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

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

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


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.


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

Current reviewsEdit

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation CockpitEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Cockpit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Operation Cockpit was the first of a series of hit and run aircraft carrier raids conducted by the British-led Eastern Fleet during 1944 and 1945. Dubbed "perhaps the most cosmopolitan naval operation of the war", it included an American and a British aircraft carrier, a French battleship and ships from the Australian, Dutch and New Zealand navies. Amazingly enough, the American carrier had been dispatched there from the Pacific in order to prevent the British from having to cancel aircraft carrier raids in Norway! The attack on the Japanese-occupied island of Sabang on 19 April 1944 was successful, with the Allies suffering the loss of only a single plane. It failed to divert Japanese forces away from other areas as hoped, as the Japanese did not consider the Eastern Fleet a serious threat.

I developed this article during the first half of last year, and it was assessed as a GA in July. I've since expanded and copy edited it (aided by libraries re-opening since then), and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sources look OK. Ideally there would be less reliance on official histories, but maybe that's just what there is. I did find one 2019 book that could be cited in addition to what you have[1] (search "Sabang"), you can access it with WP:TWL (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Nuclear weapons of the United KingdomEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is the main article of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom Good Topic. As such, it is one of those top level articles that consist mainly of links to subarticles, but it is free standing in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • At 12866 words I would oppose on length at FAC. I get that this is a complicated topic, but do we really need an entire paragraph on Scottish independence views on nuclear weapons? The SNP has only been a significant political force for a fairly short period of time. (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not the nominator, but I'd say the answer to the question on the para on Scotland is a firm 'yes'. There has been a lot of commentary on the effects of Scottish independence on the British nuclear deterrent given that it is almost 100% located in Scotland, with the alternative locations for basing ballistic missile submarines in England apparently being much inferior as well as expensive to establish. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg Is this under crown copyright? If not, when did it go out of copyright in Canada (and was it prior to URAA date)?
    Crown copyright - expired after 50 years ie 1995 - so before URAA date (1 January 1996). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Other images look OK (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


It's good to see this article at ACR. It will probably take a couple of goes to work through the article. Here are my comments:

  • I tend to agree that the length is excessive, especially as there are lots of high quality articles on the underpinning topics thanks to your good work. Some of the quotes are low hanging fruit, for instance.
    checkY Have removed most of the quotes. This reduced the size of the article to 76 kB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Top leaders including Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill" - this is a bit simplistic - Attlee was the PM and Churchill the opposition leader
    checkY Deleted this. Both have already been introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The para starting with 'The deployment of ships carrying nuclear weapons' feels out of place, given that it covers the 1980s and 1990s while the rest of this section is about the 1960s.
    checkY All the subsections in this section are like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The 'Trident renewal' should note the British Government's recent announcement that it will be increasing the number of nuclear warheads
    checkY Added it to the "Posture" section instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The 'Nuclear defence' section should note the rather extraordinary continuity of government plans (see Peter Hennessy's book The Secret State). These started with centralised bunkers, and ended up with teams of ministers who were to deploy to different parts of the country and try to run the ruins of the UK as independent entities.
    I don't have that book and its not in the library - do you have a copy? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "are opposed to the basing of the Trident system close to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city." - I thought that the SNP opposes the British nuclear weapons outright (e.g. [2])
    checkY Re-worded. The anti-nuclear stance in Scotland is sustained by the presence of the weapons there. Conversely, Brexit drives the support in England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " None of the 9 countries known or believed at the time to possess nuclear weapons supported the treaty." - needs a reference.
    checkY Looks someone inserted a comment, but added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Capture of SedaliaEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Capture of Sedalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A minor ACW cavalry action. Confederate cavalry commanded by an officer who technically wasn't in Confederate service swooped in, routed the militia defending the town and captured a large number of cattle and mules. Some degree of looting seems to have occurred, but the extent is debated. Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Source review—pass
  • Collins 2016, p. 186.—in the PDF this page is taken up by a map and I don't see it mentioning Newtonia
    • Collins 2016 p.186 is only to cover "towards the end of the month", there's a mid-sentence ref to Kennedy 1998 that supports Newtonia and the other stuff.
  • Thompson then moved north to rejoin Price's main body and rejoined it at the Salt Fork River—Salt Fork River not mentioned in the source on the cited page
    • Oops. I meant to cite Sinisi 2020 pp. 137-138.
  • Is there a pagination issue with this source?
  • Jenkins 1906, p. 52.—These three refs look good (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Checked a few other refs and didn't find any other issues (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Operation PlutoEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review despite the fact that it took six months to get my last article through. I originally intended to fix it up a bit, but it required more than a little bit of fixing and a complete rewrite was required. Most of the original article is now the lead; I always try to retain as much as possible of the work of others even in a rewrite. The subject of this article is fairly well known, but many readers will be surprised by what it says. Recently passed GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Mostly OK. Some of the UK photographs which the website says were taken in 1944 or 1945 are dated on Commons as 2012, ideally that would be fixed but it's not strictly required. The only issue is the last image, which appears to contravene WP:NFCC, but I asked the uploader and hopefully it can be sorted out. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


Looks interesting, will take a look at over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • " In the event, the port of Cherbourg was not captured until 27 June,[37]" - Might be worth stating this date in D+ or in days behind schedule, as well, for an easier comparison to the planned dates
    It was captured on D+21, and was opened on D+49. I'm forced to adopt the planning stage notation because D-Day was postponed from 5 to 6 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "and the Hamel when it encountered a sharp edge" - Sharp edge through a pipe construction flaw, something on the bottom of the ocean, or an anchor snag or something? I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what this is saying
    Added on the ocean floor. Probably a rock outcropping, but there's so much debris at the bottom of the English channel, one can't be certain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Supporting, I could hardly find anything to comment on. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-DEdit

I was quite interested to see a small chunk of a Pluto pipe at the Docklands branch of the Museum of London a few years ago, but yet don't know much about this project aside from a vague awareness that its results have long been over-hyped. The article is very interesting and informative, and I'm pleased to support this nomination with a couple of minor comments:

  • "Pipelines would reduce the reliance on coastal tankers ... and required vulnerable storage tanks ashore" - this is a bit confusing: perhaps something like "and needed to be offloaded into vulnerable storage tanks ashore"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "heavily mined" - link 'mined' here.
    checkY Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If this is headed to a FAC, I'd suggest looking to add a section on the historiography on this topic: it has a reputation for being one of the cunning British weapons which won the war (as opposed to the 21st Army Group and 2TAF slugging it out with the Germans...), but the reality is less impressive. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    There's something very British about the whole thing. Less enthusiastic about FAC than I was yesterday, but I'll give it a go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    I reckon this has legs for a FA, and is a topic which is of perennial interest - the current average of 143 page views a day is pretty high for this kind of topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


This is in good shape. Just a few comments:

  • From the lead: A special kind of pipeline was required. Two types were developed. Two very short sentences here, suggest combining them.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Background: suggest approached the Secretary for Petroleum, Geoffrey Lloyd, and asked Lloyd if an oil pipeline
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This one not done? Zawed (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
      checkY Odd. Distinctively remember making the change. Must have accidentally reverted it. Done now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Background: In the final paragraph of this section Pluto is as both Pluto and PLUTO - consistency?
    checkY Standardised on Pluto. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Bambi: Chants is lowercase here but on first mention in the background section is presented as all caps.
    checkY Standardised on lowercase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Recovery and salvage: Is the Empire Ridley linked here the same one mentioned in the Hais section, the renamed HMS Latimer?
    checkY Yes. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Armenian GenocideEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is an important article that I rewrote almost entirely and it was just elevated to GA status. My ultimate goal is to bring this to FAC. The article has a solid basis in recent research, but it probably needs some more polishing before it's ready, so I'm hoping to get feedback here. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetleEdit

Claiming my seat. Genocide material is tough stuff to write, and it seems like a very solid article. I'll post comments as I think of them.

  • On 29 October 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers by launching a surprise attack on Russian ports in the Black Sea. Haha, I wrote the article about that "surprise attack" ages ago! Considering all of the intrigue involving the Ottoman's entry into WWI—fears of territory loss to Russia and the Balkan countries, German interference, Enver Pasha's scheming with the Germans, a cabinet crisis—the Ottomans entering WWI doesn't seem like it was a foregone conclusion. Do you think it's perhaps worth mentioning that the entry was achieved with some political difficulties in Istanbul?
    • I agree that it's a complex issue, but I think that the complexities are too much to get into here and don't necessarily have impact on the genocide itself, given that the empire ultimately did go to war. I did add a sentence about the alliance with Germany.
  • Acknowledgment of the genocide is punishable under Article 301 of the Penal Code, which prohibits insulting the Turkish nation and state institutions. Has anyone ever been fully prosecuted for genocide recognition, and if so, do we have any statistics on that?
    • After doing some research I can tell you Yes, and No. During the Akçam vs. Turkey case before the European Court of Human Rights, "The Government further pointed out that between 2003 and 2007 the number of sets of criminal proceedings instituted under Article 301 (Article 159/1 of the former Criminal Code) was 1,894. Of those, 744 cases had resulted in convictions and 1,142 in acquittals; 193 cases were still pending following the Court of Cassation’s decisions to quash the first-instance courts’ judgments." (This would include cases not related to the Armenian Genocide). Akçam's lawyers noted that "individuals had been successfully prosecuted in the past under Article 301 and other provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code for describing the massacre of Armenians as “genocide”", but they didn't give an exact figure. In the earlier Dink vs. Turkey case, "the Court found that the Court of Cassation sanctioned any opinion criticising the official thesis on the Armenian issue. In particular, criticism of denial by State institutions of genocide claims in relation to the events of 1915 was interpreted as denigration or insulting “Turkishness” or the “Turkish nation”" Source:[3]

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It seems to be a recurrent theme throughout this article that Christianity was seen as central to Armenian ethnic identity, but this is not said explicitly.
  • In the nineteenth century, a few urban Armenians became extremely wealthy through their connections to Europe as the Greek War of Independence raised doubt over the loyalty of Greek Orthodox subjects. Err, why? Because the Turkish elite began to favor the Armenians for business dealings instead of the Greeks?
    • Removed, as after double-checking the source this aspect is not emphasized so it may be WP:UNDUE.
  • the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants, as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas. Is it known why the Ottomans wanted to reduce their population in this specific area? To dilute their political cohesiveness?
    • Astorian doesn't state the reason. I checked Kevorkian and Suny books and they don't give a clear citable reason either although they imply that the sultan was trying to bring these areas under stronger central government control or just hold on to them. Will need to keep researching this point.
      • After additional research I'm not sure that any source directly ties this demographic policy to a clear motivation. I don't think there's anything that I can add here that wouldn't be synthy. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If the goal of the Ottoman state in much of the late 1800s was to try encourage the Armenians to leave, is it known if many left and where they ended up, and how they were treated in their new lands?
    • A lot of them went across the border to Russian-controlled areas. Others emigrated, among other places to the US. Russia encouraged Armenians to settle but did not really follow a pro-Armenian policy but also repressed Armenian language and culture and many Russian bureaucrats had anti-Armenian attitudes.
  • When news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire. Ottoman soldiers did not protect Armenians and instead armed the rioters. It's not exactly clear whether the Muslims rioted in support or in protest of the coup attempt. Were the attacks on the Armenians due to the Dashnaktsutyun's connections to the CUP?
    • Suny appears to say that those involved in the massacres were both supporters and opponents of the coup, and that harmful rumors claimed that Armenians were trying to restore the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.
  • On 8 February 1914, under heavy international pressure, the CUP agreed to the 1914 Armenian reforms, which were never implemented due to World War I. A few words on what these reforms would have achieved (de facto European trusteeship of the Ottoman Armenians, by the looks of it) would be nice.
    • Added a bit of clarification
  • Other Dashnak leaders having been killed, If the Ottomans were deliberately targeting and assassinating Dashnak leaders before this point, that would seem worthy of mention.
    • It wasn't a consistent Ottoman policy but rather Cevdet decided to have them killed.
  • Russian forces liberated Van on 18 May, finding 55,000 corpses in the province Is there a link for the Russian offensive that brought them to Van?
  • the deportation and murder of Armenians did not grant the empire any military advantage and actually undermined the Ottoman war effort. It might be worth spelling out how this undermined the war effort, such as by diverting government security resources. Or are you referring to the economic problems explained by the "Confiscation of property" section?
    • Rogan states, The bitter irony is that the annihilation of the Armenians and other Christian communities in no way improved the security of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies never mounted an attack on the Cilician coast to justify the deportation of Armenians there. The deportations actually undermined the Ottoman war effort in Mesopotamia when Armenians working on the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway were condemned to a death march. The extermination of Armenian communities in eastern Anatolia did nothing to protect the Caucasus from Russian invasion. Tsarist forces met little resistance in conquering the fortress town of Erzurum in February 1916. The Russian army swept through the Black Sea port of Trabzon and the market town of Erzincan later that year—defeats that could not be blamed on Armenian collaborators after the deportations. As far as military consequences, Suny states: In July 1915 the commander of the Ottoman Third Army, Mahmud Kamil, was forced to request reassignment of soldiers to agricultural labor since “all Muslims have been conscripted and the Armenians in their entirety [kamilen] been deported.” He accurately predicted that the region would fall into “dearth and famine” and the army would be without supplies. Now I've mentioned military supplies and lack of essential labor.
  • Although the majority of able-bodied men had been conscripted, others remained if they were too old or young, had deserted, or had paid the exemption tax. Conscripted for what?
    • Clarified that this is military conscription
  • After hearing from German politicians that they expected surviving Armenians to be allowed to return home after the war, Talat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916. So Talat feared his German allies would pressure him to return the Armenians to their homes, and so he decided to kill as many before the war was over?
    • Yes, Kieser states, Talaat.. became an obsessive anti- Armenian whose political hate included growing fear... Mixing political hate with a cultural and biological understanding of Armenians, Talaat increasingly apprehended the latter’s survival outside Anatolia as a possible starting point for a reversal of his political “achievements” for the Türk Yurdu. This went on file when Matthias Erzberger, a German deputy who was responsible for propaganda abroad and thus influential in foreign policy, visited him in February 1916. Henceforth, Talaat tangibly feared that after the war, Armenian survivors would return to their homeland and that Germany, in Erzberger’s words, would support them, as Talaat secretly wrote to Enver on 16 February. Active extermination in Northern Syria, beyond deliberate starvation, started in March 1916.
  • I'm curious if there's any information to be shared on how word got out of the killings. The international reactions section mentions witness testimony and newspaper accounts; was the Ottoman government simply unable to stop journalists from investigating and reporting the story?
    • An interesting question. It was NOT possible for foreign journalists to visit the affected area, but by the end of 1918, "American editors had by then found other sources to confirm the scenes of horror: the memoirs of victims, letters from Germans on the scene, and reports by eminent Americans who were listening to missionaries in the region."[4] The Ottoman Empire also threatened Germans who took photographs of the atrocities.
    • According to David Gaunt, the famous "crimes against humanity" declaration in May 1915 was sponsored by Russia after Russia uncovered the massacre in Haftevan. The source for the "Blue Book", the most comprehensive compilation published during the war (all of its sources were cross-referenced and verified), "Apart from that furnished by Bryce from the Armenian diaspora and his personal contacts in America, most of Toynbee's material came semi-officially via the United States. The main channel was the Reverend James Barton, Head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who had direct access to American consular reports from the interior of the Ottoman Empire. The State Department was evidently content for many of these reports of local eyewitness accounts to be published abroad, provided the source of information was concealed. The collection of documents released in October 1915 in fact formed the basis of Toynbee's Armenian Atrocities. He also obtained the cooperation of the Swiss publishers of Quelques Documents sur le Sort des Armeniens, 1915, as well as further material from its chief compiler, the lawyer Leopold Favre."[5]
    • However, none of this is remotely emphasized in sources so I think it may be UNDUE in this article (Although it would belong in International reaction to the Armenian Genocide). (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I would agree that much of this would be UNDUE, though if the Ottoman government was actively suppressing word of the killings or barring journalists from affected areas I think that warrants a quick mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Added (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in Eastern Asia Minor.[218] It should probably be noted that this treaty went unratified.
    • Added
  • Dutch historian Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that... Most of the historians in this article are not labeled by their nationality, why him?
    • Removed for consistency.
  • n late 2019, in the wake of the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, both houses of United States Congress voted to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide, soon thereafter passing sanctions against Turkey. Seems like recentism bias. Why is US congressional recognition important enough to be mentioned by name when other countries are not?
    • OK, removed.
  • Academic study of the genocide began in the 1980s. I find that hard to believe. Is Lemkin's study not considered academic? Does this have more to do with the discipline of history rather than legal scholarship?
    • OK, after doing some more research I've taken it out. Although it's supported by the cited source, it's contradicted in this paper.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • According to our article on "crimes against humanity", the Allied condemnation of the Ottomans was the first time a sovereign government had ever used the phrase in accusation of another (the term was coined earlier). If this is true (the sourcing on that article isn't very good, so I can't tell), that should probably be mentioned. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Added (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry it's taken so long for me to address these comments. I believe I've addressed everything above. (t · c) buidhe 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Tomobe03Edit

I'd like to have a look at the article too. I'll post comments/questions below gradually as I go through the article sections. I'm not a native speaker of English though, so please let me know if I misunderstood something in the prose. Also, I won't comment on any grammar issues unless they appear obvious omissions to me.

