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Does that clarify things? If it does, then clearly I've not done a good job in the article itself. Could you perhaps point me to a specific example of where the article veers into biography without linking back to philosophical import? It might help me better understand the general issue you have identified. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"It's not just about his personal ideology" I think that helps clarify the purpose of the article for me. I was reading it as a philosophical study, but - if I understand correctly - it is a chronology of appointments.
"It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics." The trouble I'm having is understanding how this is so different from what one would expect in a conventional biography that it would not be more appropriate in George Washington or the numerous existing subsidiary articles about him. Fundamentally, I might be able to wrap my head around it better if it were organized by subject-matter instead of chronologically, more similar to Religious views of George Washington. The structure, at present, is sectioned around a sequential narrative of life events. That said, I don't suggest you make any changes to the article based on my comments as this is more likely than not a personal difficulty I'm having understanding the article; the article, as I said, is very good and I think you should ignore everything I've just written unless or until someone else expresses a similar perception (which may not actually occur). I have no intention of opposing this article, my !vote is Neutral right now and, pending feedback from other editors, I intend to change it to Support. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Washington biography has a huge amount of ground to cover and is already excessively long, and this one creeps just over the maximum size recommended in WP:LENGTH. I can see no alternative to the current structure; an article that discusses an evolution is, I think, necessarily sequenced chronologically. Having someone oppose this candidate concerns me nowhere near as much as the possibility you've identified that I've written about events and actions without clearly establishing their relevance to the article subject. Your input is much appreciated and valued. Factotem (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That sounds fine. And just to clarify, if I haven't sufficiently already, I believe this article is otherwise beyond reproach in every way and is, frankly, superior in both prose and completeness to any of the various Washington articles. I'm going to read it again a few times. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've read it again and more thoroughly compared it against the other Washington articles and I'm prepared to Support now. A few general comments:

  • You mention Washington's discomfort at the Society of the Cincinnati in 1786 but it might be good to briefly mention his role in the first plenary session of the society in 1784 when he (ultimately unsuccessfully) tried to have the hereditary requirements dropped since his own writings at that time, I believe, more fully addressed his issues; I think a further mention of Washington's later decision to apparently embrace it in some form by wearing the badge of the Cincinnati for the rest of his life (IIRC he even had a special diamond-encrusted one made for his exclusive use) might balance his apparent wishy-washiness with respect to the Society. This might veer into the realm of WP:OR, however, so take this as nothing more than a throwaway comment; I defer to your judgment.
  • I think it would be worthwhile briefly mentioning the dichotomy or evolution in Washington's views about federal order insofar as his treatment of the Shay Mutiny and the Whiskey Rebellion. "Washington and the Whiskey Insurrection" [23] is an all encompassing source if that could be distilled to a few sentences (LMK if you want me to send you the PDF if you don't have access).
  • Thank you for linking to Provisional Army of the United States!!!

Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha! You're welcome. Didn't realise that was one of yours. Thanks. Washington's efforts to get the Cincinnati to renounce hereditary membership is already mentioned, albeit in a footnote. There's a strand in post-revolutionary politics relating to the fact that Washington never intended to upend the social order inherent in the British colonial system and bring greater democracy, but intended instead to maintain essentially the same order but with American rather than British aristocracy in control. I think that's what you're referring to with the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions, but it's an avenue I didn't go down because it seemed a bit of a stretch. I'll ponder on that some more. Factotem (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With both apologies and thanks to Nikkimaria and Chetsford, I'm requesting withdrawal of this review to clear the way for an ACR of the Battle of Monmouth Factotem (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Strike that. Didn't realise it's OK to nominate more than one ACR at the same time. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hans PhilippEdit

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Steinecke 2012, which is considered unreliable per a recent RfC, is still used as a source throughout the article. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1. –dlthewave 19:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to meet the A-class's stringent criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I find the RfC arguments against Steinecke unconvincing. All of the substantive posts seem to have been in favour of his being a RS. The GAR was, reasonably, a straight implementation of the RfC. I await possible further comments here before deciding which, if either, side of the fence to get off on. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Joachim MünchebergEdit

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Schumann & Westerwelle 2010, which was deemed "not reliable" at RSN, is still used as a source throughout the article, and the neutrality concerns raised at GAR have not been addressed. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1 and A2. –dlthewave 17:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to me A-class criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist I find Assayer's comments at GAR convincing. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Cape EcnomusEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Cape Ecnomus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After eight ACR nominations in a row from 1345 or 1346, I offer up one from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of. Below is my attempt to recount it. It has just passed GA, where it received a good look over from Constantine. However, in my usual thumb fingered way, I am sure that I have left in many things which I shouldn't, and vice versa. So could see what you can find? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


