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. Open the article's talk page in edit mode and then "save" without changing anything, i.e. make a "null edit". (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created.)
  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 BoomerangEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Operation Boomerang was a partially successful raid conducted by USAAF B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers on oil facilities in the Dutch East Indies in August 1944. It was the result of debates during the planning process for Operation Matterhorn, the extraordinary strategic bombing campaign waged against Japan by aircraft based in India, and formed part of a series of heavy bomber attacks on Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia. Despite a heavy investment of resources, including an airbase custom-built for the operation, the primary target of the bombers was barely damaged. The use of naval mines proved more successful, and marked the start of what proved to be a highly successful USAAF tactic.

I developed this article to GA class in 2018, and have recently been able to expand it with a new source. The literature on this topic is somewhat thin at times (no details on what the Japanese aircraft involved were, for instance), but I think that the current state of the article is comprehensive and hopefully of A-class status. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick, nice work -- I have a few minor suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • mines to block a river --> "lay mines"?
  • work began on modifying four --> "work began to modify four"?
  • The Command sought to have --> "The command..."
  • "favourable" --> " favorable"
  • XX Bomber Command staff would have liked to have cancelled the mission --> "XX Bomber Command staff wanted to cancel the mission"?
  • Each of the Air Defense Regiments was --> "Each air defense regiment was..."?
  • slightly inconsistent "101st Machine Cannon Battalion" v. "101st Machine Gun Cannon"
  • the accuracy of this attack was considered "excellent": suggest stating who considered it excellent
  • able to send a SOS signal --> "able to send an SOS signal"
  • indicated that only a single building --> "single small building" (from the lead)
  • B-29s were subsequently frequently used --> "Subsequently, B-29s were frequently used"
  • Eastern Fleet is overlinked in the Aftermath section
  • Ext links all work, there are no dab links (no action required)
  • images all have alt text and appear to be correctly licenced to me (no action required)
  • in the Works consulted section, suggest adding endashes to the titles for Fuller, Mann and Rohwer
  • in the Works consulted section, is there an OCLC for the Japanese monograph?
Image review—pass
  • All images are free. buidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review
  • What makes a RS? buidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Landis's Missouri BatteryEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Landis's Missouri Battery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a good GA review by User:Harrias, a moderate expansion, and a page move, I believe this one is ready. An artillery battery of the American Civil War, it's history was cut short halfway through the war by a consolidation with two other batteries. It's a bit of a short article, but there's not much to say about this topic. I think it's close to the A-Class requirements, I hope I'm not proved wrong. Hog Farm (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • All images are free. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review
  • I think most of the sources are OK, but I'm not sure about White Mane publishing from what I read here: [1][2] According to a review of one of their books, "They don’t edit, they don’t proofread, and there is almost no quality control." and even publish plagiarism. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with White Mane in particular. Tucker's a decent author for stuff about the Trans-Mississippi Theater of this war, and the copy I have has a forward by Albert E. Castel, who's a respected author, praising the book's scholarship. I'm not familiar enough with White Mane to tell if this is a widespread issue or if they just pissed Eric J. Wittenberg, the author of that blog post, off sometime. Witteberg also rants in his post about the Stephen W. Sears, who is reasonably well respected, at least from what I've heard. I just don't know. Tucker's work was reviewed by the Journal of Military History, but unfortunately I can only access the first few lines. [3]. @Buidhe: - Since White Mane seems to focus the most on the ACW, is it okay if I ping a couple of active ACW editors to see what there opinion of the publisher is? I just don't know on this one. I can probably replace most of it with "In Deadly Earnest: The History of the First Missouri Brigade, CSA" by Gottschalk. That's one's published by a very obscure author, but it won the Douglass Southall Freeman Award, which is one of the bigger awards for ACW scholarship. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I can read the review, which is mixed but more favorable on Gottschalk's book. I would be willing to accept the Tucker book based on the review, but it is usually best to cite multiple sources if possible. Please feel free to ping anyone who might have input. buidhe 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Eddie891, Kges1901, and GELongstreet: - Sorry to bother, but all three of y'all have edited recently and expressed an interest in the ACW. I wondering if any of y'all have any knowledge about the reliability of White Mane as a publisher or Philip Thomas Tucker as an author, both specialize in the ACW. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
          • - I've supported/replaced Tucker wherever I can. Tucker and McGhee are probably the most detailed on Landis's Battery, and both come from different angles, so there's some details in Tucker not in the others. I'm down to just 2.5 paragraphs citing Tucker alone, and anyway, he seems to be decent enough. Is the sourcing more acceptable now? Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Cape HermaeumEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