  • Reading [f]ollowing the Byzantine Empire's fall in 1453, two Islamic empires—the Ottoman Empire and the Iranian Safavid Empire—contested Western Armenia; it was permanently separated from Eastern Armenia by the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab, I was under impression that the Ottoman and Safavid empires both claimed Western Armenia and understood the passage to imply the Eastern Armenia remained under Armeinan control. After reading the linked Treaty of Zuhab article I got the impression the Safavid Empire controlled the Eastern Armenia and that both empires claimed all of Armenia. It seems to me this particular sentence could be clarified to eliminate the possibility of incorrect interpretations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Reworded for clarity
  • I assume that the arriving Muslim refugees and immigrants (mainly Circassians) were a result of a war (at least the refugees). Do any sources identify the cause of their displacement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Many came following the Caucasus War but there were others from the Balkans.
  • Were the parts of eastern Asia Minor, the Balkans, and Cyprus ceded by the Ottoman Empire after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 transferred to other states before or at the Congress of Berlin?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a complexity that I don't think needs to go in the article. After the war, Russia forced the Ottoman Empire to accept a favorable deal with much territory lost to Bulgaria. In exchange for ceding Cyprus to Britain, the Ottoman Empire was able to get a better deal at the Congress of Berlin and keep parts of the Balkans that it initially had agreed to cede to Bulgaria. Russia also demanded reforms in the treatment of Armenians, which was ultimately watered down at Berlin. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • As far as territorial changes are concerned, I agree completely. As regards the demanded reforms, are you refering to the 1914 Armenian reforms?.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Prior to the 1914 reforms there were several other efforts, which are discussed in the article Armenian Question#Origin. The Armenian Genocide article mentions the 1878 reforms in the Treaty of Berlin rather than the plan in the Treaty of San Stefano which could actually have been enforced, since it was planned to keep Russian troops stationed in the area. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In the Young Turk Revolution section, is there any way to identify the "Muslims" in [w]hen news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire? From the context, I understand those were not the Ottoman Army. After reading Adana massacre, judging from the resentment of wealth cited as the cause there, it think that is a reference to armed civilian population of Adana, but I'm unsure if it was an otherwise existing force (a local garrison, CUP or countercoup supprter units) or not. Could you clarify?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It's complicated because supporters of the countercoup, CUP supporters, as well as soldiers sent in to restore order all participated in the massacre and committed violence and looting.
  • Do any sources identify more closely the "Muslim militias" in [a]round 150,000 Greek Orthodox from the Aegean littoral were forcibly deported in May and June 1914 by Muslim militias secretly backed by the government? Looking at the caption of the image found in the Balkan Wars section I'm wondering if they/some of them are the çetes. Similarly, in 1914 Greek deportations, (at least some) of the violence is attributed to bashi-bazouk irregulars. I understand the current wording as "undetermined Muslim (Turkish, Circasssian, European-Muslim refugee etc.) forces brought from outside of the community", so if this is the intended meaning, I'm fine with it as is, but I'd rather have the perpetrators identified as specifically as possible (within reason and remaining concise).--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, your understanding is correct. Emre Erol does highlight çetes as the initiators of violence and states, "In short, the initiators of the violence and ousting were armed bandits who were not from the county." But most sources don't specify çetes; Suny says "militia" and Kieser refers to a "secret combination of gangs, the army, the central government, diplomats, and the central and local branches of the CUP", while Kaligian blames "mobs" "well-armed bands", "regular troops sent to restore order" and the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa for causing attacks. I have changed the wording to "Muslim bandits secretly backed by the CUP and sometimes joined by the regular army". (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In the sentence starting with Russian forces liberated Van on 18 May..., I'd use "took control of" or "captured" instead of "liberated" as a more neutral term. I'd think "liberated" is fine if the city were a part of the Russian Empire before the war.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Done
  • In Death Marches section, what do you mean by "give away" in ...mothers would give away their daughters before their sons? Does this refer to Childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews would come to the camps to buy Armenian children from their parents; thousands of children were sold in this manner. (in the Destinations sections) or does this somehow refer to giving food away to them?
    • The former, reworded for clarity.
  • In Islamization section, in [m]ost of them endured exploitation, hard labor without pay, forced conversion, and physical and sexual abuse, does "forced conversion" mean forced conversion to Islam?
    • Yes, added clarification
  • In Confiscation section, in [a]ll traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased, does the "systematic erasure" mean systematic destruction or repurposing or any combination of those? This does not apply to animal and place names as the linked articles clarify the situation.
    • A combination of both. For example, many churches were destroyed and others were converted into mosques.
  • In International reaction section, in ...condemning the Ottoman "crimes against humanity" and... the quotemarks could be interpreted as MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Unless they are meant as scarequotes (I did not get that impression), I'd recommend you to reword this as "...condemning the Ottoman actions as crimes against humanity and..." or something like that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Reworded
  • There is a link to Requisition disambiguation page in Entry into World War I section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed
  • In [t]he 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in eastern Asia Minor, but was not ratified, "large area in eastern Asia Minor" should probably be linked to Wilsonian Armenia. Or you could even modify the one-sentence paragraph to have it say something like "...a large area in eastern Asia Minor referred to as Wilsonian Armenia..." to avoid linking to unexpected destination if you think that's necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Linked.
  • Checklinks returns no errors except for Bedrosyan ref, but I accessed the source manually and everything seems fine, i.e. this looks like a checklinks tool's fault and no action is required here.
  • I'd recommend archiving the web sources and adding archive information to the refs to prevent decay. I don't think that such archives are required by relevant criteria though, so no action is required as far as I can tell.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately IAbot is not working right now, but hopefully I'll be able to archive the links later. Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 13:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • No worries. I'm happy to support the prose with the above caveat on grammar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

20th Battalion (New Zealand)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

20th Battalion (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In a change from my normal fare of military biographies, this nomination for A-Class is an article for a unit that served with the 2nd New Zealand Division during the Second World War. The 20th Battalion started the war as an infantry unit, and fought in Greece, Crete and then North Africa. It got decimated at El Alamein, following which it was converted to armour and went on to serve in Italy. This article is one of my earliest GAs, back in 2013. I have given it a bit of a polish on and off over the past six months and think it is ready for consideration for A-Class. Thanks in advance to all who stop by to comment. Zawed (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • Fixed the links. At the time they were saved to Commons, the url was in a beta form. I deleted the "beta" from the links. They work now. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks like the copyright tags are wrong, though, since it appears they would fall under Crown Copyright / expired[6] and there's no indication they were ever released under a Creative Commons license. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have updated the copyright tags on these images. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 23:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • In theory, that painting should be PD as McIntyre was an official war artist so the Crown has copyright and all Crown works dated 1944 or earlier is PD. However, I replaced the image. Zawed (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If so, then it can be used, just the copyright tag should be {{PD-New Zealand}} as opposed to the Creative Commons license. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of British divisions in World War IIEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another a list up for A-Class review. This one has been extensively reworked over the last couple of months to make user-friendly and to cite to RS. It includes a background section outlining the number of divisions the British intended to raise, and then sections with lists for the airborne, armoured, anti-aircraft, cavalry, county, and infantry divisions. Each section includes a blurb outlining the intended strength, role, and a small bit about how these formations were intended to be used. The article has recently been worked on by the GoCE. I look forward to your comments to help and improve this list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • Licensing is OK (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The top sidebar should be replaced either with an image or a better sidebar—something specifically related to British Army divisions or British Army in World War II, not "British Army lists". The current one fails pretty much every criterion in WP:SIDEBAR and does not really provide useful links to related articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have removed it per your recommendation, and replaced it with a photo (I had hoped to find a decent photo of an entire division on parade etc. to demonstrate the size, but was unable to do. Likewise, after scouring for photos of divisional staff, I landed on the current one after much failure. totally open to suggestions for more suitable pics). I have moved several of the relevant links to the "see also" section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D This is a great article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "These were not comparable in role, to formations that were intended to be deployed for combat such as infantry divisions" - it's not clear what this is referring to (the AA divisions?)
    I have tweaked that opened to state anti-aircraft division, hopefully this works but I am open to suggestions to better convey this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The 'Background' section should note that quite a few British divisions were either destroyed in combat or disbanded due to casualties
    I have added in a few extra lines to state notable destroyed divisions, and the loss of four other to reinforce depleted formations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This section should also explain why the Indian and Sudanese formations are in-scope, but the Indian and various Dominion/Commonwealth formations aren't (e.g. that they formed part of separate armies)
    I have made a tweak to the way several of the sentences are worded, to specify the British Army raising regiments, and the other armies raising formations. Do the changes work? If not, do you have something more specific in mind to get this across?
  • Saying that the 79th Armoured Division "Did not see combat as a division" seems a bit confusing given it was never intended to, but its constituent units were heavily engaged.
    I guess I over simplified. I have amended the wording in the list, and I have also tweaked a sentence further up where the division was mentioned too. Does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest noting in the 'Infantry' section the types of attachments which were standard late war - for instance, I think that each of the divisions in North-West Europe had an armoured or tank brigade attached.
    I have thrown on an extra para to the end of the section to mention the mixed division, the corps level brigades that could be attached, and the specialized tanks. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Am I right in thinking that a 'light' establishment was adopted for the infantry divisions in Burma late in the war?
    Burma is not my forte. Perry stated that at least one Indian division was reduced to two brigades as part of the effort to implement a "light division" concept in Burma. Joslen doesnt note anything special happening to the 2nd Inf when it was deployed to India and Burma (it did reduce to two brigades for a couple of months), and the 36th Inf div (on paper) looks like all the others. I note that the 81st and 82nd Divs were initially organized with brigade groups, which were then reorganized into regular brigades in Sept '44, and Joslen notes that the divisions were "reorganized on standard division establishment" in October 1944. He does not elaborate on what that means. The same note is there for the 11th in Aug '44, but their brigade info shows regular brigades and not brigade groups. The brigade section of his work does not elaborate on the changes either. I will see if there is anything else I can dig up with the limited sources I have on the subject.
    I think that there may have been a British equivalent of the Jungle division where infantry divisions in the theatre were slimmed down, but not as drastically as the Australian divisions were. I've never been able to find a source with the details though, so no need to cover this unless you find a source. The lightened organisation may have been unofficial. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    I am not, there is potentially an answer in Kirby's The War Against Japan: The Reconquest of Burma. I dont have access to it, but was able to do some searching via Google snippet view, and on p.25 Kirby notes there was five different types of infantry division in theatre including the Indian 'light' division. I was not able to access more than that. I believe Keith-264 has access to this source, and I enquired with him about this. But I am not sure if he will be able to look, or get back to me about it. The sources I do have, do not appear to discuss the different establishments used in Asia. For example, Perry touches on the Indian divisions being over mechanized and slimming down and I feel like that will be a summary of what Kirby may have to say on the matter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have a copy too. Let me know what you want to know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    If you dont mind, that would be very helpful. I asked Keith, but didn't receive a response.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Based off the quote Hawkeye provided below, I don't believe Kirby can be used to support the 2nd and 36th being 'Jungle Divisions' (although it somewhat implies they should be since they were under that command structure?). Joslen doesnt provide hints to supporting it, such as indicating if a field regiment was equipped with 25-pounders or mountain guns etc. There is a couple of nice photos of the 2nd Div bouncing around Burma in their universal carriers if that helps? I have not lucked out in trying to find other sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    The field regiments were equipped with the 25-pounder, and the mountain regiments with the 3.7-inch howitzer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Joslen indicates just a handful of British mountain gun regiments, none of which are with the 2nd or 36th. Two were with the 52nd, before being redeployed to Army Group Royal Artillery units (where it seems the other few were located). That doesn't exclude the possibility of British Indian units, he doesn't really detail them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note where the 1st and 2nd African Divisions were recruited from
  • Ditto the 81st and 82nd Divisions Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have updated the additional information on the various African divisions, and have also added some additional info in the background area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review and comments, I have attempted to address the majority of them and will come back to work on the remaining soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As an additional comment (and one I meant to note originally - sorry), the tables aren't sorting for me despite having the sortable fields. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    I found the culprit being an extra character, I have removed it and made the tables funtional.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7 I don't usually review lists, but this one is interesting and well done. Suggestions:

  • Consider adding the division insignia
  • Consider a separate column for disbanding to match forming
  • The locations and campaigns don't need to be sortable columns.
    I had a little time, so I have updated the first two sections with the above three comments in mind. I'll get around to the rest later today, hopefully. But, in case you pop in before then, you now have a preview.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have enacted these suggested changes for the entire article nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Chappell isn't used.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Armoured divisions. I would also note that the armoured reconnaissance regiment was organised as an armoured battalion, albeit with Cromwell tanks instead of Shermans, so each armoured division in NW Europe had four armoured and four infantry battalions, permitting the pairing described. In Italy, each armoured division was given a second infantry brigade.
    The Italian campaign is another area were I am not familiar. Where the second infantry brigades corp assets attached to the divisions? Joslen only seems to indicate one infantry brigade at a time for the 1st and 6th. I do have the official history for the Italian campaign, so I can dig through that to see if there is additional info that Joslen doesnt provide.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    The official history gives orbats for both armoured divisions. The two brigades in the 1st Armoured Division were the 18th Lorried Infantry Brigade and the 43rd Gurkha Lorried Infantry Brigade (attached); in the 6th Armoured Division they were the 61st Infantry Brigade (attached) and the 1st Guards Brigade. It was the theatre-wide organisation. This was carried through with the other armoured divisions as well; in the 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division the 12th Canadian Infantry Brigade was raised from corps and division assets, and in the 6th South African Armoured Division the 24th Guards Brigade was attached until the 13th South African Motorised Infantry Brigade arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have updated this section, although I have tried to be careful with the wording based off the difference between how the OH and Joslen seem to look at the situation. Joslen notes that the 1st Guards Brigade was not a permanent formation within the 6th Arm after the 61st joined, although they did spend considerable amounts of time with them, as they hoped back and forth to other divs. He doesnt cover Indian Army units, and the OH seems to imply both brigades were full-time units as you noted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Airborne divisions. The airborne battalions were largely made up of volunteers, whereas the airlanding battalions came from existing infantry units that had been converted into this new role. That's sort of true. The parachute battalions were made up of volunteers, and the airlanding units were not. However, only the first four parachute battalions were formed from individual volunteers like the commandos and the SAS. Starting with the 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion, parachute battalions were formed from infantry battalions converted to the new role. Those who didn't volunteer or were deemed unsuitable for parachute duties were transferred to other units and replaced by volunteers from other regiments.
    I have updated this, and hopefully the new wording is more accurate.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I believe I have actioned the above list for the various entries.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review, comments, and offer of research assistance. I have left a couple of comments above, and will try to implement the suggested changes later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    With access to the Burma Campaign OHs, are you able to tell if Nick's comment can be addressed via Kirby p.25? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    The bit you're looking for reads:

    By the end of May, at a conference between senior officers representing GHQ India, 11th Army Group, Fourteenth Army and IV, XV and XXXIII Corps, an organisation for a standard infantry division capable of jungle fighting, of being transported by air and of undertaking amphibious operations was drawn up. Such a division was to consist of three divisions of three battalions each (to be increased to four as units became available), a reconnaissance battalion, a division headquarters and a machine gun battalion. The artillery was to consist of two field regiments, one mountain regiment and one anti-tank regiment. The scale of mechanical transport was to be reduced throughout the division and, in addition to first line mules (which remained as in the existing A & MT division), animal transport companies were to be provided on a scale of three for each division. The infantry battalion was to be simplified. The Bren carrier platoon was to be abolished and replaced by a battalion headquarters platoon organised as an infantry platoon. The strength of the rifle section was to be increased. The allotment of weapons was revised and limited to four 2-inch and six 3-inch mortars, the light machine gun, the Sten gun, the rifle and bayonet and, as stocks became available, the new rifle grenade in replacement of the the anti-tank rifle and the PIAT. The transport was reduced to twelve jeeps and trailers, forty-one unit mules and fifty-four first line RIASC mules.