G'day, Gog, looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • the narrative reads pretty good to me and referencing looks
  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to "File:D473-birème romaine-Liv2-ch10.png"
I had forgotten to insert "alt=". Now done.
  • suggest adding a caption to "File:CapeEcnomus.png"
  • suggest adding " | map_label = Cape Ecnomus " to the infobox map, to label the pin
  • in the caption, "Location of the Battle, off the south coast of Sicily", suggest decapitalisng "Battle" here
  • check English variation: I see both "center" and "centre"
In adjacent sentences even. Fixed.
  • with Hamilcar Barca).[38][21]: suggest ordering the refs numerically here
  • Carthaginian navy challenged them.[32][44]: same as above here
Umm. In the UK 32 comes before 44.
As it does in most places of the world, except apparently my brain... I think I meant: small squadrons provided by their allies.[18][17] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Done. The UK trails Australia 2-1 in the numeracy cup. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 5,500 Carthaginian troops: it is best not to start a sentence with numerals, suggest rewording slightly
I should know that! Done.
  • in the Sources, location of publication for Murray 2011?
  • in the Sources, title case caps for the Wallinga 1956 title?
  • in the Sources, Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times --> "Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times"?
Oops. Done.
  • suggest upscaling "File:First Punic War 264 BC v2.png"
Done. How is it now?
Yes, that's better. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Thank you for helping out once again. My sloppy bits and pieces now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for taking a look at this,and apologies for the delayed response. My attention has been elsewhere. I hope to get back on these over the next few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi T8612 Many thanks for the suggestions. Some useful stuff there. However, I hope that you will bear with me, as I am used to studying the sources, pulling together the text, and then inserting the best or most appropriate cite for each statement. I am not used to mentioning texts in an article. I am sure that you don't literally mean that I could mention the CAH for context. (Or do you?) Could you help me out and clarify your first point with just what it is that you are suggesting go into (or out of) the article with regard to Walbank and the CAH? I have picked up that you would like to see "The modern historian Frank Walbank has suggested that Polybius's source for the Battle of Ecnomus was Philinus of Agrigentum, who is notably pro-Carthaginian in his approach". Is there anything else? Your other points addressed below. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A reference to F. W. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is clearly missing. cf. vol. I, pp. 83-89. I suspect that many sources you mention derive from Walbank. You could also mention the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 7, part 2) for context. Walbank notably suggests that Philinus of Agrigentum (who was pro-Carthaginian) is Polybius' source on the battle.
  • I would like to see the reference to Polybius' orignal text. The link at the end of the page could be removed and references to Polybius' text added with a link to wikisource.
Good point. Done.
  • I'm not fond of using "five" instead of quinquereme; I think it is unnecessary military jargon (like "horse" for cavalry and "foot" for infantry").
I am not fond of including polysyllables in foreign and dead languages. I feel that it does not assist reader comprehension. I prefer to write articles in English where I can, especially when I have a reliable source to support my word choice.
  • Add more pictures, to the trireme Olympias mentioned in the article, or a Carthaginian/Roman ram (search on wikisource).
Good thought. A couple of additional images included. I am loath to include the Olympias: there seems to be unanimous agreement that it is not an accurate replica; and there is no direct evidence of triremes being present at Econmus. So I am cautious that including an image of Olympias would be misleading.

T8612 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)



Hi Robin. Likewise thanks for the detailed comments and apologies for the delay. Responses on their way. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Robinvp11, I have finally got round to some responses to your comments.

@User:Gog the Mild Useful leads :)
I've made some additions to the article, which I've explained below but feel free to remove :).

I am not sure if you have been using an IP address, but there seem to have been a lot of changes since I last looked at this. I am going to tidy up and not necessary explain each edit. (Eg the current lead breaches MOS:LEADLENGTH etc.) If I change anything of yours, feel free to shout. This is a great summary of the issues, significance of the battle and Polybius as a source (the opening paragraph in particular). Its written by Marc de Santis, probably the leading modern authority on naval warfare in the ancient world (2016; Rome Seizes the Trident specifically)
Re 'evidence,' I've included this;

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

My concern about ship details is we know very little about ship design, even for triremes which are considerably simpler than quinquiremes. I see you've referenced Boris Rankov, Professor of Roman history at Royal Holloway, head of the Centre for Archaeo- Architectural Reconstruction and a former rower. He specifically states the trireme Olympias is a 'floating hypothesis;' quinquiremes are a guess - if you take the theoretical model, then compare to what we think we know about the battle, the ships don't fit (they're too wide). I don't think this comes across in the article.

I don't particularly disagree with any of the above, but could you give me a clue as to the specific parts of the article you object to/think could be improved/have qualms regarding?

The section on 'Ships' is very detailed (measurements, numbers etc) but the truth is we don't know and if I read the article as is, that doesn't come across.
That may very well be. I am citing the figures given in a RS. Do you have one which states that it is talking rubbish, or that we just don't know? Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-Classical Times brings together 16 of the top experts on this sort of thing, and if they state that they do know, I am inclined to take them at their word. While, of course, being willing to listen to a contradiction by another leading expert.
Boris Rankov says its a guess.
Not suggesting you need to incorporate all of these but as a consultant, I tend to ask questions, then look for answers :). Annoys the @##% out of my kids.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As with Lancaster (nice), my points are conceptual and stylistic
  • General; you know my prejudices but this could be shorter, tighter, less 'on the one hand' etc all the way through. It's a good article, well researched and I'd like more people to read it - who's our audience? The wording is quite dense
  • Significance; My limited memory of Cape Ecnomus from Staff School is that its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare until the late 15th century (battle of Sandwich etc). That doesn't seem to appear here.
Nope. My sources are all consistent that this is based on an old, turn of the (nineteenth) century misreading of Polybius. They explicitly state that this was not the case at Econmus. (But see my Battle of Sluys for a 15th-century naval battle which cheer your staff school teacher.) Even my reading of Polybius - not that that has any value here - doesn't find that.
Much of Tipps article is devoted to numbers and battle tactics, so I'm not sure I follow but always happy to learn; what is the interpretation of Ecnomus?
Sorry Robin, I'm not really tracking this. Where did Tipps spring from? Is this bit still about "significance lies ... [in] the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment"?
The link is to my original comment that its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare. My challenge is the statement 'out of date' which I assumed was Tipps; if not, apologies.
The corvus was an attempt to negate superior ship handling skills (whether or not you agree that happened) and enable the Romans to use their superior land fighting skills. That's what my staff school lecturer meant by 'application of land tactics in a naval context.' I can give you a number of sources, dating from 2011 to 2016, which confirm that view.
  • Sources; I had Polybius at school as a set text so I remember every $%^ing line; Polybius himself says he's using two sources and Philinus will have it that the Carthaginians in every case acted wisely, well, and bravely, and the Romans otherwise, whilst Fabius takes the precisely opposite view. ie he's guessing. Plus (as far as I'm aware), the Carthaginians left no written records.
Carthaginian records - correct. My sources explicitly state this. Want me to include a statement to this effect? I do include "Polybius' work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view".
  • So its Polybius, he's usually pretty reliable but what we know is based on an historian condensing various accounts over a century later. Bang; that's two lines.
I am probably being a bit slow here, so bear with me. but the precise nature of the change you are suggesting (I assume that you are suggesting a change?) escapes me.
Simply, I don't think you need two paragraphs on Polybius :)
Ah. I agree. I don't believe that I need anything on Polybius. See discussion at GAN. I shall introduce you to Constantine, a courteous and knowledgeable editor who requested/required that Polybius be much mentioned, and see if the pair of you can achieve consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi to both. My point is that when you write about a historical event which is essentially known by precisely one source, that source, and the possible accuracy or not of its information, warrants some explanation. Anyone who knows about the period is aware of Polybius, but that does not apply to the general reader. The "Sources" section IMO does a very good job on covering that. If you can trim it while preserving the essentials, no objection. Constantine 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Constantine. Appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Background - Sicily this doesn't explain the strategic value of Sicily ie why the Athenians had a go in 410, the French in the 1670s, War of the Quadruple Alliance 1718, Nelson in the 1790s, the Allies in 1943 etc.
Nor do I have any intention of dragging in every conflict in which Sicily was involved. My sources suggest that Sicily was not of "strategic value" in the First Punic War so much as where the spheres of influence of the two proponents just happened to first intersect. I am more than open to mentioning any strategic value if you could point me towards some that was relevant to this conflict.
Carthaginian control of Sicily blocked Roman expansion to the West and would be a constant threat to their security; plus, Sicily was far more fertile then and a major source of grain. The acquisition of Sicily paved the way for Rome to invade Africa (which is contained in Tipps' article). Plus, Carthaginian control of Spain and ports like Marseilles also threatened Roman expansion in that direction; the classic war on two fronts. That's why I felt the point re the fact they were allies against Pyrrhus less than an decade previously is important.
Not bothered about retaining my inserts (truly) but I wanted to correct a point which I think is misleading ie ... Carthage was fighting a battle with Syracuse for control of Sicily, not its alliance; that's partly why they didn't take Rome seriously.
Umm. Well, I could argue that in reality Carthage was trying to place its faction in control rather than actually conquer the place, but having established our point of difference, how would you feel about "More broadly both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse …"?