A major battle of the First Punic War: Rome's biggest naval victory of the war; swiftly followed by its worst ever maritime disaster. Yet the primary sources say very little about either. I have, I think, extracted everything there is about it and offer it for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOzEdit

Hi Gog,

  • infobox - other spelling (Hermaea) intentional?
No. Typo. Thanks. Fixed.
  • "Cape Bon" and "Cape Bon Peninsula" - link same, I felt cheated
Oops. Fixed.
  • Battle of the Aegates, the final battle of the war, fought fourteen years later - thirteen?
I never could count backwards. Corrected.
  • The Romans had had little naval experience - is this a case where 1 x "had" says same thing?
  • previously felt the need - "felt" a bit iffy, maybe 'considered'
Changed to a simple 'needed'.
  • of being rammed oneself. - itself?
"oneself" (I think), because the sentence starts "Ideally one would attack ..." I could rephrase as 'Ideally a galley would attack an enemy ship from its side or rear, thus avoiding the possibility of being rammed itself'?
  • grapple - wlink Grappling hook? (pity that page doesn't mention the corvus, hint, hint.)
You have lost me Jenny. "grapple" here has nothing to do with grappling hooks. I am explaining, as briefly as I can get away with, but am happy to go into as much detail as you wish, how the corvus works: and it is by allowing a Roman ship to grapple an opposing one. As in Wiktionary's first definition - "To seize something and hold it firmly".
  • approximately 26,000 picked legionaries - wlink
  • Hanno the Great - wlink?
D'oh! Again. Done.
  • superior ship handling skills - hyphen
  • only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage - the other conversions spell out the metric
The MoS says to give in full at first use and abbreviate thereafter.
  • They proceeded directly to Sicily, making landfall at its south-west corner, then proceeded along the south coast. - proceeded x2, maybe 'They sailed direcly...'
Good thinking. Done.
  • The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?
  • city of Kararina - is that another spelling of Kamarina or a typo?
No two of my sources agree on the spelling, and none use Kamarina. But I have gone with the version already in use in Wikipedia.
  • the friendly city of Kararina and Capo Passero - was Cape Passero not friendly too?
It's a geographical feature, so I doubt it had any views on the subject.
  • 384 warships were sunk - hmm starting a sentence with 384? Maybe 'From their total of 464 of warships, 384 were sunk, ...'
Good point. Done.
  • Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed - 2 x poor, "and poor" could go?
Second "poor" removed.
  • mostly on Sicily or the nearby waters - "the" unnecessary
Not in my opinion. Removing it suggests "on ... nearby waters", which, to me, is an odd construction. I would say 'on the nearby waters', hence the use of the "the".
  • Sources, Casson/Champion/Casson - alpha order
Good spot. Done.
  • File map caption, Apsis x2 - Aspis
Indeed. I am not sure if I wrote the caption or not, but I certainly missed that.
All done.

That'll do for now, regards, JennyOz (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny, your usual sterling stuff. Your points addressed above. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Treaty of LutatiusEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Treaty of Lutatius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long First Punic War. A departure for me, being the first time I have nominated a non-conflict higher than GAN, so I suspect that it needs lots of feedback. Relatively bite sized by my standards, so let me have your thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • Pass alll images are free, appropriately sourced etc. buidhe 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HarriasEdit

Right, I'll brush away the tumbleweed, and have a look.