    — Kirby, pp. 25-26
  • Support Great job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of IndependenceEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Second Battle of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Of the four battles fought as part of Price's Raid between October 21 and October 23, Second Independence is generally the least studied. Fought on some of the same ground as the Battle of Little Blue River, at the same time as Byram's Ford, and on the day before Westport, Independence was where things fell apart for Price. Beginning with this battle, the Confederates were fighting Union soldiers on two fronts instead of one, and defeat was essentially an eventuality. I recently gave this one a top-to-bottom rewrite to remove a number of factual inaccuracies. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to split the "Battle" section into subsections? I think it would read better that way. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally consisting of men drawn from a headquarters guard, the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment was originally armed with experimental cannons before becoming a more traditional cavalry regiment. Often associated with Sterling Price, it served under him in the Camden expedition and Price's Raid. Over the course of its life, the unit played an undistinguished role in a number of battles and burned a depot, a bridge, and an entire train. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

SR and IR
  • Image licensing is good. I hope you like the pushpin map, the other one you had is not very legible. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I like it; it's something I'm considering using in other articles as well. I added a couple more places described in the section; I hope that's fine.
      • Yep it's useful to be able to add as many places as you like. (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please break up Price's Raid section into subsections, it is longer than it should be for optimum readability. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Broken into three subsections.
  • I don't see any issues with sourcing, and checking several of Bearss 1964 cites I did not see issues with text-source integrity. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Support on A1 and A5, will support on A3 as well if you fix #2 above. (t · c) buidhe 05:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Final Offensive of 1981Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pizzaking13 (talk)

Final Offensive of 1981 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Final Offensive of 1981 is the first offensive of the 12-year-long Salvadoran Civil War, which has had a significant impact on the politics and culture of the country since El Salvador had not had a long, drawn out civil conflict since the days of the civil wars of the Federal Republic of Central America in the 1820s and 1830s. The country has had plenty of civil and even international conflicts, such as the Football War, Barrios' War of Reunification, the Totoposte Wars, and the several coups and coup attempts the country has faced over its nearly 200 years of existence, but the civil war of 1979 to 1992 is the most infamous and defined essentially every Salvadorans' life.

The Final Offensive of 1981 was put on to be a final struggle against an oppressive government which violated the human rights of its citizens, which is the primary reason for its erroneous and ironic name, being the very first offensive of the war and not the last. The offensive was one of only three to involve a "typical" style of military warfare, with the other two being in 1982 and 1989. The failure to overthrow the government in January 1981 eventually lead to the guerrilla style of warfare that would be seen throughout the conflict which essentially dragged out the civil war longer than it should have.

The offensive is very important in Salvadoran history since it essentially "got the war going" in a sense, since before this point, the civil war was just disorganized far-left militant groups, far-right death squads, and the Revolutionary Government Junta fighting at random, while the offensive organized the leftist militants into the FMLN to oppose the government and the death squads, which would get the United States involved in the conflict. I believe that this article meets the Five Military History A-Class Criteria since it is properly cited with reliable sources, comprehensive and neutral, properly structured, written in clear and concise American English, and contains an appropriately licensed relevant image. (I tried searching for more, but I came up empty handed. I may consider creating a diagram showing the exact positions of the Salvadoran Army's units, but we'll see.) Pizzaking13 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

SR and IR
  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Bosch: which edition are you using? If you cite the 1999 edition it's irrelevant that it was republished in 2013, that should just be deleted.
    • Done.
  • Crandall: this is not a correctly formatted book citation. See my FA article The Holocaust in Slovakia#Book chapters for an example of how to format book chapter citation. For example, it should not list the author's institution as if it were the publication location, and it should state the book ISBN. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I used the entire book and essentially every chapter. Does it still matter if it does not cite chapters? The ISBN is there.

« Return to A-Class review list

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 2nd Infantry Division was a British Army formation that had an on and off again existence for around 200-years. It fought during the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Boer War, and both World Wars. It fought in numerous famous battles, including playing a vital role in the rout of the Imperial Guard at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. Due to it being a forefront in most of the campaigns it fought in, it also suffered heavy losses. In peace time, during the second half of the 20th Century and into the 21st, it went under various role changes: it became an armoured formation, reverted back to an infantry division, and became a training unit. The article has been worked over by the GOCE, although any suggestions for cuts and and wording improvements are always welcome, and it has just passed its GA-review. If you have somehow missed them, there are three sub-articles (unsure if they needed to be in their own sections, or if they right at home in the "see also" section) that supplements this article, with detailed orders of battle, the list of commanding officers, and all Victoria Cross winners.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Battle of Albuhera, by William Barnes Wollen.jpg when was this image first published? Per US law, display does not count as publication.
    After searching, I was unable to find a source that appears to have used this painting until the late 2000s. I have updated the flag to reflect this. Although, I was also able to verify that the painting was created between 1911–1912, so there may be a more appropriate tag?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    If it was really first published after 2003 than {{PD-US-unpublished}} would indeed apply, but it's difficult to guarantee that there was no earlier publication, in which case it would be copyrighted 95 years after publication. To be safe, I would remove it. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    I did another search and was not able to come up with any additional info on the painting or if it was published prior. I have hidden it in the article, in case those questions are ever answered, and have removed the US PD tag from the Commons file. I have also replaced it with a new illustration in the article (which I have a verified 1800s publication date for).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Sidney Paget00.jpg the license claims publication before 1926, but the publication listed is from the 1990s. When was the first publication? (This similar image[8] is freely licensed). (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    I tracked down verification of the painting being published in 1900, and have updated the commons page to reflect the sources better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Great! (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

12th (Eastern) Infantry DivisionEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division, during the Second World War. Under-trained, it was taken off guard duty in the UK and dispatched to France as a labour division. It was intended to be used to help construct airfields and pillboxes. However, in May 1940, when the German advance through the Ardennes caught the British and French off guard, the division was thrown into the frontline. It was then spread-out, overwhelmed, and defeated by several panzer divisions, although it did manage to cause some delays and buy precious critical hours for the BEF evacuation. What was left returned home, and the division was broken-up in order to bring other formations up to strength. The article has had the once over by the GOCE, and has just passed its GA review. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK. Please do not use collapsed tables, it's not allowed per MOS:COLLAPSE. (Collapsed navboxes are OK though). (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the image review. Per the policy, they are allowed if the material within is a repetition of what is in the article or supplementary. In this case, all important units are already mentioned in the article. Or they can be set so that they default open, but can be collapsed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): The ed17 (talk)

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey all! Chile's Esmeralda was the world's first modern protected cruiser, a ship type that made British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell (later Armstrong Whitworth) a fortune. Variously lauded and criticized for its design particulars at the time of its construction, Esmeralda was quickly outpaced by rapid advances in naval technology. When Chile found itself falling further and further behind in an arms race with Argentina, Chile sold the ship to Japan to help fund a new armored cruiser. Izumi, as the ship was renamed, took part in the Russo-Japanese War and was the first warship to spot the Russian fleet during the decisive Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Afterwards, the ship served in subsidiary roles for the rest of the war and was scrapped in 1912. I'm looking forward to any and all comments y'all can provide! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments A Chilean cruiser that saw combat with Japan is certainly a curiosity! It's also good to see you at ACR Ed, after what I think might be a bit of a break? I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I think that the 'design' section should start with material explaining why the Chilean Government ordered this ship, and wanted such an advanced vessel
  • Relatedly, the material in the second and third paras of the 'design' section and the 'public reaction' section feels a bit jumbled. I'd suggest restructuring this material as background on why the ship was ordered and the Chilean Government's requirements, a summary of the design, and then material on expert and public reactions.
  • It's a bit unclear whether the ship was actually superior: the RN's critique of the design seems pretty devastating. I'd suggest being clearer about this as well - e.g. Armstrongs claimed the ship was the bee's knees and a number of other commentators were impressed, but the RN thought it was actually fatally flawed.
  • How did this ship end up with the Congressionalist faction during the civil war? Did all the Navy side with this faction, or did the ship's officers and/or crew make a decision here?
  • Why did Chile dispose of this newish and powerful ship during the arms race with Agentina? Was it considered out of date, and the funds used from selling it would be better employed on new vessels?
  • From checking my copy of Kaigun, the ship is mentioned only once, as part of a table. I'd suggest removing this as 'further reading' unless I'm missing something here.
  • The article seems a bit under-illustrated given what's available on Commons - File:Twms gen twcms 00 6077 large.jpg for instance would be a good addition. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @The ed17: In case you've missed this, a couple of reviews are available. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Nick-D! I've been mostly offline due to unforeseen real life intrusions, but I also forgot to add the page to my watchlist, so... :-) I'll aim to work on the bulk of your comments tomorrow! I've removed Kaigun from the further reading section; it was there because it was listed as a reference prior to my rewrite. On the visuals, that particular image was removed during the GAN (near the top) because its copyright status in the US can't be ascertained. Most of the others on Commons are small, blurry, or both, but I did add File:Japanese cruiser Izumi at Sasebo 1908.jpg thanks to Japan's copyright laws (no need to find a publishing date). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit behind on this "tomorrow" promise. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Hey Nick-D, I ended up being very behind on this, but I've made several edits based on your suggestions. I reorganized and rewrote parts of the design section, made Armstrong's intentions more clear, tweaked the paragraph about the civil war, and added a naval historian's speculation about the sale motives. I'm open to further ideas on how to improve the design section! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I've also added a new lead image that I found (if I'm honest, accidentally). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Many thanks to Muwatallis II for adding another image! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Esmeralda1884.png: source link is dead, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: I've updated the source and public domain tag. As the photograph was published in 1884, it is in the public domain in the US and is assumed to be in the public domain in countries that use the 70 years after the death of the creator criterion. As it was published in the UK, I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not it needs PD-UK-unknown as well... I'm honestly not sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Exact complement of 296 needs cited
  • Where is the 600 tons of coal figure in the infobox coming from?
  • Namesake does not seem to be explicitly cited
  • Source link for the infobox image appears to be dead
  • Be consistent with how you use locations for USA places - some have city, but no state (I'd recommend for Sater definitely including the state, as Athens, Georgia is not going to be the obvious Athens to think of), while some have the state abbreviated and others spell it out
  • Recommend adding ISBNs to the books that have them
  • Sources look fine, as does image licensing (aside from the dead source look). Prose is good. Anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Hog Farm: Thanks for the review! All of these should be fixed with exceptions/notes below.
    • The Athens, Georgia, location is interesting as TCMOS advises against including the state name when it's named in the publisher (in this case, the University of Georgia). But I agree that it could be confusing, so IAR seems best. I've avoided adding ISBNs as they're not required, and as many of the references were copied from a thesis I wrote, they didn't start with ISBNs. :-) The namesake is ... curious. That's something that survived from the older revisions of the page, prior to when I started rewriting it, and I can't find a citation to support it. It seems logical (I don't think it was named for The Hunchback of Notre Dame character!), but it also seems at least within the realm of possibility that the ship was named for the famed Chilean corvette that was sunk a few years earlier, which in turn was likely named for the Spanish frigate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


  • Can you crop the infobox image?
  • Link magazine (artillery) in the lead
  • Also in the lead, you might add the years of the Russo-Japanese War
  • Move the link for displacement to the first use
  • Armstrong's argument is very similar to that of the Jeune Ecole, which was in vogue at the time (and was what drove countries like Italy to buy Armstrong's cruisers) - probably worth making that connection
  • Were the main guns in proper turrets, or in open barbettes with gun shields? The lead image appears to suggest the latter (and Conway's says barbettes)
  • Any specifics on the boiler type? Conway's says "cyl boilers", which is their shorthand for fire-tube boilers
  • Link "compartments" to engine room, and I'd link ihp and knots in the text
  • "along its belt" - I'd switch belt to waterline, to avoid giving the impression the ship had belt armor

More later. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Parsec! Appreciate all the thoughts. All of these are done except Jeune École... I don't have a source that explicitly links the two and I'm a bit worried about WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In Sondhaus Naval Warfare, 1815–1914, in a chapter helpfully titled "The Jeune Ecole", he directly links Giovanni Bausan to the Jeune Ecole, same with Japan, and the early US cruisers, of which he states: "The emphasis on cruisers reflected the Jeune Ecole spirit of the times - pages are 149–154. Sondhaus is also pretty explicit in linking Esmeralda and all of her derivatives to the Jeune Ecole in Navies of Europe. There's an article in Mariner's Mirror vol 91 that covers it as well.
  • Also, I came across an article in Warship 2004 that will probably help on this point (and perhaps on other topics more generally - see snippets here) - @Sturmvogel 66: has a copy in his library and may be able to help you out there. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Warship article links the Esmerelda-type cruisers to the Jeune Ecole via the latter's belief that cheap, specialized fast cruisers with only a few large-caliber guns could deal with battleships. I can scan that page for you and add the article to the bibliography if you like. The Mariner's Mirror article is a book review of Arms and the State: Sir William Armstrong and the Remaking of British Naval Power, 1854–1914 by Marshal J. Bastable, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004 ISBN 0-7546-3404-3 which definitely should be consulted to firmly pin the two together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A better book on the Jeune Ecole would probably be Roksund, Arne (2007). The Jeune École: The Strategy of the Weak. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-15723-1.. I have a scanned copy if you can't get it locally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello both! I've added a sentence on Jeune École to the Armstrong paragraph; it's based on Naval Warfare, 1815–1914. I own Bastable, and despite the book review the link between Jeune École and Esmeralda is frustratingly not explicit; it gets close, but says only that "this dynamic market for cruisers lasted throughout the 1880s, fuelled [sic] by the belief among many naval strategists that the days of the battleship and 'command of the sea' were over and the era of submarines, fast cruisers and wars on commerce had begun." (Basically, all the tenets of Jeune École but he doesn't mention it for several more pages, and even then it's simply the "French strategy of war against British commerce.") Google previews show that Roksund's book doesn't mention Esmeralda, but I imagine it could be used to add a paragraph or contribute to a short "legacy" section that includes info on the general trend. @Sturm can you send the Warship article page? That sounds like it would be incredibly helpful. I would also appreciate getting Roskund if it's easy aka scanned already and only requires attaching it to an email. There's an ebook available at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, but no public access is allowed due to COVID. @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The book is on its way and I'll scan the page later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Sturm! I focused on closing out Parsec's comments below tonight, but will get to looking through the books asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "three 14 inches (360 mm)" - add the adj=on parameter
  • There are some rounding issues that need to be fixed - the above example, a 6" rounded to 150mm, 18" converted to 460mm, "2,800 long tons (2,800 t)" - there may be others I haven't noticed
  • "It was launched" - "it" here is ambiguous - does it refer to the keel? I like to use "the completed hull" or similar
  • "with Esmeralda's arrival and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war" - this seems oddly US-centric to put directly in the text. It might be better to move it to an explanatory footnote
  • "two well-maintained 1870s central-battery ironclads, and two 1860s armored frigates." - I'd just as soon link the classes. Even if they're redlinks, I'm sure you, Sturm, or I will get to them sooner or later
  • Not a ton to go on from this source, but it mentions Izumi as having taken part in the Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895) - might be worth looking into
  • this provides an arrival in Japan in February 1895
  • According to this, the ship was involved in the Itata incident during the Chilean Civil War
  • this references a bombardment of Vladivostok in late April or early May (it only states that it took place after the sinking of Kinshu Maru on 26 April and before 12 May)
  • According to this, Izumi carried Itō Hirobumi to Korea, where he became the Japanese Resident-General of Korea
  • this gives some additional details on the ship's activities at Tsushima
  • Per this, Izumi briefly engaged Dmitrii Donskoi at Tsushima
  • This places Izumi in the main squadron in home waters in 1900, and gives an account of that year's training exercises, which may be of use