I am ducking the issue of war aims and strategic values. Let me know if you would like me to come back on them.

  • Ships leaving aside why I need to know knots, then km, then mph, I don't understand the significance of the speed; why did that make them more seaworthy? Speed and ramming - that I get but it doesn't appear. And the 'reconstructions' are guesses, so even if I agreed the information on ship design was accurate, why I should care? Facts and detail need a 'So what,' otherwise they're irrelevant.
I fear that we simply disagree on this. A fact relevant to, or bearing on, a part of the article should be included for its own sake. That's what an encyclopedia does. It seems to me that pushing your argument a little further would obviate the entire need for Wikipedia.
Don't fear disagreement :). What I'm arguing for is relevance to the reader. There may be many reasons why ship speeds are relevant - but tell me why it's significant. At the moment, its not clear to me.
I'm a reader. The article refers to galleys with oars. Right, I can grasp that; I took the family out in a row boat last bank holiday in the local park. So I have a really good idea of the speed and endurance of the vessels propelled by oars.
Each article on a mechanically propelled ship will state its speed and endurance both in the infobox and early in the text. It is important context for the reader.
Similarly we have these things called "fives" ramming and boarding each other. Without some information on size, I am not sure how the reader would be able to visualise, or even make any sense of, the details of the battle.
  • Suggested sources' JH Thiel is the authority (still) on the development of sea power under the Roman Republic and doesn't appear here - worth a look, as is Nigel Bagnall's 'The Punic Wars' (view of a modern soldier, with a classics background - we won't see his type again). He covers the background to the battle and the battle itself in about two pages.
Yes, I have Bagnall, I cited him four times. Personally I found his coverage a little superficial. I don't violently disagree re Thiel, but I feel that he has dated badly re Econmus; eg see Tipps, especially pp. 443-444
I like Bagnall (Full disclosure - I dated one of his relatives :)) not because it's comprehensive but because it shows how to be concise. And while Tipps is well worth reading but that doesn't make him right. We're guessing - that's the problem with any ancient naval battle, because wood doesn't last. The rams discovered between 2008 to 2010 show the Roman ones were ornately and carefully crafted, while the Carthaginian ones were extremely crude - which supports the Polybius detail that it was hastily constructed. So Tipps has good points but he shouldn't be read in isolation.
Still missing your point. I cite 16 authors, so I don't think that I am reading anyone in isolation. You suggested that Bagnall was "worth a look"' I agreed and pointed out that I had looked. You mentioned that he had covered Econmus in two pages which I assumed, you didn't say, you felt was a good thing. I feel that in attempting to cram 118+ years of conflict into 333 pages (in my edition) he fails to do it full justice - which is hardly surprising. Which is not to argue that there might not be things which I could slim down in the article - I will have a hard look at that when I get the chance. Any specific suggestions?
  • My overall feeling - and its designed to challenge, so its not personal; if I'm looking for an article on the Battle, then most of the stuff down to Prelude is either irrelevant or could be usefully stated in about two paragraphs (and I'd happily do that if you want, not as an edit but an example).
We have, it would seem, a fundamental difference of opinion in what we are looking for in an ACR/FAC article; bar the section on sources, which I feel is a little prolix but which was by special request, I would rather expand than shrink the pre-prelude sections. I feel that they include little more than the bare minimum necessary for a reader to reasonably comprehend what follows. That said, I have just removed some only marginally interesting prose, not IMO necessary to follow the course of the campaign and battle, which I hope that you will feel at least marginally improves things.
We don't have to agree; that's the point of cloud collaboration. But there is a tendency to assume the more detail shoehorned into an article the better - and if we want Wikipedia to serve as an encyclopedia for users, then we need to think about the user experience. I force myself constantly to take out stuff interesting to me but not necessarily value added (eg there's some really interesting interpretation of the rams found by the RPM but I left it out).
Ah, no. We are in at least broad agreement there, and possibly closer. (I do a fair bit of work for GOCE; I have taken over 40% of a reasonably well written article before, and other copy editors have taken out far more.) Believe it or not, I not infrequently get praise, or even criticism, for the brevity and succinctness of my articles at FAC - and AFAIR you are the only person to suggest that as articles they are over-long. Which doesn't, of course, make you wrong. Let me have another leisurely read through, apart from the recent edits I have deliberately not looked at this for a month, and see to what, if any extent I agree with you. Honestly, if I include a fact it is because I believe it is necessary, for at least some readers, in order to understand fully what the argument is about. If someone queries one, I try hard to be objective as to whether I could delete or trim it. I am aware that there is no objective stopping point to contextualisation, and no obvious subjective point of agreement - which may be our issue.
  • I will put this on my Watchlist this time but as I said, this is about concepts, not wording so I'm not holding up the assessment.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Robinvp11. I like the way that you take a big picture view, have some specialist input, and don't get dogmatic. I have addressed all of your points above, not always by agreeing with them and in at least one case with a query. I shall shortly be going through the whole article, having left it alone for a month, to see what jumps out at me - especially re your comment re "tightening up". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robin, some more responses for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutral part IIEdit