  • Overall, I'm not convinced about the balance of the article. The lead, summarising the article gives about 20% of the word count to explaining the First Punic War. The article gives about 45% coverage to the First Punic War: while I agree that providing enough background to the treaty is necessary, I don't think that it is necessary to rehash the whole war in as much detail as is provided here. How much of what is provided is necessary context for the treaty?
Fair point. It is obviously a subjective judgement, but I do seem to have gone overboard. I have cut back, and tried to only detail events relevant to the treaty.
  • It seems odd that the coin image caption is left-aligned, when the rest are centred.
It is centered. Check the code. Not sure why it comes out like that.
  • What is the scope of "Romano-Greek history"? With no wikilink, I find this term unclear.
It's what the source says. I have tried a couple of more detailed phrases, but they look too much like OR, so I have removed it.
  • "..and the greatest naval war of the ancient world.." "greatest": largest, most impressive, most significant, best? It is a slightly ambiguous term in this context.
Switched to 'largest and longest'.
  • " was left to Gisco.." Wikilink Gisco.
Gah. And I created the article! Senility is a terrible thing.
  • "A commission of ten was.." Any more detail on this commission? One source I glanced at suggests that they were senators?
  • "It has been suggested that this was to enable the money borrowed to build the recently victorious fleet could be promptly repaid." The grammar has gone a bit wrong here.
Indeed. "could" → 'to'.
  • Note 9 feels like it should be included in the main body of text, as it makes up part of the treaty.
Assuming you mean note 8, fair enough. Incorporated.
Yes. Inept placement of the link by me. Moved. (Is their too much detail on this war?)
  • "cynically stated" Has a hint of WP:OPED without attribution.
Removed and added some direct quotes at the end of the paragraph.

That's it from me at the moment. Harrias talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

American logistics in the Normandy campaignEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American logistics in the Normandy campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a companion to my article on British logistics in the Normandy campaign, which was written back in 2017. The US effort is far more controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Red Ball 1944 september 20-fr.svg needs sources for information presented (I am not sure about RS and the second link is dead).
    The image is part of a series created by Wikipedians. The source is Ruppenthal, Logistic Support of the Armies, Volume II, Map 5, p. 136 [4], along with the accompanying text, which notes the changes to the Red Ball route over time. I have added an archive link [5] to the other map (which comes from here). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Red_Ball_Express_Regulating_Point.jpg Can you confirm that this is a US military image? Source link is bare image, so it doesn't say so.
    The image is from Ulysses Lee's seminal work, The Employment of Negro Troops, p. 632 [6], which is also part of the Green books series. The book notes that the image was taken from the US Army files. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Other images look OK to me in terms of copyright, relevance and other criteria. buidhe 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Other comments

Some of the sections are very long. It would be helpful for readability to break up or subdivide some of the longer ones, such as Bolero, Shipping, Mulberry harbor, Base organization, POL, Railways, Motor transport, Ports. These are all well over a page on my computer with small font and are likely to occupy several screens for readers who use larger text or smaller screens. buidhe 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying no, but am uncertain as to how this will improve readability. MOS:BODY says Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose but gives no guidance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"Very_long"_sections. buidhe 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Great topic! I have the following comments:

  • " This left the Third US Army with only 60 percent of its wheeled vehicles" - when was this as of?
    By the end of June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can more be said about the supply of the two airborne divisions in the 'Assault' section? - this appears rather late in the article, and could be usefully moved forward.
    Moved forward to the buildup section, and added a bit more about the resupply of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Discharge at night under lights began on 12 June despite the obvious risk of German air attack. " - this might over-state the risk given Allied air superiority over Normandy: a key reason for the success of the Allied landings at Normandy is that the Germans could only occasionally harass their rear areas while the Allies greatly disrupted the German supply lines. The Australian night fighter squadron which operated over Normandy in June found few targets, for instance.
    Very true. Only one ship was lost to air attack (HMS Boadicea). Deleted "obvious". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "only 25 days of good weather could be expected in June" - this seems pretty good actually.
    Good point. Deleted "only". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "as was interference by the Luftwaffe once it was beyond the range of fighter cover." - given that the Allies were always able to move fighter aircraft to cover the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards, and were able to maintain substantial air units in France from early in the Normandy campaign, this seems questionable.
    The the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards was predicated on the availability of air cover. There was no attempt to operate beyond it. But here, we are talking about deliberately doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of avisos of GermanyEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of avisos of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This list covers the avisos built by the Prussian, Imperial German, and Nazi German navies between the 1840s and 1930s, and is the culmination of a project last year to document all of them. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list in preparation for a run at FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Benjamin Lewis HodgeEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Benjamin Lewis Hodge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Benjamin Lewis Hodge was a lawyer and politician in Shreveport in north Louisiana who became a colonel in the Confederate Army, leading a regiment at the Battle of Shiloh. After leaving military service due to ill health, Hodge resumed his political career and became a Confederate congressman. However, he only briefly fulfilled his ambitions, serving in Congress for a few weeks and dying soon afterwards. This article was improved from a stub and passed a GA this week. Kges1901 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Hog Farm


  • Consider linking colonel in the lead, military ranks may not be obvious to those not familiar with the military systems.
  • Done

Secession and Civil War

  • "After the election of Lincoln, Hodge became a proponent of immediate disunion" - For readers without a background knowledge of American history, this isn't going to make much sense. Maybe something along the lines of "After Abraham Lincoln was elected president, Hodge became a proponent of immediate disunion"
  • Done
  • Link DeSoto Parish at the first mention, not the second.
  • Done, good catch
  • Consider linking Lieutenant Colonel
  • Done
  • Link Major General at the first usage, not the second.
  • Done


  • Ref 23 doesn't directly connect the person as being Hodge's son, multiple people of that name could have existed in Louisiana at that time.
  • The names of the sons are also mentioned in the 1860 census.
  • Family Search is a service that provides scans of original documents, so the slave schedules are really what is being cited. Added subscription parameter


  • Best to have someone who's an expert in copyright look at File:Benjamin Lewis Hodge hand sketch.png. I'm not sure if fair use is required or not, I'm also not an expert at image licensing though, so I defer to the opinions of others.
  • I don't believe the image can be PD because it does not appear to have been published before 1976.

That's what I can see. Hog Farm (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me now. Hog Farm (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Alfred WordenEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

Alfred Worden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets the criteria. Al Worden, the Apollo 15 astronaut, recently passed away, and I'd like to continue my Apollo 15 work (regrettably this didn't get done before he died) by taking this to FAC.Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7Edit