I hope some of those are useful. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • All of these are done except:
    • I kept the 'US since their civil war' mention in there because I assumed it would be an obvious question for most readers accustomed to the United States having the most powerful navy in the Americas (for more than a century). I'm definitely not against removing it or moving it to a footnote, but it's a thought.
    • The two ironclads are definitely Almirante Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, and I've added that to the text. The "armored frigates," as defined by the sources, are harder to pin down. My suspicion based on List of decommissioned ships of the Chilean Navy is that they're actually corvettes, specifically O'Higgins and Chacabuco, but I can't be sure.
  • More to come later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "All of these" was supposed to mean the suggested fixes and not the additional sources/info. I'm still planning to get to the latter. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added info from many of the books. I found what I think is a more reliable accounting of the Itata incident and used that in the article; Esmeralda and Charleston were in Acapulco together at one point, but it doesn't mention a near-fight, so I've omitted that. I don't think that there are additional details in Proceedings beyond what Corbett gave, and I decided against adding what seems to have been just a couple long-range shots between Izumi and Dmitrii Donskoi. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War IIEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article may be too short for FAC, but I am sending it to A-class anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be appropriately licensed. I don't think the article is too short for FAC—assuming that it covers the subject thoroughly. For improved readability, I would divide "Eisenhower's response" section into subsections, at 13 paragraphs it's way too long. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-DEdit

It's good to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

Good to have the expert on World War II taking an interest in it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "considered both Montgomery's proposed advance on the Ruhr and Berlin and Bradley's prosed advance on Metz and the Saar, and assessed both to be feasible" - repetition of 'both'
    checkY Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "This caused a complete turnaround in the operation situation." - this seems an over-statement. The modern literature on the Normandy Campaign tends to note that the German forces were well on the way to collapse before Operation Cobra, and the decision to fight for Normandy rather than pull back into France had advantages of the Allies given that the Germans were heavily exposed to Allied sea and airpower in Normandy.
    checkY The German forces had been worn down, and unlike the Allies had not received a stream of reinforcements to replace their losses. I p have seen the argument that pulling back would have been a better strategy, but I doubt it personally. Deleted sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, the Germans were, happily, doomed to be thrashed regardless of what they did. They were outclassed by the Allied armies, and utterly outclassed by Allied air power. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • " but following the breakout from Normandy, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, ordered a regrouping of his forces" - wasn't the 12th Army Group established per a pre-invasion plan? (I can't remember if this was triggered by a date or a set of criteria)
    checkY By a date. The 1st Army Group was established in the UK. Its headquarters was used to form that of the 12th Army Group. Its deployment on 1 August (and that of the Third Army, which became active the same day) was agreed between Bradley and Eisenhower at a conference on Cobra on 20 July. (Bradley, p. 351) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The first two sections need to note the considerable divergence from the Overlord Plan - what was originally envisioned as a steady advance through France (with a period of consolidation once Normandy and Brittany were secured) ended up being a very different campaign which started with painfully slow advances and ended with some of the fastest progress of the war as the German Army seemingly collapsed. The article doesn't really capture the combination of the vacuum in planning and 'victory disease' which was at the centre of this debate.
    Looking at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    checkY Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eisenhower's decision to forego the capture and development of the ports of Brittany in favour of an advance to the German border left the Americans wholly dependent upon the Normandy beaches" - the Germans also demolished the ports so thoroughly that little use could be made of them. Capturing the channel ports had a lot of advantages as well.
    That's Montgomery thinking. It is true that the ports would have been damaged, but the Allies were good at repairing ports. Here's where the flawed American organisation comes in. The Channel ports were allocated to the British. Bradley's decision in early August made it inevitable that the Brittany ports would not be captured quickly, but there is no indication that the logistical implications of his decision were considered. SHAEF recommended abandoning development of the Brittany ports on 3 September (which Eisenhower confirms on 7 September), but the logistical data is in the hands of COMZ. Only then does COMZ examine the situation and reports that the American Army is going to need the Seine and Channel ports (which had not yet been captured). At this point a stretch of bad weather alerts Eisenhower to the impending crisis. He noted that Bradley first raised the issue of Antwerp on 21 September. COMZ only decides to use Antwerp for US forces on 27 September. Only towards the end of September does Eisenhower focus on Antwerp, and he orders Montgomery to pull out all the stops on 9 October. At this point 12th Army Group does not believe that Antwerp will be open before 1 December. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Happy to defer to your superior knowledge here, but capturing ports in Brittany wasn't going to deliver benefits given that the Germans were very good at demolishing them in ways which made them very slow to return to service. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Not to mention the destruction caused by the Allied air forces and artillery. The damage to the railway system was also significant. There was some debate about the Brittany decision, which has been called the "Critical error of World War II". What really went wrong is that decisions were taken without proper consideration of the consequences. It takes weeks for the Americans to realise that if not Brittany, then they need alternative ports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Didn't Montgomery continue to advocate for a narrow front advance after September 1944?
    No, but he continued to lobby for the ground command for another four months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The 'Controversy' section feels incomplete given that it's focused on old works when this issue continues to be debated (though the general view today seems to be that Eisenhower made the right decision and Montgomery was somewhere between obsessional and insane, which I suspect is a bit unfair).
    That not what the sources here have to say. The consensus is that Eisenhower's broad front was doomed to failure from the start. Let me know if you have sources worth a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'm thinking of the works which debate whether Market-Garden was a totally bad idea or not, as well as some works which are keeping the Bradley vs Montgomery dispute going 75 years later. These might more relate to Monty's campaign to be ground forces commander though (but I think that the goal of that was for the unified forces under his command to make a single thrust into Germany?). The underlying issue is that unfortunately the Germans weren't beaten enough and their leadership was too irresponsible for the Allies to win the war in 1944 so both the narrow front and broad front options weren't going to deliver victory until 1945. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'll see what I can dig up. What makes least sense to me is the anti-British feeling in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: have you had any luck here? Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Haven't found much, I'm afraid. Will add a bit more. Do you think the maps in Ellis far under the Open Government Licence? ie [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    No worries. I'm pleased to support this nomination then. My understanding is that British Crown Copyright is 50 years like Australia (but don't quote me on this! - the relevant tag at Commons should have the right details), so Ellis should now be PD. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: As if on cue, someone has written a new book on the subject. [10] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Helpful, though the thesis being advanced in the book looks dubious to me. It's also odd how some authors want to blame the Allied leadership for not finishing off the Germans in 1944, rather than the German leadership for prolonging the war despite it being obvious they were beyond the point of recovery. I really don't see how the Germans were beaten-enough to be destroyed in 1944, especially given that such arguments are based around the western Allied leadership not running a perfect campaign (surely what they did was pretty good!). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed. I've said that in the article. There was no chance of victory in 1944. Yet even in 1945 there as a feeling that, given the resources committed, that there were a lot of things that could have done better. But I don't think they could have done that much better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, agreed. Re-opening Antwerp a lot faster and not being taken by surprise in the Battle of the Bulge were probably the most realistic things they could have achieved. The fact that I've recently created articles on two 1944 battles which cost the Germans around 40,000 troops against minor Allied losses and another editor recently created an article on the mass-surrender of 20,000 cut off Germans in France says a bit about how well the Allies actually did not being recognised. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Brigade PironEdit

Although I have no particular expertise in this, the article looks excellent and must be close to A-Class. I do think, however, that it really needs a map to show the status quo on the Western Front in c.August 1944. At a push, this would look adequate and I am sure there are better ones out there. Also, the title seems a bit unwieldy - why not remove "in World War II"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That map is in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of ClancartyEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Johannes Schade (talk)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve the quality of this article to FA-level and my FA-mentor, Gog the Mild, recommends to submit it to Military History A-Class first. Johannes Schade (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Right off the bat I am seeing issues with collapsed templates and WP:DONTHIDE. Besides, some of the detailed genealogy info in such templates may be duplicative, WP:UNDUE, or better presented in a different format such as prose. For FA status, you will need an inline citation for all content, such as "Donough and his siblings grew up to be Catholics." (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear Buidhe. I wondered why you deleted the Timeline and the two collapsed family trees under MOS:DONTHIDE, but left the two collapsed tables listing his brothers and sisters? Did you just forget to delete them or are there reasons? MOS:DONTHIDE seems to have exceptions. Some FAs comprise collapsed Ahnentafels and navboxes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In an article that cites many sources, it can be helpful to organize the "sources" section by type of source in order to aid navigation. You can see an example at The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Sources, a featured article (this is optional). (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear Buidhe. I followed your advice and subdivided into "Books" and "Journal articles". I find it makes it more difficult to find a source. I remember them by author. Now I have two lists to search through alphabetically or must remember whether this source was in a book or in a journal. In addition MOS:APPENDIX says that "Books" should be a level 3 heading. The one in The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia is level 4 (==== Books ====). I once tried a similar subdivision scheme and was called to order by another user because "See also" had become a level 3. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I found it was Nikkimaria who objected to the heading Appendices, but I have read up and though and think I understand. There is no problem with ==== Books ====. I agopted the way how Gog the Mild does his reference headinsg and adopted that for Donough. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Changes have been improvements but I am still seeing many OR/SYNTH issues. For instance, "His father carries the distinctive epithet "oge",[29] which is anglicised from Irish óg, young.[30]" the sources seem to say that his father's epithet was "oge" (although you should probably remove "distinctive") and that Irish word óg means "young", but no source that says his father's epithet comes from the Irish word or is anglicized. Therefore, this is WP:SYNTH. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear Buidhe. Please understand me right: I appreciate your efforts and your input has already improved the article. However, do you seriously doubt the origin, derivation, or meaning of the epithet? At that level of scrutiny, the 322 citations will explode into thousands (if they can be found). Donough stands at 16 words per citation. Your FA "Holocaust in Slovakia" has 23w/c, Gog's "Battle of Inverkeithing" 44w/c. Of course, we can always delete: the only good Indian is a dead Indian. I do not speak Irish, perhaps you do. Isn't "buidhe" from Irish (or Scottish Gaelic) buí (yellow)?. I will ask an(other) Irish-speaking Wikipedian for advice. This problem must have arisen before. Thanks, best regards and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • My username is indeed Scottish Gaelic buidhe which can mean "yellow" but also "glad, grateful, fortunate, or lucky"[11] I can speak Scottish Gaelic (not Irish) although am a bit rusty atm. Knowing what I do about Gaelic languages I am confident that the epithet "oge" does indeed come from Goidelic "óg", but that doesn't exempt me from WP:NOR policy and the need to cite reliable sources for all statements in the article. It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Dear Buidhe. I think that we agree that the missing citation is the one that demonstrates that the "oge" in the English "stands in for", or "is" the Irish "óg". I have consulted User Guliolopez, who like you objects to "distinctive epithet". He says "oge" is a generational suffix. So I changed "distinctive epithet" -> generational suffix. He referred me to some articles about people named with Oge: Conn Oge O'Donnell, Donn Óge Mag Oireachtaigh, Niall Oge O'Neill, and Rory Oge O'More. Unluckily they are starts or stubs. The problem does not seem to have been solved before. The article "Suffix (name)" explains "In Irish, 'óg' (young), sometimes anglicised as 'oge', may be used to distinguish two related people who might otherwise have the same name.[10]". This article cites the Irish dictionary in [10] and cites it with the quote "Óg adj (in names): Séamas Óg; James Junior [..] óg adj. young; junior" in the note. So I changed to this more specific and adequate note-quote. Guliolopez also suggested to simply delete. It seems that many WP:NOR discussions end in deletions that make the article worse. The reader, I feel, e.g. a Japanese one, in an A-class article deserves an explanation of "oge". WP:NOR is not the only requirement. The subject must also be understandable and sufficiently covered. How should the Nigerian reader be supposed to understand "Cormac Oge" without an explanation? I added another citation but it is not very good. I will try a bit more. Johannes Schade (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021
  • Dear Buidhe. Could not find the citation we need. Deleted. Perhaps not far enough. Sorry I should not have waste your time. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Buidhe. I am on a learning curve. Until now I had not really seen Wikipedia writing under that angle. Now I see that in addition to having the reader in mind, I must also consider available citations and keep close but not too close to the wording found in the citations (but beware of WP:CLOP). I added about 30 citations since the beginning of this review. For example, the latest addition is in Section "Honours and Parliaments", 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence where it says "religious freedom". This is the only citation in this sentence. It did not have a citation before. I took the citation from Wallace (1973) because of concerns about the antiquity of my sources. I could have taken a similar one from Cusack (1871). Does the citation fully support the sentence? e.g. I wrote "religious freedom", Wallace just said "religion". Do I need a second citation to cover "freedom" (using a different source protects against WP:CLOP)? Should I change my wording, or delete? The treatment of the Graces in Cusack and in Wallace is very similar. It looks to me as if there are no new insights due to "later scholarship" in Wallace in this regard. Should the later source always be preferred? Am I doing the right thing? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Buidhe. I am not so sure I understand your latest edit this morning 04:12 12 March 2021 with the edit summary "this still appears to need citatino". What a ghostly time to work! I believe you are in England. Having been pinged by BlueMoonset with regard to DYK, you moved your {{cn}} from section "Restoration and death", last paragraph, end of last sentence, to the middle of that same sentence. The sentence now reads, "The succession then reverted to the 1st Earl's second son,[citation needed] Callaghan, who succeeded as the 3rd Earl of Clancarty.[358]" The history to this is that you added the {{cn}} at the end of this sentence at 14:25 27 February 2021 when there was no citation in this place. I added a citation at 10:02, 28 February 2021 and hoped you would check the citation, find it adequate, and remove your {{cn}}, which I respectfully left there. Instead, this morning, you moved it to the middle of the sentence as described. Do you really mean that this sentence needs a second citation in this place? His son Callaghan appears, as should be, in the list of his sons with a citation that says he is the second son. Should I repeat it here? If you feel it would be better I will of course do so. It is easy enough. However, WP:WTC says "If the article mentions the fact repeatedly, it suffices to cite it once" and WP:CITEKILL talks about "needless repetition". Perhaps it does not apply in this case? With many thanks for your effort and patience, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi, I don't think we're in the same time zone. I'm not seeing the assertion about "second son" clearly stated in the source, but perhaps it's there and I just don't understand the format. If you think it is adequately cited, please feel free to remove the tag. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Dear Buidhe. Thanks for the remark. I had another look at the citation for "second son". Cokayne (1913) says "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h., being 2nd s. of the 1st Earl." using abbreviations "h." and "s." I suppose that your remark about "format" refers to these abbreviations. I will therefore explain such abbreviations in all the genealogical quotes, changing the above quotation to "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h. [heir], being 2nd s. [son] of the 1st Earl." I hope I understand you right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Dear Buidhe. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

Reserving a spot. Some quick first thoughts.