Gog the Mild i've moved this down to make it easier to follow.
I'm not trying to impose my views on experienced editors who've been doing this far longer than me. But the criticisms on the 45 article improved it and also resulted in more detailed coverage on aspects like the composition of the Jacobite Army, the Manchester Regiment, far more comprehensive bios of the various leaders etc. Disagreeing can be really helpful, if its a conscious act (ie this is why I disagree).
Indeed. I expressed my appreciation for your input immediately above, and I was being sincere.
My original comment its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare.
...Your response..My sources are all consistent that this is based on an old, turn of the (nineteenth) century misreading of Polybius.
I assumed the statement 'out of date' came from Tipps; if not, apologies. The corvus was an attempt to negate superior ship handling skills (whether or not you agree that happened) and enable the Romans to use their superior land fighting skills. That's what my staff school lecturer meant by 'application of land tactics in a naval context.' I can give you a number of sources, dating from 2011 to 2016, which confirm that view.
Ah. I believe that I have mentioned that my preference would be for you to be a little more specific. The scholarly consensus a century ago was that the Roman tactical formation at Econmus was a direct imitation of legionary tactical formations. Eg the rear squadron was named the triarrii, which, as you are doubtless aware, is what the last line of a legion's formation was known as. The more recent sources spend a lot of ink rebutting it and I had assumed that this was what your "imitation of land tactics ..." was alluding to. OK. So you feel that I need to make more of the use of the corvus in the several major engagements preceding Econmus (especially Mylae and Sulci) and/or that I need to elaborate the extent that the corvus was old hat at Econmus, already factored into both sides' tactical plans and/or emphasise more how in spite of the Carthaginian's full appreciation of the corvus their "naval skill" approach was defeated (yet again) by the Roman's "land battle at sea" approach and/or why not long after Econmus the corvus was discarded, never to reappear, and naval conflicts reverted to the status quo ante corvus. If you would care to pick and mix which of these you were intending, I will see what I can do.
...I am ducking the issue of war aims and strategic values... and ...Carthage was trying to place its faction in control rather than actually conquer the place, but having established our point of difference, how would you feel about "More broadly both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse …"?
Battles are fought in support of strategy; they are not isolated events and that background matters. I haven't suggested 'dragging in every war involving Sicily' but a short summary provides context and makes the article a standalone piece. If you want an example, see my Battle of Seneffe.
My problem with both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse is not because I disagree but because its a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues, why the battle was fought and why it was so significant. Syracuse was a rival to Carthaginian economic power and their control of Sicilian trade and ports. Rome aimed to conquer the whole of Sicily (their Empire was effectively a franchise operation), not just control Syracuse because their primary aim was security and expansion, not trade. Control of Sicily gave them security against a dangerous rival (that's why Hannibal had to go via the Alps), while placing them far closer to its power centre in Africa. It also allowed them to disrupt Carthaginian trading routes into the West Mediterranean (the same reason that drove Britain in the 1719 War of the Quadruple Alliance). Look at a map of Roman expansion post 250 BCE and the point becomes obvious.
Leaving all of this out misses the true significance of the battle. I'm not trying to persuade you and I'm fine with an explicit 'I don't think it matters and this is why, not 'I don't think it matters.'
Frankly, my view, and that of the sources I have consulted is that Syracuse had sod all to do with the Battle of Econmus. It was the operational stalemate in Sicily 200-300 km away, which pushed Rome to gamble on a potentially war winning strike at Carthage itself that was the strategic background. If you disagree could you provide a source; if you agree are you happy with how this aspect is currently covered, would you prefer me to reduce it, or would you prefer me to expand on it?
Green tickYPer the article; The immediate cause was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). More broadly both sides wished the allegiance of Syracuse, the most powerful city state on Sicily.[14] By 256 the war had grown into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily.
Green tickYThat's not my wording, so I don't understand the statement Syracuse had sod all to do with the Battle of Econmus. If so, why put it in there in the first place? That's a rhetorical question, I don't need it explained.
No, that's a very fair point. The prose you quote above regarding Syracuse is a background explanation of how the war first started, eight years earlier. Hence the opening sentence of the paragraph and section: "In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War." If you think that it is not clear that "The immediate cause..." and "More broadly..." relate to "... starting the First Punic War" then I certainly need to add, delete or alter something. What do you think? (An honest and open question. I want to check that that is what you mean before I change it.)
...Still missing your point. I cite 16 authors, so I don't think that...
My point was this needs more on background and context - and it doesn't need to be that long.
Well I don't necessarily disagree with either of those points, but it may be best to park them for a while while we agree just what background and context there should be more of. Once we both feel that everything that should be there is, or have reached consensus that it isn't going to be, then we can look at how to slim it down. Make sense?
...I'm a reader. The article refers to galleys with oars. Right...
This is an article about a battle, not ship construction so I'm asking for a clear connection between ship data contained in the article and its impact on the battle. How fast do you need to go to ram? How far away from land can you be? What's the range of fleet operations? Did you have to beach every night? These are crucial to understanding the patterns of ancient naval warfare.
Agreed. But not to understanding or mentally picturing this battle. This isn't an article about the patterns of ancient naval warfare. Nevertheless, if you as a reviewer would like it, I would be delighted to sprawl into areas only tangentially related to the topic. I shall insert something and ping you to see what you think.
Green tickY...sprawl into areas only tangentially related to the topic. Having run that through my context translation machine, please don't.
...only person to suggest that as articles they are over-long...
Being concise takes far more work than the opposite; not necessarily too long overall but too long in some areas, too short in others.
As may well be. Personally I would like to make Sources more concise, but there are other reviewers who are not happy with that. You would like to make the section explaining the capabilities of the weapons used in the battle (the ships) shorter, but I don't see how one can describe any military engagement without giving the reader a feel for what the weapon systems employed were. We do seem to be making progress on the areas which could be expanded.
Green tickY We have not made progress but I'm ok with that because we disagree on concepts, not facts per se. As a former soldier, I always think strategy; I'm less interested in How or Where we fight, far more on Why. We don't all think the same way and life would be boring if we did but without that alignment, arguing about wording is pointless. You've listened, I appreciate that, lets leave it there.
We have argued about strategy and about conciseness. And I have often been slow to grasp the precise point you have been driving at. I have left this article for a few days to let the input marinate in my brain. (An unsavoury image.) I shall go through and put more in on strategy. (This may be at the expense of brevity.) You are an experienced editor, I do value your input, and if you say that the strategic aspect is lacking I need to take that on board. If I have been over-"sparky" in our exchanges, apologies.
Hi Robin Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Here we go - left this out and I've tried to make the relevant bits more obvious. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Robinvp11. A couple of responses above. I will go through today or tomorrow and try to give the article a "fresh eyes" overhaul. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild 'Sparky' is fine; means you're paying attention :) We should feel challenged - that's the point of a review.
What's missing for me is two or three lines on why Sicily mattered to Rome and Carthage; tbh, if I look at the article on the First Punic War, its not clear there either. In that sense, Syracuse is irrelevant, the Mamertines just a vehicle - exactly the same thing happened in 1676, when one faction in Messina expelled their Spanish rulers and called in the French.

OK. Good point. Why Sicily matters isn't clear. Thinking about it, and rereading the sources, it's because they don't think that it does. They seem to consider that Sicily had no particular deep strategic significance. It is just where the two powers happened to run into each other.

To go beyond what they are overt about, Rome was brash and expanding, Carthage was dominant and touchy. They were bound to collide. If the island of Sicily had never existed they would have clashed somewhere else; as they did to start the Second Punic War. Ie, the details of Sicily mattered tactically and operationally, but not strategically. And as it ain't in the sources, it ain't in this article or the one on the First Punic War. Yes, a lot of OR in there, but it seems to explain the observed facts.

I think that I have been hesitant to be too explicit about this, even though it can be more or less supported from the sources, as it will be a red rag to those who believe/have been told that it must have been strategic. It can't just have been a war looking for a place to happen. Ie, I hand waved over the issue and you caught me at it.

The wording on the ships is quite dense but I understand the issue - its complex, so you either massively simplify it and put the detail in an article on ship construction or leave it. Again, that's a personal view - Victor Hanson explaining the experience of hoplite warfare has stayed with me, long after all the stuff about armour and length of a sarissa etc.

Yep. Nail on head there. Either explain the ships properly or cut it to a sentence of hand waving. Not a lot of scope for something in between. I wish there were, as you are correct, the wording on the ships is dense. I have plumped for one option, and having so plumped have limited my own choices re conciseness. I had hoped to give a reader a bit of a feel for what these weapons platforms were like, to better understand the text. Possibly that was an error.

16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robinvp11 Some ruminations above around your points. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from LouisAragonEdit

This is my first A-Class review (or, as a matter of fact, my first review regardless of quality level) so go easy on me! ;-)

  • "Carthaginian naval ram, ca 240 BC; note gouges on bottom" -- suggest adding a link to "naval ram".
Well spotted. Done. (The image was inserted by another editor.
  • It appears you're using both "BC" and "BCE" -- please maintain one style throughout the article.

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thanks for taking a look. Your first two points addressed. I eagerly await the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "(...) between the fleets of Carthage and the Roman Republic, during the First Punic War" -- suggest adding the timespan of the war within brackets right after "First Punic War". Optional.
Good thinking. Done.
  • "Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean" -- suggest adding a link to "maritime power" and "Mediterranean [Sea]". Really optional though.
I have gone with maritime power, but not Mediterranean Sea.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks Gog. These were really the only minor things I could find. The article reads well and is of good quality. Well done, a great article about an important battle. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • General image comments: images shouldn't used forced pixel sizes, they should be scaled using the upright parameter. Also, they shouldn't sandwich text per MOS:SANDWICH
Whoops. The px image has been uprighted. I can't see a sandwich on any of four devices, but I am guessing that it is where another editor has inserted a (very useful) image, so have moved that one. I would be grateful if you could check it.
I'm guessing you're looking on mobile devices - I'm getting sandwiching from the map and the pentareme image and from the trireme and the corvus illustrations. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. A PC, a laptop, an iPad and two phones. Nothing close to a sandwich. So I have inserted some stops, which should prevent runover between sections and hopefully solve the problem
Huh - I have a fairly wide monitor (24") but I had to reduce the window size to half the screen to get the text to wrap enough that nothing sandwiched.
@Parsecboy: Very puzzling. Have the stops cured it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, though they've added some white space that some might ding you for at FAC. What are you going to do, eh? ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have tweaked it around a bit and lost one image. How's it look? Obviously, there is a complete absence of any white space on any of my devices.
Done. (Thanks.)
Strange. It is a 1905 photograph. There are three versions on Commons and I thought that I had gone for the best tagged one. Obviously not. I have switched.
US copyright law depends on when the photo was published, not when it was taken - for all we know, it was taken in 1905 and left in an archive somewhere until the author of the book found and used it. Granted, that's not likely, but we can't assume it was published earlier.
It says on its information page - the one for the "new" image - that it was published in File:Reclus - L’Homme et la Terre, tome 2, Librairie Universelle, 1905.djvu in 1905. I have added the page number and a link. Copy of the link. The author, Élisée Reclus, died in 1905.
That's fine now - I improved the ref on the image page too. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And it has them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I made a bit of a meal of this Parsecboy. Thanks for wading through it all. Hopefully I will learn from it. (Sorting out how image licences work id =s the bane of my Wiki-life.) And hopefully what I have done addresses all of your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Parsecboy Both queries addressed. Possibly satisfactorily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