  • A lot of information seems to lack referencing. Eg several notes; three of the four paragraphs in "Restoration, death, and timeline" don't end with citations. This last gives me pause regarding the source to text accuracy of the rest of these paragraphs where a lack of adequate referencing would not be so obvious.
  • The age, I could say antiquity, of the majority of the sources also gives me pause. I am not ruling out a 1779 or 1789 source per se, or even 1689, but when 57 sources are more than a century old I have to ask if there are not more recent replacements for at least some of them. Having recently taken two articles from this period to FAC I sympathise, but it does not seem to me that the latest scholarship, of which there is quite a bit, has been fully represented. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear Gog the Mild. You are of course right: the latest scholarship should be included, but how is this done? Their books and articles sit in ivory towers behind pay-walls or can be consulted only in the big libraries of the capital, or perhaps at Universities. I am not an academic and live in Bangor Northern Ireland. I have the impression neither I, nor my Nigerian reader can read what today's scholars write. I looked at your FA "Battle of Inverkeithing". Nice article, beautiful young sources, 21 one them, the oldest from 1954. But, except the one website, I cannot click and read any of them. Websites have their own problems, as we know. Donough has 100 sources, books, some articles. Antiques, I admit, but they can all be clicked and read in Internet Archive, Google Books, JSTOR or elsewhere on the web, even by my Nigerian friend. How did you find and where did you read these 20 opaque sources? With many thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • If you can't access something, try WP:TWL and/or WP:RX... (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was recently asked a similar question on my talk page, to which I responded:

    I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more books on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges.

    For example, click for access to Woolrych or here for Ashley. My article - if you look closely at the sourcing - uses The Civil Wars: a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660 a lot - £7.04 on AbeBooks with free deivery. I also recommend getting access to JSTOR via TWL, and scouring the Internet Archive. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I only needed a very few hardcopy materials for the articles I've written and brought up to good and featured status, although that has a lot to do with the topics that I write about. The vast majority of the academic papers and books I've cited can be accessed with TWL and/or by volunteers at RX. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Gog the Mild. Thanks for good and kind advice. I try to run my hobby on a zero budget. I will look for more recent sources. If I find the same information in an older and in a younger source, which should be cited (e.g. DNB vs. ODNB)? Is it worthwhile (improves the article) to replace an older with a younger source to support the same fact? You remark that "57 sources are more than a century old"; can you please define this in terms of a goal to attain like "reduce the number of >100 years old source to less than 25" or to "less than 50% of the sources" or "Cite at least 20 sources less than 10 years old" or whatever make sense for you. At present the article uses 112 sources with an average publication date of 1917, meaning that more than half of them are >100. Looking around in FAs of aristocratic biographies I find not more than 25% of such old sources, e.g. in Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I allow myself up to £5 a month, but rarely go near £60 a year. Well now, what you are trying to cover at A class is "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". So for many basic facts - eg a date of birth - an elderly source may be fine. And a non-exhaustive look at this article suggests that the sources have been used judiciously. The problem is that one doesn't know what new knowledge has been published if one hasn't looked at many more recent sources. Anything startling can probably be spotted via the likes of Academia and JSTOR. Often what changes the the centuries is the tone, which is a bit ineffable. I am loath to attempt to apply an arbitrary target to this.
Bear in mind that many FAs promoted ten or more years ago are currently being reviewed. See the list of former featured articles. So many of those you are looking at may not be up to current FAC standards. Sourcing is frequently an issue. Eg note this exchange. Note that for FAC the requirement is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
So the question for a wannabe FAC is not so much one of statistics, as has most of the (modern) scholarship been covered in the article?
I am not sure how much this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gog the Wise. You are spot on and very helpful. You bring us back to where we should be. Luckily, in this case I can give an answer: the latest scholarship central to the subject is found in the article "Donough MacCarthy" of the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB), published in 2009 (on paper) and also online. If there were any significant advance since 2009, it should theoretically be found in the online version, which is cited in the article. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gog the Mild. There are now 140 sources, 81 146 sources, 80 140 sources, 71 of them >100 years old. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gog the Mild. I have replaced some more "old" (>100 years) sources with "new" (<100 years) ones. The old ones are now a minority (68 of the 141). I believe I covered modern scholarship among others in form of 6 DIB and 16 ODNB articles. I hope I have now complied with your "age" objection. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, Johannes, thanks for your efforts with this article. I found the subject a bit beyond me, to be honest, but I took a quick run through for some bold adjustments. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • there are a few maintenance tags that should be addressed, or removed (if they have already been addressed) e.g. "citation needed" and "original research"
  • after a siege of three weeks.Template:Sfn O Callaghan: citation error
  • two hostages to garantee --> "guarantee"?
  • having having been responsible --> typo
  • the end of this paragraph needs a ref (even if it is a duplicate) for A-class: This eleven years' war in turn formed part of the Wars of the three kingdoms, also known as the British Civil Wars
  • as above, this should be referenced: He then sailed on to France and joined the Queen at her court in exile at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
  • as above, The Prince of Wales stayed in France and no treaty was signed
  • as above, marked the effective end of the resistance to the Cromwellian invasion.
    • I deleted, "effective end" does not mean much anyway.Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He was allowed to embark for Spain: probably best to replace "He" with "MacCarty" here to vary the language a little
    • Dear AustralianRupert. If you find the article difficult to understand, it should be rewritten to become more understandable for an Australian user. This is my first A-Class nomination. I feel I should not remove CN or OR tags after having made a change. The reviewer will evaluate my change and decide whether the tag can indeed be removed. At least that is how I understand the procedure. I struggle to find the right citations, but have added some. Thanks for pointing out the typos. Best regards, many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
      • G'day, Johannes, thanks for your edits so far. It isn't so much the wording that I find difficult to understand; it's the topic -- not something I know much about, is all (not much you can do about that, as the locus of that issue rests with me...). Regarding the cn and or tags; I would suggest that if you have made a good faith effort to address them that you can remove them, normally; however, if you are uncomfortable with that, no worries. Please just ask buidhe if they are happy with your changes in relation to those tags, or if more work is required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the lead, against the king demanding religious: probably best to name the king here as it is the first mention
  • No children from this marriage are recorded in the major genealogical sources: needs a ref
    • How to demonstrate the absence of something? I do not think that a ref can be found that says the marriage was childless. The best I could do would be to say "No children from this marriage are recorded in the cited sources" and then give the pages in the 112 sources cited where I can prove they are not mentioned. However, 112 citations at the end of this sentence would not look pretty. I have added two (2), which are the ones where I think such a mention would be most likely. On the other hand, for some of his five sisters no citation was found showing that the mother was his first wife. It is therefore possible that some of his sisters are from his second wife, notably Helen, the fifth.
      • Your solution of citing the major sources seems acceptable to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • using Gaelic as his medium as this was still the predominant language among the rank and file.: needs a ref
    • What is known is that Hackett was a Gaelic poet.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest just referencing "Gaelic as his medium" to whatever source you have that says he was a Gaelic poet and then dropping the rest of the sentence if it can't be cited. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I found a cit for Gaelic still being dominent in the 17th century.Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This was for now an empty menace, as his estates lay within the territories held by the rebels and the government could not seize them: this needs ref
    • I added a map.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
      • G'day, the map helps with visualising the area, but it doesn't resolve the citation issue, I'm sorry, as it itself is not referenced (and is essentially just a Wikipedian's interpretation of the areas mentioned). Nor does it explicitly mention anything about the government not being able to seize the area . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • reactivating the southern front around Cork, where the Munster army was deployed.: this needs a ref
    • The reactivation of the southern front was a direct consequence of Inchiquin's changing sides from royalist (in peace with the Confederates) to Parliament (in war with the Confederates). I gave a cit for his change of side. I try to position the citation to the most relevant place, not necessarily at the end of the sentence. The position at the end of the paragraph also has the disadvantage that the reader cannot know without reading the source whether the cit pertains to the last sentence or to the entire paragraph.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but that doesn't work in my opinion as it makes the rest of the paragraph appear unreferenced. If you feel you need to be very specific with a page in the middle of a page paragraph, simply use two citations (one in the middle with a specific page, and another at the end with a page range). The relevant A-class guidance on this can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class FAQ. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Donough MacCarty married Eleanor Butler,[80] a Catholic, the eldest daughter of: suggest splitting the sentence is a bit complex.
  • —and two daughters: probably best just to join the two lists " had five children, three sons and two daughters" (the names make it clear who the sons are and who the daughters are, IMO)
    • Unless precise birth dates are available for all children, genealogical sources always list sons separately from daughters. They are focussing on the sons' chances to succeed to the title and in the daughters' chances to become a rich heiress. Both lists are as far as possible in birth order, but the birth order of the children in general is usually unknown. The eldest daughter could well be born before the eldest son etc. To preserve this information the two lists are kept separate here.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You can retain the intention of presenting the sons first if you feel that is necessary even with a combined list. It just makes it less clunky formatting wise. Anyway, not a major issue overall, so I won't die in a ditch over it. The referencing is the key issue for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I feel that one single list with sons before daughters might still be misinterpreted as meaning that all sons were per chance born before all daughters. I would like to keep the two lists separate.Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear AustralianRupert, sorry to have kept you waiting so long and thanks for your patience. I think I have finally cits at all paragraph ends (except for things like "Also see the lists of siblings and children in the text") and would now pass MH B-Class. I suppose we can now progress to sentence-level and the question of how well the cits support the statements. Thank you very much again for all your hard work and your patience, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for your work on this. Your edits look good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[389] and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[390]: typo/duplicate sentence fragment. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • the infobox says he died on 5 August, but the body of the article isn't quite so sure, offering "Only one and a half months later, on 4 or 5 August 1665,[408][409] Clancarty died..." (best to make this consistent, IMO --> suggest changing the infobox to "4 or 5 August". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, DUBLIN, DECEMBER 1ST 1653. Trial of the LORD VISCOUNT MUSKERRY" (and other examples throughout the article) --> best to avoid all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • As you say, there are quite a few such all-caps words. They appear in quotations from Burke, Cokayne, Hickson, O'Hart and perhaps others. I kept the capitalisation as it is in the source. I believe one should keep the quotations as near to the original as reasonably possible. The all-caps also helps the readers (and reviewers) to find the quotations in the source. However, you are not the first to want to correct them according to MOS. I had a nice and very polite discussion about this with user Ira Leviton (under Donough on her talk page). She finished by saying she got ä dose of doubt" about whether MOS:ALLCAPS applies to quotations. I believe it does not, just like MOS:DATES does not apply to dates in quotations, which are usually in queer old formats. There have been users who "corrected" such dates. Are you sure? Johannes Schade (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
      • G'day, not a major issue, but yes I believe ALLCAPS applies in quotes, per MOS:CONFORM, which provides "Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}})". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Dear AustralianRupert. I am astonished. Somehow, I had never seen MOS:CONFORM. You are of course right and I will implement the corresponding changes. I had done about the opposite: preserved the capitalisation but dropped the italics and bolds. Thanks for telling me. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
          • No worries, off Wiki I'd probably do the same -- I actually find a few aspects of the MOS to be counterintuitive and at odds with how I would normally format things at work (particularly with regards to capitalisation). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear AustralianRupert. I am not so sure what is left. Should I remove the map? Should I add a citation to the caption of the map? With many thanks for your patience. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

H2S (radar)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

H2S (radar) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first addition in a while. This article has been in good shape for some time now, I did some GR touches and a read-over. I think it's good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7Edit

I think this is a great article, and a magnificent effort. Just a few comments:

  • Jones (1978) and Rowe (1948) are not used as references. Suggest moving to the Further Reading section. (Also: link Reginald Victor Jones)
  • Typos: "kilometers", "center", {{sfn|Lovell|1991|p=225} (missing brace)
  • Don't abbreviate sergeant as "Sgt" (or WWII)
  • Should "Doppler" be capitalised?
  • Should "windspeed" be two words?
  • Link RPM since the kids have never seen a record player
  • and de Havilland Mosquito so they don't think you're talking about an insect
  • Stirling is used before it is linked. As is Halifax.
  • Link Würzburg and Zuiderzee
  • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric. (MOS:METRIC)
  • 'One of the dead was Alan Blumlein, and his loss was a huge blow to the programme." How so?
  • "The H2S team also protested that it would take the Germans two years to develop a centimetric radar once the cavity magnetron fell into their hands, and that there was no reason to believe they weren't working on the technology already. The first concern would prove correct; the second would be proven wrong." As written, it means that there was reason to believe the German were working on the technology already. I'm not sure that is what you meant though.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Gebus Hawk, I totally forgot about this nom. All of the above are addressed, and a few "realized" as well. If there are still kilometers that's the convert template's fault. The METRIC issue is historical, these units were imperial at the time and I avoid changing units in these cases to avoid double conversion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There was still one "kilometer"; the problem was an sp=us parameter which I have removed. Also there were still three "center"s, all corrected too. The order of appearance can be changed using the convert template order=flip parameter so no double conversion is required. I made a set of changes. [12] MOS::METRIC is not required since MOS conformance is not mandatory. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


Don't know much about radar, but I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Move the link for Luftwaffe to the first mention
Magnetron debate
  • It's implied, but it might be best to state that the magneton is apparently a form of military technology the Brits developed before the Germans
  • "In the midst of the debate, Isidor Isaac Rabi of the American Radiation Laboratory visited the TRE offices on 5 and 6 July 1942. He stated that the H2S device provided to them during the Tizard Mission was "unscientific and unworkable" and expressed his feelings that the only use of it would be to hand the magnetron to the Germans" ... "Years later, Lovell attempted to discover the reasons for this negative report, but he found that no one recalled Rabi being so negative" - both sourced to Lovell. So if Lovell found that nobody recalled Rabi being so negative, then you'll want to find a source independent from Lovell to support what Rabi stated. Or at least attribute that to Lovell. Because Lovell stating that he couldn't find corroboration for his memory casts doubt on that.
Emergency relocation
  • "In retrospect, this decision seems particularly odd given that it was even more exposed to the enemy than their original location at Bawdsey Manor" - Needs attribution, we can't really say that something is particularly odd in retrospect in Wikipedia's voice
Operational use
  • ", and there simply weren't enough to go around" - Rewrite to avoid contractions. I've seen at least one other contraction in this section, so keep an eye out for it
Rotterdam Gerat
  • "and it was also realised that building a complete radar system using it would take some time" - where in ref 48 is this found?

Stopping after the Rotterdam Gerat section, will continue soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "After VE day, all models earlier than the Mk. IIIG were declared obsolete," - You'll want to link VE day, as not everyone will know that, unfortunately
  • "The last use in combat was made by the Vulcans of the Operation Black Buck flights in 1982, which used the system as the primary navigation and bombing aid throughout the 7,000 miles (11,000 km) round trips to and from Ascension Island" - In the lead, you directly refer to this as an action of the Falklands War, so you'll want to name the Falklands War in the body, to match
  • Bob Shaw (DAHG) is a wordpress site. What are Shaw's credentials to pass WP:SPS?
  • Publisher and date needed for "British Air Intelligence report on 7./NJG 2 Ju 88G-1 night fighter"
  • Goebel appears to be a victim of domain squatting

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: All are addressed. Goebel link updated. Bob Shaw is the author of several well known books on RAF history. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: - Anticipate supporting. Just got a couple wrinkles to iron first. The Air Intelligence report still needs the publisher/date, and just want to double check that Goebel meets SPS? Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Date added, Goebel lists all his refs so that's good on that front. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - with the comment that Goebel might be challenged further at a FAC source review, as those have gotten tighter lately. Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • Missing hyphens in ground scanning, S band cavity, 1950s era, time base, X band version, tail warning radar, magnetron based radar, Airborne Interception radar, dead reckoning calculations, target indicator operationsm, weather radar systems, moving target indication, V bomber force
@Sturmvogel 66: Not one single reference I have, including the wartime originals, puts hyphens in any of these terms, so I'm going with that :-)
Watson's Radar Origins Worldwide hyphenates all radar bands. I'll grant you AI radar, but the others are simple compound adjectives which are only hyphenated if they precede a noun. So V-bomber force, but an individual V bomber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • thousands of Watts decapitalize
  • The Halifax V9977 pictured at RAF Hurn. This aircraft crashed in June 1942, killing several radar engineers, including Alan Blumlein.