Coming to this late, and I see there has been a lot of discussion about the way the information is presented. In my view the article is in good shape and explains the central part Polybius plays in what we know about this battle. I have a few comments:

  • I wonder about the description of the soldiers embarked as "marines", which to my knowledge has a more recent and specialist connotation. Is this the way they are referred to in the sources?
It is. The 40 combatants regularly attached to each five are universally referred to as marines in the sources. It is also usual in Wikipedia articles, eg see the A class Battle of Salamis. I have, I think, done my best to distinguish them from land based infantry added on an ad hoc basis, eg "Roman legionaries acting as marines", "embark soldiers to use as marines", "rowers, other crew, marines and soldiers".
  • suggest (c. 200–c. 118 BC) as this is the first date in the body
  • I think, given the reliance of more modern historians on Polybius, the Sources section is necessary, and goes into sufficient detail
  • for consistency, I reckon put BC after all years
You sure? When dealing with time periods in the early ADs/CEs I usually suffix the first mention and thereafter don't (eg "the consul of 35 BC as the father of the consul of AD 10. The younger Dolabella married Sulpicia Galbilla, and their son was Publius Cornelius Dolabella, consul in 55."), and have not had an assessor, nor reader, comment on any inconsistency. The MOS is silent on this and I can find FAs going either way. (I am not that bothered, I just wanted to check that you were clear about it.)
  • could you add a sentence fragment to summarise why the Romans were "unable to effectively bring their superior army to bear against the Carthaginians" in Sicily?
  • link Squadron (naval)
  • I'm not all that keen on the use of "five", it strikes me as colloquial
  • link trireme
It is. On first mention. Under "Sources".
  • suggest "in this ship typethe quinquereme"
  • suggest "as a blueprint for their own fives"
  • same observation regarding "sixes", "fours" etc
Assuming that you mean replace with quadrireme and hexareme, done.
  • link Command of the sea for naval supremacy
  • is it known if any of the leaders had naval battle experience?
No. Nothing about their naval experience or lack of is known. Where any prior significant military command experience is known - the two Carthaginians - I have mentioned it.
  • link Heraclea Minoa and state that it was a city
Eerm - "Heraclea Minoa, the easternmost of the Sicilian towns …"
  • in general, I feel the battle narrative could do with some tweaks to make it clearer, see below
  • I suggest in the narrative explaining the position of each squadron in the initial battle formation, and identifying the commanders where possible. ie "The first two squadrons, each under the command of a consul, led the way arrayed in echelon to form a wedge, with the first squadron under Vulso on the right and the second squadron under Regulus on the left."
  • According to the map of the battle, both wings of the Carthaginian formation were advanced in echelon and there were four squadrons, not three?
True. I inherited the map and it is not ideal. I have deleted it as more misleading than helpful.
  • the map of the battle only identifies three Roman squadrons, and identifies the third squadron as the rearguard, but this is not the way it is reflected in the narrative. For clarity, unless the map can be modified, I suggest adopting the numbering from the map and just referring to the current third squadron in the narrative as the squadron towing the transports
  • suggest "arranged in a single, long line abreast"
  • "backing water" is obscure except to anyone who knows paddling, perhaps rowing in reverse
  • suggest "attempting to attack from the sideflank"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • the map doesn't support the idea that "The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres"
See above re map. I have tried to also make this a little clearer in the text.
  • Rather than me going sentence by sentence, I suggest revising the first two and last two paras of the Battle section along the lines I've tried to explain, then I'll have another look. A common approach via the map and narrative is very important, but happy to discuss alternatives
  • the sources all look of high quality and reliable.

That's me done for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Project ExcaliburEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Project Excalibur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I apologize in advance for the length of the article I'm about to ask you all to read. It is big. Very bigly. But I do think this is a topic that requires depth.

I do not consider this article "complete" in its current form. I am still mystified as to whether or not there was any lasing going on. Some sources speak of some sorts of effects, like focusing, while others suggest it was all an illusion. I have attempted to contact many of the key players, but my emails go ignored. I don't think there will be a definitive answer for a couple of decades, so we go with what we have.

Also please take note of the talk page and consider BL's comments. Make of them what you will, but please be sure to first consider the state of the article when I began my edits.

And should it retain the Unrelated Excalibur program section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Excalibur firing.png - the source doesn't attribute the image as far as I can tell - how do we know this is a US govt work?
Source attributes the image to the LLNL, a US government lab. Same attribution can be found here.
Looks good then
LLNL images are not necessarily PD - see note at {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I believe that is only true recently when the lab's management was given over to private-sector companies. At the time this was taken it was controlled directly by the DOE but managed via the University of California. It is also questionable whether their new tags are legally enforceable. Is there anyone that really knows? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
How recently? I'm aware of discussions around licensing at LLNL going back 20 years. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Gfc-xrl.jpg - per your note on the Commons description page, the license needs to be corrected
Can I do that or does it have to be the original uploader?
You can do that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I've written to the library for clarification.
Is that an issue? Links go dead all the time, if we eliminated all source material with dead links, the Wiki would be pretty sparce... Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a matter of deleting things with dead links, but updating the links (or at least getting an archived link for the page). Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The rest check out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

Placeholder until I review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Passing comment for now, many citations are missing access-date and publisher, possibly other parameters as well. Could you expand all those out?