Reword to emphasize that this was the aircraft carrying the prototype radar. And minimize duplication of info between the text and the caption

I'd delete the entire second sentence of the caption as redundant to the main text--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The US was, at this time, deep into the development of an ASV set using a magnetron, so work on H2S continued as there appeared to be no reason to continue their own ASV when the US would soon provide one. Confusing since H2S and ASV were essentially the same, so wouldn't the logic apply to cancelling H2S as well?
I just removed this part, I was not entirely clear on what Lovell was saying in this passage.
  • Captions are considered sentence fragments and generally don't use full stops at their ends
Depends on the caption, note that ones that are fragments don't have the stops.
  • Is a cyclone of fire a British term? Because I've never seen it before. If not I'd suggest using the far more common firestorm
  • Link Staffel, Ju 88
  • In July 1944, Ju 88G-1, of 7 Staffel/ Delete the commas and "a" Ju 88G-1
Yeah, not sure who added those.
  • Several other units Units is confusing, just use radar
  • where the short local horizon would require guidance on smaller objects like particular buildings Confusing. Do you mean that longer-wavelength radars would have a shorter range at lower altitudes, or that the greater resolution of the K-band version would allow it to pick out individual buildings, or both?
The later, reworded.
  • Capitalize Lend-Lease and I suggest that you refer to it as the Lend-Lease programme
  • Not seeing a whole lot of value in using aircraft serial numbers
Just copying the style from other articles of the type.
That's an argument I've had with other editors as I consider it excessive detail in an encyclopedia unless the article is notable in its own right.
  • and was eventually relegated to the status of purely experimental awkward
Not perfect, but I can't think of a better phrasing off the top of my head right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • post-war realities I think that you mean austerities
  • Remember to add |adj=on to the conversion template to change the measurement into the adjectival form, I've done a couple for you already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of commanders of the British 2nd DivisionEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After completing a write-up on the British 2nd Armoured Division during the Cold-War and moving it to the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, I created a series of sub-articles after some advice on how to save space on my new pet project. This is the first of those sub-articles, and also the first list article that I have created. I present, a heavily sourced list of the 80 or so gentlemen that have commanded the British 2nd Division during its on and off again 200 year-history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - The licensing template on the sole image is flagging some sort of error. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comment. I have reviewed the common's page, and I have edited the existing tag and added a new one. I believe this should address the error and licensing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Pass on image review. Hog Farm Talk 15:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Enigma, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this list. Lists aren't my strong suit -- still trying to work out what is, actually -- but I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • in the lead, the General officer commanding (GOC): the caps here looks off to me; either "General Officer Commanding", or "general officer commanding" (my military moron brain screams the first, but I assume the second based on Wikipedia's house style)
    Tweaked to the latterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • and disciple of the: typo
    Gah! FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • for these reasons and service in the Peninsula War --> "for these reasons during in the Peninsula War"?
    I have tweaked differently, does this work? If not, I will drop my change in favor of your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    No need, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • After Peninsula War ended in 1814 --> "After the Peninsula War ended in 1814"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • formations bore the name '2nd Division': I believe the MOS prefers double quote marks
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the lead, the following links are overlinked: Napoleonic Wars and Second Boer War
    Removed the dup linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • the temporary rank of Lieutenant-General once in Africa: the rank would technically be presented in lower case here
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The 2nd division was: caps for "division"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • the 1990s Options for Change: suggest adding italics for the title
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the The London Gazette, for ranks: typo "the The", also suggest adding italics for the title
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • sometimes you use "Major-General", but other times use "Major General" -- is this deliberate?
    At some point in the late 90s, the British ranks - per the Gazette - switched from major-general to major general.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the References, Oman is probably overlinked
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the References, are there OCLC numbers for the Oman works?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the References, is there an ISSN for The Army Quarterly'?
    I was unable to locate an ISBN for that particular edition, but did find a generalized OCLC record in lieu.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • in the References, August 1813-April 14, 1814 --> spaced endash
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments and review. I am in the same boat, lists are not my strong suit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    No worries, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • " by Everard Wyrall; the compiled of the 2nd Division's First World War official history" - something seems off grammatically here, I don't think "the" is the word you want
    Thank you for the catch, I have tweaked this sentence.
  • " In was temporarily transformed into an armoured division, before being disbanded at the end of 1982." - I think you want it, not in. Also, it would be nice to have the year in which it became an armoured division.
    I think I went to add the year in, and forgot about it? I have tweaked this too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would recommend adding the total number of commanders somewhere in the lead, as this is currently a list of commanders with rather little about the commanders in the lead
    I have added a figure for all permanent GOCs, at the end of the first para.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we add an exact date for when it disbanded after Crimea in the table, so there is something for when Markham ceased to command? "The end of the war" isn't going to mean much to many readers who aren't familiar with the Crimean war.
    I have tweaked that. The cited source does not provide a date the division or the expeditionary force disbanded, other than it did so during 1856. I was unable to find a Gazette article announcing Markham stepping down from his role; likewise a Gazette article discussing the end of the expeditionary force or the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be appropriate to indicate for each officer why they ceased to command the division?
    I could add that in, for most (some would just have to have a year, such as Markham above). Most of the cited material includes the dates the officers left their appointments, so it would just be a little time and formatting. Were there are gaps between the Gazette appointment dates and no indication of who took over, I have mentioned the unnamed acting GOC in the list; for example, between Charles Douglas and Bruce Hamilton. I would note that on other division articles (where the GOC list is embedded in the article), I have always went with the date they took over as they are generally continuous unless there was an acting GOC.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be appropriate to use date ranges when feasible? Or is it safe to assume that the terms were continuous between the two?
    Per the above comment. I will await your reply.

Not familiar with how these lists are generally formatted, so feel free to not do anything that's not feasible. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. Sorry it has taken me a few days to act on them, and I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Since the terms are more or less continuous, I think the current date range system makes sense as it is. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of protected cruisers of FranceEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of protected cruisers of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This list covers all of the protected cruisers built by France from the 1880s to early 1900s - these ships represented a competition between different elements in the French naval officer corps. Some favored long-range commerce raiders, others preferred small fleet scouts, while others wanted ships suitable for patrolling the French colonial empire. This led to a wide variety of ships being built, from small scouts like the Troude and Forbin classes, large but lightly armed raiders like Guichen, to large and heavily armed colonial cruisers like D'Entrecasteaux. The French eventually decided on relying on armored cruisers for all of these roles by the early 1900s, so no further protected cruisers were built. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetleEdit

  • The actual list portion of the article appears to be very well sourced and appropriately detailed for a list.
  • I have concerns about this sentence in the lead A third group sought more cruisers to expand and defend the French colonial empire. It's not apparent from the article (unless you can point it out to me) that there was a third clique of officers specifically advocating for more colonial service vessels. The closest is The acquisition of French Indochina during this period gave leverage to the [commerce raider supporters]. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • A good catch - I've added a bit on this in the section on D'Entrecasteaux. Thanks Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

SupportComments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • , all of which had three members Suggest rephrasing as "three-ship x classes"
    • Good idea
  • the three Alger-class vessels filled the requirement for the three medium cruisers. How does this fulfill Aube's building program as detailed in the Davout section?
    • Should have been large cruisers, good catch
  • Capitalize "Bay of Nouadhibou" as it's a proper name
    • Fixed
  • but what ultimately became of the ship is unknown. Suggest something along the lines of "her fate is unknown"
    • Done
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
De nada--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Claiming a spot. Hog Farm Talk 07:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • "two more vessels of similar but larger designs—Tage and Amiral Cécille followed shortly thereafter." - I may be wrong, but it feels like there should be another dash, as it seems to me to be setting off "Tage and Amiral Cecille"
    • Fixed
  • "Like Sfax, Tage was intended to operate as a commerce raider, and as such originally carried a barque sailing rig." - I find it odd that the sailing rig isn't mentioned for Sfax, especially when the picture of Sfax clearly shows it.
    • Good point, added to the Sfax section
  • Likewise, is there a reason why what appears to be a sailing rig on Amiral Cecille isn't mentioned?
    • No, but added
  • "In total, she evacuated around 1,200 people to Fort-de-France" - Link Fort-de-France if that's the correct place.
    • Done
  • Was Forbin scrapped in 1919 or broken up in 1921? I may not be comprehending something, but this seems to be a contradiction
    • Fixed
  • "She took part in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919 before being sold to ship breakers in 1920" - so she was sold to ship breakers in 1920 but not broken up until 1933 (per the table)
    • Fixed
  • "while Cassard lingered on in service until 1924, when she, too, was sold for scrap" - Just to clarify, Cassard was sold for scrap in '24 and then not scrapped until the next year?
    • Corrected
  • "Flota II Rzeczypospolitej i jej okręty" does not appear to be an English source. Can the reference include what language it is in, as is standard for non-English sources so far as I have seen?
    • Done
  • Can we get a publishing location for Everett?
  • Sources look reliable enough for what they're citing.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough review. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Nice work, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • The various editions of Conway's have chapters written by named authors. So add author, chapter title, and page range for them.
    • You're going to make me fix all of the articles too, aren't ya?
      • Up to you. I myself am doing it for new articles, but only occasionally upgrading older ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Everett and Pavé lack a place of publication; sources otherwise OK
  • Spot checked a couple of ISBNs
  • Be consistent about using dashes in ISBNs or not
    • Fixed
  • External links OK
  • Cites consistently formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Images appropriately licensed. Pity that most of them aren't on Commons, but understandable why.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Tito–Stalin splitEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

Tito–Stalin split (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets or is reasonably close to meeting A-class criteria. Since it became a GA, the article received a thorough copyedit from the GOCE and few other tweaks. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • "In Eastern Bloc politics, the split with Yugoslavia led to the denunciation and prosecution of Titoists, including high-ranking officials such as Xoxe, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia Rudolf Slánský, Hungarian interior and foreign minister László Rajk, and General Secretary of the Bulgarian Workers' Party central committee Traicho Kostov." This sentence makes it seem like these individuals were *actually* Titoists, and that was the reason that they were purged. Is that really what the source says? (I have read that the reason for the Slansky trial was in fact that parts of the Czechoslovak Communist leadership felt it was necessary to hold a show trial to show their loyalty to Moscow.) (t · c) buidhe 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. The source says explicitly those were show trials and that the accusations were meant to remove those Moscow disagreed with, specifically designed to strengthen Soviet grip over corresponding parties/countries. I see how the sentence might be interpreted as saying that they were actually Titoists, so I have tried to add a clarification there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CatlemurEdit

  • Since the Greek Communist Party is abbreviated as KKE, you should also abbreviate the Democratic Army of Greece as DSE instead of DAG.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps you could mention that anti-communist Albanian agents were being trained in Greece by the Americans during the Albanian Subversion.
    • Much of the Albanian Subversion seems to occur in the period after the split. I included information on 1947 intelligence/infilatration activities though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Was Tito plotting to annex a part of Greece with former members of the National Liberation Front (Macedonia)?
    • Yes. The article said that Tito sought to expand Yugoslav territory to encompass Aegean Macedonia even if DSE failed to seize power in Greece. I tweaked the wording now to clarify that Aegean Macedonia is in Greece.
  • Mention that the Soviets offered the DSE limited support because Stalin had previously signed the Percentages agreement with Churchill. Giving the British 90% influence in Greece.
    • Added now. I thought it would be better to simplify by saying that Greece was placed in the British sphere of influence under the Percentages Agreement instead of citing 90% exactly. I'm not opposed to citing exact number though if neccessary.
  • Did Yugoslavia seal its borders with Greece only in the military aid sense or in general? It is known that they allowed thousands of Greek leftists to settle in Yugoslavia or leave for other socialist countries.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The sources I have access to are not clear on this. Since Yugoslav borders were not really open for private travel at the time anyway, I assume the closure meant suspension of all travel/transport across the border, but none of the sources say so explicitly. They all agree that the support to the DSE ended, so I rephrased the wording to say so. I also added informaiton about direct motivation for the move (KKE siding with the Cominform).