@Kees08: Sorry kees I only saw your post now. I looked through the entire bib section and every cite has a correct source, [publisher/newspaper/journal]. I don't bother with accessdate, that's for the robots. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Image issue Ok, the Truman library got back to me and pointed me to this page. It states "As far as the Library is aware, this item can be used freely without further permission." Is that enough? I'll change the source to this page anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd probably want to know what's the basis for that assertion (are they saying it's a government work, for instance?), but I'll ping @Nikkimaria:, since she knows more about copyright than I do. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Meh. Ideally we would know more, but given (1) reliable source and (2) US institution commenting on US image (meaning no international copyrights to worry about) and (3) the plethora of no-known restrictions tags at Commons, I'd be inclined to accept that as sufficient. See above re LLNL though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Damn this nomination is already 4 months old I'll make a little move here.


  • allowed attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers away. Maybe add miles too could be handy.
@CPA-5:Sorry for my tardy replies! I've added "(miles)" without a number... thousands of one is thousands of the other.
  • In a famous 1988 60 Minutes interview, As there are two numerical values here it is probably best to spell the first one out here exept in this case (because the first is a year) please change the sentence or change "60" into "sixty".

Conceptual development

  • gain in an aluminum plasma link aluminum.
  • of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium, link chlorine, calcium and titanium.

High Frontier

  • that he did not have access to the president. --> "that he did not have access to the President."

Early skepticism

  • if they were provided $150-$200 million --> "if they were provided $150–$200 million".
I do not see a change here?
@CPA-5:} No, I mean, what is the change you are asking for? I see no difference before and after. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5:That is not visible on my screen. The bot will change that shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cottage test

  • Robert McFarlane, head of the U.S. National Security Council. Shouldn't it be US National Security Council because the rest of the article uses US instead of U.S.?
It should.

APS report on directed energy weapons

  • who had invented the CO2 laser --> "who had invented the CO2 laser"

Brilliant Pebbles begins

  • to somewhere between 750 and 1000. --> "to somewhere between 750 and 1,000."
I think we only add the comma for larger numbers. Anyone know the MOS on this?
  • By WP:DIGITS it should because every above 1,000 has a comma.
Actually, the comma in this case is optional, it's only 5 digits where you need it. But I added it anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • and focused their efforts on theatre ballistic missiles. British theatre. Or is it the offical name?
It is not, but my spell checker things I'm British.

Teller, SDI and Reykjavík

  • officials of the United States government --> "officials of the United States Government"
  • Teller deployed x-ray lasers all --> "Teller deployed X-ray lasers all"
Direct quote.


  • it is estimated that about 3 kJ/cm² How much is 3 kJ/cm² in U.S./Imperial customary measurement system?
There is no equivalent unit in common use, only the SI. One can convert this to many US-based units, but they don't really use them.
  • If a typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) British metre plus should the U.S./Imperial customary measurement system not be first because Americans don't use metres that much as feet.
Units were originally given in SI units. This is common even in US documents when considering aerospace topics.
  • at a distance of 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) Same as above.
As above, I'm going with the units in the document.
  • metals; selenium, zinc and aluminum have been mentioned specifically. unlink aluminum.
  • of that into a beam travelling out the end. British travelling.

X-ray based attacks

  • as much as 10 miles (16 km) long. the "(16 km) isn't necessary.
  • It's not necessary to use two the same units spread in an article.
  • We should double check this, as I've been advised otherwise in my own reviews. IS there any standing policy or guideline on this issue? Adding a conversion certainly doesn't hurt the encyclopedia, far as I can tell. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Boost-phase attacks

  • be studied through the 1960s and 70s --> "be studied through the 1960s and 1970s"
  • a few hundred yards Could be handy if you add metres in this sentence.

Excalibur's promise and development issues

  • across hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. Could you add miles in it too?
I think the note at the top covers this.
  • for ICBMs launched from Kazakhstan, some 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) --> "for ICBMs launched from Kazakhstan, Soviet Union some 1,900 miles (3,000 km)"
Quoting original units.
  • as deep as 30 kilometres (19 mi) --> "as deep as 19 miles (30 km)"
Here too.


  • Note A and H should have a citation at the end of their sentences or paragraphs.
A is cited in the body, H is cited in the note. Are you saying we need a cite on the meaning of "loose marbles"? I would argue that.
  • Note E should switch all the km and miles. Miles should be first because of U.S./Imperial customary measurement system.
Quoting original source.

Citations and books

  • Ref 3, should have an original url.
It does... why is it not showing up, anyone know?
  • Ref 20, should have url, journal or a book link or code.
  • Ref 25, no page number.
  • Ref 74, pp. S10-S12. --> pp. S10–S12.
  • Ref 90, pp. 81-82. --> pp. 81–82.
  • Ref 99, pp. 229-232. --> pp. 229–232.
The bot will get these eventually.
  • The PDF "The ABM debate: strategic defense and national security" from the writer Jayne, Edward Randolph is a dead link.
Working for me, although it is definitely slow to respond.
  • The rest of the refs and citations is for the source reviewer.


  • In the File:Excalibur_firing.png image stated "hundreds or thousands of kilometers away." please add miles in the sentence too.
This gives my tummy grumblies. I'm ok with the mention in the text, but the idea of having to explain that km and miles are similar concepts more than once strikes me as going a bit far. Specific numbers are one thing, but the underlying concept... that's another.
  • File:Tumbler_Snapper_rope_tricks.jpg stated "these x-rays to allow attacks over long distances." X-rays should be capitalised.
  • File:Dominic_Kingfish_002.jpg stated " in the 1950 and 60s, such as this ">80 km high" Kingfish shot of Operation Fishbowl, inspired the concept of using x-rays as a ballistic missile defense system. --> in the 1950 and 1960s, such as this ">49 miles (80 km) high" Kingfish shot of Operation Fishbowl, inspired the concept of using X-rays as a ballistic missile defense system."
This is also the actual unit used in the source. See page 4 of this.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: OK, I think I got the few remaining items. I didn't see the second 10 miles... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
G'day CPA-5, can you confirm if you are happy with the responses/supporting as yet? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah yes this one has my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • Only days later, in the 23 February 1981 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology Delete "in"
  • Give the chemical symbols of all elements on first use
I tried this, but it really looked worse. I'll add them in places where there are chemical formulas, but I don't see any examples.
KrF was the one that caught my eye--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
And that's an example where it should be used. Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be worthwhile to add a photos of Teller and Wood
Added a useful one of Teller, but it seems we don't have one of Wood and Google Images turned up little that was useable.
  • 23 April 1987, four years to the day Umm, the speech was 23 March
And the paper was released in July! Removed
  • Zeus was limited to about 75 miles clarify that this is the range to which Zeus was limited.
Clarified. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

G'day, Maury, thanks for your efforts with this one. Overall, this looks ok to me, but I really cannot comment on the content, I'm sorry, as it is well beyond me. I have the following comments/observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • in the lead, attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers (miles) away: not sure about this -- the conversion seems awkward without actual numbers . Would "attacks on missiles at very long range" work? I note the earlier comment, so won't die in a ditch if you choose not to implement
I am removing (miles) and leaving it as is. If we assume someone is capable of reading the article then we have to assume they understand that "kilometers" is a measure of distance and "thousands" of them is a long distance.
Works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest mentioning the Cold War, and linking, probably in the lead (maybe even in the first sentence of the lead, for instance: " to develop an X-ray laser as a ballistic missile defense (BMD) during the Cold War"
  • on tiny fibres... --> should this be "fibers" as a US topic?
Grammarly is supposed to switch spelling based on the contents, but as you can see this does not actually work. I think I got them all.
  • same as above for "kilometres", "behaviour" and "focussing"
  • the work's section on potential uses were all weapons... --> "the work's section on potential uses focused entirely on weapons..."?
  • starting in the late 1959s --> "late 1950s"
  • As of 2014 it reportedly achieved a... --> "As of 2014 it had reportedly achieved a..."
Fixed. But should this even be here? I left it in from an earlier version but it's not clear why... update- removed section
  • the link checker tool reports the following terms to be overlinked: Lowell Wood, Edward Teller, materials science, hologram, virus, optical resolution, nuclear fusion, inertial confinement fusion, James Abrahamson, free electron laser, Ray Kidder, Caspar Weinberger, Charles Townes, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Robert McFarlane, mestastable state, laser gain, US Army, DARPA, US Air Force,
  • in the Citations, accessdate for citations # 43, 49, 103, 104, 106, 118, 136 and 137?
The bot will get any that still need it.
G'day, to which bot are you referring to? I'm not aware of one that does this task. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • in the Citations, publisher for citations # 3, 43, 136 and 137?
Last two gone, others fixed.
  • in the Citations, first name for the author for citation # 3?
Uhhh, Reagan or Gorby? CNN is in, there's no name.
Hmmm, I assume Past AR meant "Kirchner" (citation # 4). Damn his eyes. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • in the Citations, citation #3 is displaying a double full stop
  • in the Citations there is a mixture of date format, e.g. compare "2012-05-14" with "September 18, 2009" with "12 November 1985" -- probably best to use a single format
  • in the Citations, # 19 probably should be converted to a lettered note for consistency
I use a simple rule here: if it's used once, it's inline
Hmm, not sure I've explained this clearly. I mean a lettered note (not a citation) such as that which has the text "Visible-spectrum gas lasers that were optically pumped by nuclear weapons had been developed and tested, and it is likely the Aviation Week article is confusing these earlier tests with the 1978 X-ray test.[24]". AustralianRupert (talk)
  • in the Bibliography, Bell Labs should appear before Bloembergen (alphabetically)
  • in the Bibliography, suggest removing the second link for William Broad as it isn't necessary
Fixed. Why someone added that...
  • in the Bibliography, is there OCLC or similar for Blum?
  • in the Bibliography, ISSNs for the Hecht, Heppeheimer, Herken and Stevens works?
No idea on these.
  • in the Bibliography, Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies seems like it might be out of alphabetical order
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs use hyphens and some don't -- suggest being consistent here
I didn't add any of these and I'm not going to change them.
  • in the Further reading, Thomsen is out of order (alphabetically)
Uhhh, maybe this changed since you looked at it? Seems ok.
Yes, it's correct, apologies. Not sure what I saw there -- all I can guess is that maybe the punch I took to the head in unarmed combat training that morning was worse than I I have, in fact, finally lost my marbles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • sources: look pretty good to me (although I caveat that this isn't a field I know much about), except can you please clarify how,, and satisfy the requirements of WP:RS? For instance, are the authors published experts with qualifications in the field, are there sources listed on the pages, is there editorial oversight, is the information accurate when compared to other reliably published sources, etc?
Laserfest is a "collaboration between the American Physical Society, the Optical Society, SPIE and IEEE Photonics" - I think that's good enough. I replaced is a reference to the range, which seems good enough?
Laserfest is probably ok based on your research above. Re astronautix, I think it should be ok as it appears to have been written by Andreas Parsch, who seems to be cited in a few works: [24]. That's probably the limit of my ability to source check, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
G'day Maury Markowitz just checking you've seen this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

{@AustralianRupert: I had not... Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)