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the article. I appreciate your feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:EasternBloc BasicMembersOnly.svg - this needs a source; the makeup of the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia's and Albania's relationship with it are fairly basic facts that shouldn't be hard to source, but we do need a reference.
    • Tried to get a ref as concise as possible since it has to list all the countries and specify those years for Yugoslavia and Albania. Found one at Norman J. G. Pounds. “Fissures in the Eastern European Bloc.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 372, 1967, pp. 40–58. JSTOR,, specifically on pages 41-43. Should I add the ref to the article (in image caption) or to the Commons?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, to the file page on Commons - that way it'll be covered wherever else the map is used. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Bojište u ulici Kneza Miloša 1944.jpg - this one appears to be unusable; anonymous photos had to be published before 1941 to be PD in Yugoslavia, and one taken in 1944 obviously cannot have been. Also, it would need a US tag, and it's not clear to me how it would be PD in the US.
    • I'm quite unsure about photographs such as this one for several reasons. All dates given in Yugoslav PD notices seem odd to me since the legislation did not actually specify any date - stating instead that, e.g. copyright on anonymous work expires on 1 January, 50 years following publication. I cannot explain the 1941 year at all other than to wonder if this is the final date when the particular legislation was in effect before dissolution of Yugoslavia. All Yugoslav successor states took over the Yugoslav Copyright Act without amendments and none of the dates exist there either - only the same periods. Later on (as far as I can tell) all some of the successor states extended the copyright protection for anonymous published works to 70 years (Serbia certainly did, according to the Serbian PD tag). The particular photo was published in Belgrade uncredited in 1945 in a book written by Vladimir Dedijer. Since this (the publication) happened more than 70 years ago, it would seem that the photo would be PD. Then again, I cannot explain the dates in the tags or find any source for them. That being said, no photo is a dealbreaker for me here, so... What do you recommend?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Could this (be begun to) be fixed by using {{PD-Serbia}}?
      • I think that would probably solve the country of origin aspect, but we'd still need the US copyright situation to be resolved. As far as I'm aware, because the book was still under copyright in Serbia (and the other successor states to Yugoslavia) as of 1 January 1996, the copyright of the book was automatically extended in the US; the term was extended to 95 years from publication, which would mean the photo would enter the PD in the US in 2040. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • It turns out that Serbia introduced the 70-year copyright period in 2004. For example here [13] is the FRY Copyright Act of 1998 (articles 96-97). This means that the photo copyright expired at the latest on 31 December 1995 (possibly a year earlier if published elsewhere, but I have no such information). This means it was PD on 1 January 1996 - just in time not to be granted restoration of the copyright in the US (according to WP:NUSC). Which also means the commons tag is incorrect in several ways and that the photo is PD everywhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
          •  Done - added PD-Serbia and PD-US tag.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I have found the text of the Serbian Copyright Act here [14] and its Article 103 paragraph 2 indicates that the copyright for uncredited works expires 70 years after disclosure (presumably lawful publication). In this case that would mean that the photo has become PD on 1 January 2016. The act never mentions any of the years specified in the Yugoslav or Serbian PD tags (1941, 1954, 1966, 1973). I thought of the Yugoslav PD tag some more, and it makes no sense that Yugoslav Copyright Act on its own protects any work because there would be nobody to enforce it since 1992. Indeed the only practial use for the Yugoslavia PD tag would be to inform readers that a particluar work became PD while Yugoslavia existed. Later it has been superseded by copyright acts of successor states and PD Serbia tag applies since 1992 (at least in this case). As regards the years cited in the PD Serbia tag, I can only assume that the tag is incorrectly written.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would assume that the copyright laws of Yugoslavia's successor states aren't retroactive (in that they wouldn't retroactively restore works to copyright if they were already PD when Yugoslavia broke apart. So if a Yugoslav work meets the criteria on the template, it's the best one to use, since Serbian, Croatian, etc. copyright law wouldn't apply. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • No, they do not appear to be retroactive.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Confini Trieste-Istria2.jpg - this needs work. It looks like a US govt work, but we need a better source than the vague "American Foreign Policy".
    • I cannot determine where the particular map came from - even though it has appearance of being made in the period. However, there is a similar map, having a stylised topography background instead of plain colour fields and depicting the same lines as shown in this one in Jennings, on page 26. It has fewer settlements depicted though. The ones that are depicted are Trieste, Pula, Pazin, Motovun, Buzet, Monfalcone, Udine, the Morgan line, zones A and B, two exclaves of the zones A and B, Gulf of Trieste, Gulf of Venice, Tagliamento and Isonzo Rivers by name (others only by a symbol), pre-war and post-war borders, FTT and its borders. I could add this source (presumedly to the commons) if you find it acceptable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • We need a good source for the map's provenance to demonstrate that it actually is a US govt work. You might post at the Milhist talk page to see if anyone knows of an online repository of old US state department or or DoD maps. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Asked at the MILHIST talk. If no leads turn up in a couple of days, I could try to make one on my own using Jennings as the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
          •  Done - got a reply at the MILHIST talk. The responding editor also added the sourcing info to the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Koçi Xoxe.jpg - this also has significant problems. It needs a US tag, it needs a proper source (i.e., is there a link to an archive we can verify the details?). Also, how exactly is it PD in Albania? We need a date of publication or the name of the photographer and their date of death to determine when it entered the PD in Albania (assuming it even has, which is fairly doubtful).
    • I cannot find the time of publication of this photo. If the photo was indeed taken at Xoxe's trial, it was in 1949 and it is quite possible that it was taken by a staff photographer for a newspaper article. That would account for 71 years since publication and thus PD in Albania per Albanian PD tag. On the other hand, I found the photo included in the Alamy catalog as a PD photo [15]. I assume that Alamy would cover their bases, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient verification or what should be done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Albanians appear to be most diligent legislators on the Balkans. They introduced the 70-year copyright period in 1995 [16] (articles 17-18). This means that the current image is not PD in the US and that everything published in Albania after 1925 is copyrighted in the US. Consequently, I have no option but to remove this image.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        •  Done - by removal. If I add something else here I'll keep this issue in mind.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Georgi Dimitrov in a radio broadcast.jpg - Again, major issues here. We need a date of publication to determine copyright status in the EU, and we also need evidence of what effort has been made toward determining the identity of the author. That we don't know who the photographer is today is not evidence of the photo having been published anonymously, which is what the law requires. Also, it needs a US tag, assuming the former problems can be sorted.
    • Replaced with another image - I believe it has appropriate licensing information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That one needs a US tag as well, but I think it's still under copyright in the US for the same reason as second image above. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Bulgaria had 50-year (+pma if non anonymous) copyright under 1993 act [17] (article 28 - "Авторското право върху произведение, използвано анонимно или под псевдоним, продължава 50 години след разгласяването му за първи път...") and the 70-year period seems to have been introduced in 2000 [18] (article 28, this time the link is in English). This means that the current photo (published apparently in 1947) is not PD in the US as only those published before 1 January 1946 would not have renewed copyright in the US. I'll check Commons if there are any and replace this one with such photo or remove altogether if none can be found.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
          •  Done - by removal. Even though there are properly sourced commons images from 1940, the tag used is wrong. It would mean that the image is non-PD in the US unless another tag is in place to indicate that the image was PD before 1 Jan 1996 in Bulgaria. No such tag exists, so a replacement seems like unfeasible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Josip Broz Tito 1949.jpg - the source link for this states the image is still in copyright. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Just like in the case of the Belgrade image, I believe the PD tag there is incorrect since the relevant law does not mention any of the dates cited in the PD tag. I also think that the information card has become outdated since the publication, because the relevant law explicitly contradicts it. The image in question has been lawfully published in 1949 in the Annals of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts [19] on page 77 as uncredited image. That means that on 1 January 2021, full 71 years have expired since. The information card at the above link was published in 2014 (according to the information on the card) and that would make the publication in copyright at the time of the publication of the card (because that was within 70 years of the lawful publication). According to Article 61 of the Slovenia's Copyright Act [20] the copyright expires 70 years after lawful publication - in this case it has therefore expired on 1 January 2020. Again, it is perfectly possible to remove the image, but I think it would be incorrect in this case. What would you recommend in this case?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think you're probably right that the archive hasn't updated its database; I'd have thought they'd have built the site to automatically calculate it based on the publication year they have entered, but apparently not. The US aspect is still a problem though. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Did some more digging prompted by PD-Slovenia tag citing the final Yugoslav Copyright Act regarding photographs: [21], specifically its Article 84 says "Autorsko imovinsko pravo na fotografsko djelo ... prestaje nakon proteka dvadeset pet godina od objave djela." meaning "Author's property rights to a photographic work ... shall expire upon expiry of twenty-five years since publication of the work". This means that on 1 January 1992 (the last 1 January it was in effect in Yugoslavia, before the successor states took it over) all photos made (presumably published) by 31 Dec 1966 became PD, and that all those published in the successor states by 31 Dec 1970 became PD by 1 Jan 1996 and therefore could not have had their copyright extened in the US. Slovenia amended the act in 1995, so in its case this would for photos published until 31 Dec 1969. FR Yugoslavia (and hence Serbia) amended the act in 1998 and Croatia in 1999, so 31 Dec 1970 cutoff remains in place. In conclusion, the photo seems to be PD in Slovenia and the US. I'll add the missing tags.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
          •  Done - added missing tag--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for taking up this review. I have not dealt that much with image-related issues, so please excuse me if I as something that should be obvious to me. I'll try to address each of the above issues and add responses (indented further) directly below each bullet point you raised above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I a couple of sources requested above, but I'm unsure where to add them (image captions or the Commons), and I have some questions regarding a couple of other images. I don't have much experience with these sort of issues, so I'm sorry if I'm asking things that should be obvious. I'm grateful for any guidance on the above matters and I expect to apply this to future noms too. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I have not done anything re US PD tags until the above is resolved though. I'll circle back to that later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a good grasp on what is actually required, so I apologise for walls of text. I read WP:NUSC and if I understand it correctly it says that the works are indeed non-PD in the US if the work was not PD in the source country on the "date of restoration". The DoR is (according to the same page) is 1 January 1996 for all Yugoslav successor states, Albania, and Bulgaria.

The final Yugoslav Copyright Act provided protection for 50 years (+author's lifetime for non-anonymous works) and all the Yugoslav successor states initially adopted that same act as their own before amending it years later. For example, I know that Croatia had the same period in effect until 2003. [22] (See e.g. consoliated Croatian Copyright Act in 1999 [23] - Articles 81-84 contain the relevant period - pedeset godina meaning fifty years).

If I got this correctly, the Belgrade photo might be salvagable (i.e. PD in Serbia and in the US) if Serbia did not amend its Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period before 1996 - meaning US copyright was not renewed. I'll see if I can find relevant legislation to verify this. Hopefully their lawmakers were not diligent in that respect.

As far as Tito's image is concerned, if I understood the guidelines properly and even if Slovenia did not amend the Yugoslav Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period, the US copyright would still be renewed - but I could replace that image with an older one.

I'll also have a look at what was the situation in Albania and Bulgaria in 1996. Maybe they had copyright period of 45 years or so. Otherwise I'll remove relevant images.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In light of the research done in the meantime {{PD-Yugoslavia}} makes perfect sense if it is interpreted as the cutoff dates for publication of works which became PD before breakup of Yugoslavia - with a separate date for photographs (1 Jan 1966) - and keeping in mind that those works may have become PD on other grounds or later. None of photos PD under PD-Yugoslavia would be copyrighted in the US because the DoR was only 5 years later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think all that's left now is the Morgan Line map. As indicated above, I asked at the MILHIST, but if all else fails, I'll make a new map.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Got the map. I trust there's nothing left now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think everything is in order now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Cites properly formatted
  • Some sources have ISBNs with hyphens and some don't. Standardize on one or the other.
  • Put Perovic in title case.
  • All doi's link properly.
  • Spot checks made on ISBNs
    • The ISBN for Ziemke doesn't link to the edition cited. The LC number does work, so just delete the ISBN
    • No other issues noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done all of the above. I'm not sure where dashes go in ISBNs, so I just removed them altogether. Thanks for having a look at this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Uganda–Tanzania WarEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Uganda–Tanzania War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Uganda–Tanzania War of 1978/1979 fits into a sparsely populated category of full-blown conflicts between independent African states in the post-colonial era. Although its origins remain obscure, notorious Ugandan dictator Idi Amin used hostilities as a pretext for annexing Tanzanian territory, triggering a counteroffensive that resulted in his overthrow. The war is historically significant for this, as well as for exposing the weakness of the Organisation of African Unity, draining Tanzania's economic resources, snubbing Muammar Gaddafi's foreign policy, setting the stage for the Ugandan Bush War, and bringing the incumbent Uganda President, Yoweri Museveni, to prominence. I hope to move this through A-class with an eye on perhaps one day making it FA. This article has successfully passed GAn. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Source review—pass
  • In "Works cited", there is a lack of consistency whether publishing location is included for books.
  • "Regardless, most sources concur that the Tanzanians behaved relatively well, especially in comparison to Ugandan rebels and tribal militants" ideally there would be another source to back this up
    • I have added an additional source to back up this claim (namely Thornton, Robert (2008). Unimagined Community: Sex, Networks, and AIDS in Uganda and South Africa), and added quotes to the references for extra verification. Applodion (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Army Quarterly and Defence Journal" this journal appears to have named authors.[24] Can you figure out who the author is and move to "works cited"?
    • I already tried finding the article title/author names etc., but was unable to determine them, thus I rendered the citation in its current form as that was the best I could do. -Indy beetle
  • Fleisher, Michael L. journal article; why isn't this listed in works cited with other journal articles?
  • Africa Research Bulletin is a peer reviewed journal published by Blackwell.[25] Should state the author + volume of the article and be listed in works cited.
    • I've hardly ever seen an Africa Research Bulletin article from this time period with a byline. Likewise, if I was able to determine the volumes these belonged too I would've added them. It may very well be a peer reviewed academic journal, but from this time period it serves much more like a magazine, and thus I'm using cite news to reference it and am treating its articles like newspaper pieces. -Indy beetle
  • Conflict And Cooperation In Southwestern Kenya: A Case Of Kuria-Maasai Relations, 1979-2010 : MA theses are not usually RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
    • Removed. The user which added it had no other role in creating this article and used it to support one minor point, which I've also removed. They also tacked the citation onto other statements which were already supported, so I've removed those citations but left the text. -Indy beetle
  • "of which only a few thousand at most were deployed at the front lines at any given time." That's not quite what the source says, "Amin's fighting force could afford less than 3,000 troops at both war fronts". Also, I am not convinced that the newspaper is RS for this information since it does not state the source for it or name the author of the article.
    • Changed to "fewer than 3,000 were deployed at the front lines at any given time." This information is in keeping with the contemporaneous news reports that Amin could only rely on handfuls of soldiers, and looking at most of the battles as well as having read Avirgan's & Honey's work there were few instances in which the TPDF ever faced Ugandan opposition of obvious parity. New Vision is the state newspaper of Uganda, and staff writer pieces often don't have bylines. Special submissions are, far as I've seen, almost always attributed. The article makes references to consultations with historians and academics in other parts, so its apparent that the author did do some research. -Indy beetle
  • Is Al Akhbar (Lebanon) a reliable source? In 2010, New York Times stated that its "news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion"[26] It is used as the only source for much of the information about PLO involvement.
    • I hope it would be okay if I answer this question, considering that I helped to write the article alongside Indy. In this case I think that we can consider the Al Akhbar trustworthy, as the author provides a list with references and sources at the bottom, including books and interviews with several PLO commanders who are known to have been part of the PLO's foreign operations. In addition, the Al Akhbar article was actually copied by numerous other Arabic-language newspapers which makes it likely that the information it provides is generally considered reliable. Finally, several claims from the newspaper can be verified or at least align with what is known from other sources. Where this information is disputed, such as in regard to the PLO's losses, the content is marked in the text as stemming from PLO sources. Applodion (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Source checks TBD (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Source checks: TBD (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Source checks
    • Fleisher 2003: mostly supports the previous statement
    • Lupogo 2001:
      • Mobilization: Supports the content. However, I notice that you cite a different source for "over 150,000" soldiers; Lupogo says "over 100,000" (which isn't mutually exclusive)
      • Demobilization: Supports the content
    • Nyeko 1997: "Smaller Ugandan opposition groups without armed branches, such as the Zambia-based Uganda Liberation Group (Z), encouraged their members to donate money to support the Tanzanian war effort" I have concerns because the source says that ULG(Z) encouraged members to donate, but the cited pages don't say that other groups did. I can't find where the source says that ULG(Z) lacked an armed branch or characterizes ULG(Z) or other groups(?) as "smaller".
        • Changed to be closer to source; The Zambia-based Uganda Liberation Group (Z) encouraged their members to donate money to support the Tanzanian war effort.
      • "SUM conducted bombings and raids to destabilise Amin's regime from within" The source says that SUM claimed responsibility for bombings, and I don't see where it supports "raids".
        • Avirgan & Honey (p. 74) do confirm that SUM was launching "commando raids" and as examples list an assassination of three government agents, blowing up a Kampala fuel depot, cutting electricity, and attacking outposts near Jinja, Entebbe, and Mpigi. Added for extra verification. -Indy beetle
    • Southall 1980:
      • Used to support "infighting", although Southall doesn't use this word. Oxford defines "infighting" as "hidden conflict or competitiveness within an organization."[27] There's nothing hidden about what Southall describes so maybe a better word would be "disturbances"?
        • Added source which says "1978 saw further factional infighting between Amin’s ‘plateau’ of senior officers, and the continuing breakdown of the Uganda Army into competing components." I think that it is pretty clear. -Indy beetle
      • Crop disruption: supported
      • 100,000 homeless estimate: supported
    • Posnett 1980: "It was greatly hampered in establishing itself by the lack of an effective police force or civil service and the looting of equipment from offices." I can't find that on page 147
      • "after Kampala's capture, little further damage was caused by the fighting" supported
      • "rural areas were mostly physically undisturbed by the fighting" supported
    • Kasozi
      • "A.B.K. Kasozi stated that thousands were murdered by retreating Amin loyalists in March and April 1979" supported
      • "Tanzanian military advisers remained in the country as late as 1984" supported
      • "In February 1981 Museveni..." supported
  • Overall the verifiability is satisfactorary although there are a few things that could be tweaked. (t · c) buidhe 11:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey Buidhe and Indy beetle, what's the status of the source review here? Does it pass or are there some queries to look into since this is dead for over two months? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
  • Would it be possible to provide the original language and English translations for titles mentioned in "Historiography and documentation" section? (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • All those sources mentioned by name are done so in whatever language they were originally published. Online Swahili translators are also pretty bad for precision; I've tried translating Kuzama kwa Idi Amin but ended up with a rather vague and confusing answer. I'd prefer to leave them as is, since at least we know the original titles are correct. -Indy beetle
  • Much of the content linked in notes from the infobox is later duplicated in text in the article. I would try to reduce duplication by removing/reducing notes, leaving elaboration of the details to the text.


Hi, Indy, looks like a nice long article, I've added to my weekend reading list. I will try to comment soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Though his commanders urged him to respond in kind, Nyerere agreed to mediation overseen by the President of Somalia, Siad Barre, which resulted in the signing of the Mogadishu Agreement, which stipulated that Ugandan and Tanzanian forces had to withdraw to positions at least 10 kilometres away from the border and refrain from supporting opposition forces that targeted each other's governments. Kinda a long sentence, do you think it could be split up, particularly to remove the "which resulted [. . .] which stipulated"? No big deal if not
    • Split.
  • "subsequently collapsed" I think a year (i.e. "collapsed in [YEAR]") would be more helpful than 'subsequently'
    • Collapsed in 1977, added.
  • I added some {{convert}} templates, but you should standardize which units come first (miles or km, mostly)
  • add the date of the expulsion, maybe?
    • Added.
  • "resulting in him becoming "
    • Changed to "thus".
  • through background, more to come. I'll plan to lightly ce, mostly formatting and links-- unless you'd rather I didn't. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Tanzanian leaders felt that Amin was only making provocations." what does 'only' mean here?
    • They did not believe these were actions that would precipitate an invasion of their country, though, knowing so little about the origins of the war as we do, it's quite possible Amin didn't believe that either.
  • "Over 2,000 soldiers under the command " I think it would be helpful if you just explicitly stated their allegiance (i.e. "over 2,000 Ugandan"
    • Done.
  • "The Tanzanians began monitoring Ugandan radio frequencies, and was" I think "the Tanzanians [. . .] was able" clash, but may be wrong
    • Fixed.
  • Can you get a map of the area (the Kagera Salient)?
    • Added map showing the Missenyi District, which is congruent to salient.
  • "Ugandan commanders nevertheless feared "?
    • Done.
  • "Six African leaders condemned the Kagera invasion" I think "invasion of Kagara would flow better, but it's not a big deal eitherway
    • Done.
  • "thus making it farther from Kagera "?
    • Done.
  • "After a long trek via rail and road," can you quantify how far it was or how long it took?
    • Avirgan and Honey do not specify.
  • "However, by the second week of November,"?
    • Done.
  • " as possible threat to their own" -> "a possible threat"?
    • Fixed.
  • "About 200–350 Pakistani experts were stationed in Uganda since early 1978" -> "About 200–350 Pakistani experts had been stationed in Uganda since early 1978"?
    • Done.
  • "all of its military advisers." what advisers? They haven't been mentioned yet
    • The Soviets had loaned the Ugandans some air force technicians. They weren't of great number or importance far as I can tell, which is why they weren't previously mentioned, and were withdrawn as the USSR wanted nothing to do with the war. Stereotypical Cold War dynamics were not really at play in the Uganda-Tanzania War.
  • "the Libyan government officially repudiated an accusation " Suggest simply "denied"
    • Done.
  • "On 9 March over a thousand Libyan troops and about 40 PLO guerrillas" per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures", suggest "a thousand [. . .] forty"
    • Numerised.
  • " such as 122 mm mortars" needs to be {{convert}}ed, I'd reckon?
    • Done.
  • "which threatened Libyan military involvement on Amin's behalf if Tanzania did not withdraw its troops from Ugandan in 24 hours." Hadn't that already happened?
    • Yes, hence the following Nyerere was surprised by the ultimatum, since he knew that Libyan soldiers had fought with the Ugandans at Lukaya. God knows why Gaddafi thought he could pretend his troops hadn't just participated in the largest battle of the war.
  • "The battle marked the de facto end of the" doesn't need itals
    • Removed.
    • I thought the Uganda Air Force had been " effectively eliminated as a fighting force" much earlier?
      • If I may answer this question: The Uganda Army Air Force lost most of its aircraft and pilots during the war's early stages; it no longer had a tangible impact on the conflict from February 1979. However, it still existed, and flew a few missions. After the Battle of Entebbe, however, it quickly fell apart and was factually destroyed. Thus, the UAAF effectively ended twice: The first time only as "fighting force", the second time completely. Applodion (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • " Mass desertions and defections were the consequence" perhaps "resulted"?
    • Done.
  • "In Mbale, the a group of 250 Ugandan troops" "the a"
    • Fixed.
  • " Once the invasion of Kagera was made public, " suggest "made public IN DATE"
    • Moshiro doesn't point to an exact date, though Avirgan & Honey say that Radio Tanzania first spoke about the affair on 31 October. This is already mentioned in the article in the invasion of Kagera section, I don't see the need to be redundant and to restate this I think does little to bolster the reader's understanding.
  • "retelling stories of the atrocities committed in Tanzanian territory" so were there atrocities, or did Radio Tanzania allege them?
    • I imagine there were some exaggerations, but there were indeed atrocities. As stated earlier in the article, Uganda troops looted Kagera and murdered civilians.
  • "Christianity specialist Emmanuel K. Twesigye" what does that mean? He was an academic specializing in christianity?
    • Yes; this is relevant because the most popular Just War theory foundations have a strong historical connection to Christian thinking.
  • "Belgium later cited the Uganda–Tanzania War as an example of justified intervention" this sentence would benefit from a date
    • I don't think the source was explicit about this, at any rate the Kosovo War is linked and very clearly rested in the late 1990s, so I don't think a date is necessary.
  • "remained largely plagued by violence " what does 'largely plagued' mean?
    • Excised "largely".
  • "Over time many Ugandans grew tired " any reason why?
    • Probably a very natural response to seeing foreign men with rifles constantly patrolling one's own country. There were also some incidents of violence and confrontations between TPDF soldiers and Ugandan civilians, which were not pleasantly received by the public.
  • I think explicitly stating the outcome of the Ugandan Bush war would be helpful
    • The result is stated later in the article: In February 1981 Museveni, denouncing the elections, organised a small band of rebels and began attacking UNLA forces, thus entering the civil war. Shortly thereafter they co-founded a new rebel coalition, the National Resistance Movement. Museveni overthrew the Ugandan government in 1986 and became president.
  • "Uganda was embroiled in a political crisis almost immediately after the UNLF took power." suggest "took power IN DATE"
    • I think that's fairly obvious, the article mentions that the UNLF was installed in April 1979 after Amin was chased from Kampala.
  • "In November Binaisa began fearing" perhaps "began to fear"?
    • Done.
  • "the ex-soldiers consequently used their guns" suggest "many ex-soldiers..." because it presumably wasn't all of them
    • Revised.
  • "most notably, by 1978, over 50% of all Tanzanian soldiers belonged to the Kuria people by 1978," duplicated "by 1978"
    • Fixed.
  • "On 1 September a series of national ceremonies " year?
    • Added 1979.
  • If neither "J. Sichangi Mambilianga" or the song have articles, why does it merit a mention, given that it probably isn't the only part of the war that has affected popular culture.
    • It probably is not, but it's the only example I could find. I could go either way on keeping it.

That's just about anything from me, the vast majority of comments. Really, very good work-- long, but readable. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Eddie891: Sorry for the long wait, I've responded to all your comments now. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies for the missed ping. The article looks to be of very high quality now. Happy to support (mostly on prose). I'd cut the pop culture section if there's only a non-notable thing to list, but don't feel that strongly. Nice work! Eddie891 Talk Work 03:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


Just a placeholder for now. I'm slowly reading through. It'll probably be a few days before I can get to it properly but I can see this has been open a long time and wanted to let you know it's on my radar! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Marajani,[57] Lieutenant Colonel Juma Butabika, and Colonel Abdu Kisuule is there any particular reason to name check middle-ranking commanders who don't have articles?
    • The invasion was one of the largest events of the war (not to mention it started the conflict), thus I thought it useful to mention them. As stated previously in the article, Butabika is widely held in at least one theory too have engineered the situation that led to hostilities, and one of the people who accuses him of such is Kisuule. Juma Butabika also has an article (previously linked in the body text). Also, as far as "middle-ranking commanders", Lieutenant Colonels/Colonels in Amin's army were generally put in charge of regiments, and played key roles in the war as these were the most commonly wielded operational units.
  • However, it was headquartered in Songea "however" gets heavy scrutiny at FAC, partly because it's massively over-used. In this instance, something like "though" or "although" would work better, or failing that, "nonetheless", because you're not contradicting anything.
    • Deleted word.
  • Kiwelu took command of the troops, which initiated a heavy artillery bombardment of the northern bank the troops initiated the bimbardment? Kiwelu initiated it? It was initiated by his arrival? It's not clear from "which".
    • Revised.
  • Nyerere, to the chagrin of his officers, toured Kagera What about it did the officers take exception to?
    • They feared for his safety since there were still some Ugandan soldiers active in the area.
  • The TPDF'S Southern Brigade — renamed the 208th Brigade — finally crossed the border emdashes shouldn't be spaced (MOS:DASH)
    • Fixed.
  • ordered the TPDF to refrain from harming civilians and property from then on To what extent was this obeyed?
    • It seems this was obeyed for the most part; most reputable sources have little complaint about the Tanzanians behavior in Uganda during the war. The notable exception to this is in the aftermath of the Battle of Masaka (read more here), when the TPDF destroyed most of the town as revenge. Political scientist Daniel Acheson-Brown wrote that that affair "seems to be a contradiction of Nyerere's earlier order not to destroy civilian areas" but the point is not really given much exploration.
  • As a gesture of support to Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia, Angola, Ethiopia, and Algeria sent it small quantities of arms Suggest reordering to avoid potential confusion → As a gesture of support, Mozambique, Zambia, Angola, Ethiopia, and Algeria sent Tanzania small quantities of arms.
    • Done.
  • Despite the flight of Amin and the fall of the capital, however, scattered and disjointed remnants "however" again; this one adds absolutely nothing because the sentence starts with "despite"
    • Agreed, removed.
  • In the "media and propaganda" section, I assume that the radio stations were state-owned/operated but it's not made explicit?
    • They were indeed state radio stations; almost every African government maintained its own radio station at the time. Radio Uganda and Radio Tanzania are linked further up in the article and their respective articles indicate this, though if you want I could make this explicit.
  • 19 explanatory footnotes seems like a lot and several are quite lengthy. Some appear to be redundant to the text, and some are of questionable relevance, while others look like they should be included in the prose.
    • I've trimmed down on these; there are now only 11 footnotes, and only one is particularly lengthy.
  • Haven't done a full source review, but I notice you have a few ISBN-10s mixed in with ISBN-13s.
    • Fixed.

A lengthy article, but I think necessarily so for the subject. I wouldn't recommend making it significantly longer, but 10,000 words is perhaps not very generous to provide a proper overview of a complex subject like an entire war. All in all, excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Noting that the point about Nyerere's safety doesn't appear to be in the article, but not a big enough deal to withhold support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Johannes SchadeEdit

Dear Indy beetle. This is my 1st MH A-Class review. Please, anyone, correct me if I do not as expected. The following are just opinions and suggestions of a novice.

  • The prose size is 12180 words (76kB). The "Article size" guideline (WP:LENGTH) says this is too long. I feel it could be shortened to less than 10000 words. This might be achieved by reducing the subsections for which articles already exist.
    • Per that guideline, articles over 60kB should "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Other users have mentioned this article's length but, like me, seem to find it acceptable considering the scope of the topic. This war was unprecedented on the African continent and had major implications for Uganda, so I think it's necessary that it's going to have to be long to be comprehensive. I'll work on trimming the lede, but if you think there needs to be more trimming and summarizing in the body you'll have to point me to specifics. -Indy beetle (talk)
      • Dear Indy beetle. You are of course right. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I also believe that the lead is too long. The 3rd paragraph of the lead is very long and should normally have been split, were it not for the requirement that leads should not have more than 4 paragraphs (MOS:LEADLENGTH). A lead should normally not repeat sentences from the main text. This information should be summarised in the lead, which would lead to formulations that differ from those used in the main text.
    • I believe this has been sufficiently slimmed now.
  • The captions of the {{multiple image}} of the two presidents are both MOS:SEAOFBLUE: two juxtaposed wikilinks each. I would propose to remove the "president" links as being less likely to be intended by the reader.
    • Removed.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. I would omit "numerous".
    • 2nd paragraph? Removed.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Wlinking "defeated" to Battle of Lukaya is unexpected (MOS:EGG).
    • Changed.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence "begin to completely collapse" -> "begin to collapse"
    • Done.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph, "Though Nyerere believed ..." difficult to understand but perhaps not important. Could be reduced to -> "Nyerere believed the Ugandan rebels should be given time ..."
    • Shortened.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph "which led to unifying ..." shorten -> "where the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF) was founded. (to be continued) Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Instability in Uganda. Treatment of the expulsion of Asian could be shortened as there is an article on this and the expulsion is marginal to the topic.
    • Not sure what you mean, it's only given two sentences of discussion.
  • Border clashes and Battle of Mutukula, 1st paragraph comma needed (?) "high ground at Mutukula, Uganda along" -> "high ground at Mutukula, Uganda, along"
    • Done.
  • Tanzanian invasion of southern Uganda, 1st paragraph "Nyerere did not initially intend on expanding the war beyond defending " -> "At first Nyerere wanted only to defend "
    • Revised.
  • Tanzanian invasion of southern Uganda, 1st paragraph "Obote assured Nyerere that if the locales were taken" -> "Obote assured Nyerere that if the towns were taken"
    • Done.
  • Libyan intervention and Battle of Lukaya. 1st paragraph. In-mid February," -> "In mid-February,"
    • Fixed.
  • Moshi Conference. "rebels, led Obote and" -> "rebels, led by Obote and"
    • Fixed.
  • Fall of Kampala and end of the war. 3rd paragraph "With Libyan forces having suffered heavily during the battle, Nyerere decided to allow them to flee Kampala" -> "Nyerere decided to allow the Libyan forces, who had suffered heavily during the battle, to flee Kampala"; "Ethiopia, where they were repatriated" -> "Ethiopia, from where they were repatriated"; "posed a serious setback" -> "was a serious setback"
    • Done.
  • Fall of Kampala and end of the war. 4th paragraph "Few Ugandan or Libyan units gave much resistance" -> "Few Ugandan or Libyan units resisted"
    • Done.
  • Fall of Kampala and end of the war. 5th paragraph "Despite the flight of Amin and the fall of the capital, however, scattered and disjointed remnants of the Ugandan military continued to offer resistance." -> "Despite Amin's flight and the fall of the capital, scattered and disjointed remnants of the Ugandan military continued to resist."
    • Done.
  • Media and propaganda "laudatory praise" -> "praise" to be continued Johannes Schade (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Done.

Dear Indy beetle. Thanks for taking my criticism so graciously. Please take into account that my English is 2nd language. :-) Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Lead, 1st paragraph – "from the Uganda–Tanzania border." -> "from the border."
    • Done.
  • Lead, 2nd paragraph – "Nyerere did not initially intend on expanding the war beyond defending " -> "At first Nyerere wanted only to defend ". Is not "to intend" constructed with an infinitive and not with "on" followed by a gerund? However, "to be intent on" is English. That same sentence appears in Section "Tanzanian invasion of southern Uganda", 1st paragraph. Should not the lead be more summary?
    • Revised.
  • Lead, 2nd paragraph – "After Amin failed ... invasion, The TPDF's 20th Division occuppied the towns " -> "After Amin failed ... invasion, the TPDF occupied the towns " (lower-case "the", one p in "occupied"). Should particular units (20th Division) be named in the lead?
    • Fixed.

Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indy beetle - nudge Face-smile.svg . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't completed my responses yet. Sorry for the slow pace, I was ill earlier this week. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. No problem re the pace, I pinged just to make sure that you hadn't overlooked the additional comments. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Indy beetle. Thank you very much. I still feel that the article and the lede are both too long and that there is room for shortening the article by using a plainer style of English without losing content. With regard to length, the article might create a dangerous precedence. You have the support of Buidhe, Eddie891, and HJ Mitchel and do not need mine. It is a nice and readable article. I will not vote as I lack competence as a novice and 2nd-language speaker. I bow out here. Thank you very much for your patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade and thanks for the review. Is the length the sole reason for your lack of support? Or is it the main issue but there are others as well - if so, there is no necessary reason to specify them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear all. It is the sole reason. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with JS that the article is too long. There is no explicit length requirement in the A-class criteria (although I suppose it would fall under "unnecessary detail"), so I'm not going to formally oppose, but 12128 words will get you instant opposes (including mine) based on the length requirement at FAC, so I would look at trimming it by 1/4 to 1/3 through increased conciseness and summary style. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


Non-member lurker here. Just wanted to note that currently note 85 returns a CS1 missing title error. I can see above that some other journal pieces you cited were without titles, and perhaps the same is the case here, in which case |title=none can be added, but I didn't want to do it myself in case there actually is a title and the omission is non-intentional. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know about that trick. Fixed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)