  • When talking about a West Point graduate, we normally give their class rank. (Worden was 47th in the class of 1955 Cullum, George W. (1960). Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point New York Since Its Establishment in 1802: Supplement Volume X 1950–1960. West Point, NY: West Point Alumni Foundation. p. 638.
That is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know who appointed him? He must have had good connections. Hmmm how strange. Woden credits Chuck Chamberlain butr he wasn't the local Congressman then. He must have been appointed by William W. Blackney.
I checked Congressional ProQuest for some document from the early 50s that might list appointees but didn't see any. I'll check newspaper sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • These sentences seem jumbled: "After successfully completing the course at Farnborough, Worden served as an instructor at the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS), from which he graduated in September 1965.[1][17] Worden had finished second in his class at Farnborough, and he was ordered to ARPS at the specific request of its commandant, Chuck Yeager."
Information merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Chief Astronaut Alan Shepard on October 3, 1966 assigned Worden and four other Group 5 selectees, including Ken Mattingly, Jack Swigert and Ronald Evans, to the astronaut team dealing with the Block II command module, headed by Pete Conrad." Poor Vance Brand, passed over again. Anyway, you haven't linked Command module yet. (Provide the abbreviation CM here too.) You might also consider saying what is meant by Block II.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You could add that the astronauts got a special deal on corvettes. Too bad we cannot use this image. You might mention that Al Worden's corvette is now in a museum. [7] A pity there aren't any Wikipedians in the US to take a photo of it. ("making them less conspicuous" hahaha - everyone knew someone roaring about in a corvette was an astronaut. The local civil and military police understood that speed limits did not apply to astronauts.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I have emailed the museum and asked whether they would consider donating an image. I do not plan to be visiting Bowling Green, Kentucky anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I dropped a footnote about Rathmann. I think we can skip the museum bit in text.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, FYI I've corresponded with the owner and we now have an excellent image of Worden's car, along with Scott's, here. He has met a number of the Apollo astronauts and I'm working on more images.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow! That is awesome! And you got David Scott's car too! Amazing! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit.[29][30] This second mission would be Apollo 8, intended to be an Earth-orbit test of the full Apollo spacecraft, including the LM, in Earth orbit." Again, you seem to be repeating yourself a bit. Suggest merging the first sentence with the second, as the first sentence of its paragraph.
I don't see a merge, but I played with the language a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link S-IVB. You could even consider telling the reader what it was.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "He retired from NASA and the Air Force in 1975. ... After retirement from the Air Force as a colonel and from NASA in 1975," Consider cutting back on the redundancy. The bit about his rank best belongs in the former paragraph.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Lockheed F-104 StarfighterEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cthomas3 (talk)

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to eventually take this to featured-article status. This second-generation jet fighter had a prominent role in the defense of western Europe during the Cold War, flying in no fewer than fifteen air forces. I'm new to the A-class (and FAC) process, so any advice is welcome. The article was recently reviewed as GA-class. CThomas3 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

  • "became widely used as a fighter-bomber" I am not sure that it was widely used; perhaps something like 'was frequently deployed in a fighter-bomber role'?
  • "it was developed into an all-weather fighter in the late 1960s. It was originally developed by" It would be nice to replace one of these with a synonym.
  • The first paragraph of the lead jumps around chronologically. Any chance of rearranging the sentences in date order?
  • "who contributed to the development of" Maybe 'who also contributed to the development of'?
  • "his outspoken opposition to the selection of the F-104" Selection of the F-104 as what?
  • "The final production version of the fighter model was" If this was the final production version, then "of the fighter model" should be deleted.
  • Overall the lead seems short for a 8,000+ word article. I note that it contains nothing on "Operational history" or "Flying characteristics" which occupy a lot of the main article. Are you happy that it meets MOS:LEAD, especially re being "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
  • As mentioned below, a new lead is coming. I'll put that on hold as we work through the rest of the article. CThomas3 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Background and early development
  • "especially high speed and altitude capabilities" Optional: → ' especially high speed and high altitude capabilities'?
  • Agreed, fixed.
  • "Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States" 1, Suggest deleting "Armed with this information". 2, "immediately" and "on his return to the United States" seem to contradict.
  • Agreed, fixed.
  • "The small L-246 design" This comes from nowhere; it needs introducing.
  • Agreed, now introduced as "designated Temporary Design Number L-246".
  • " the Model 083 Starfighter" Ditto.
  • Agreed, moved to its own sentence and introduced as a Lockheed designation for the prototype.
  • "Johnson presented the design to the Air Force" Specify which air force.
  • Turns out it was the United States Air Force. Added.
  • "and work starting on two prototypes that summer" See MOS:SEASON: Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres.
  • Agreed, fixed. Now reads "soon after", as no specific dates are given in the source material.
  • "The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials" Wow! Any more detail on this?
  • Yes, plenty of accounts of this incident. I was planning on adding a detailed write-up of it to the XF-104 article (I'd like to take that to FA someday as well), but I can add a short summary to this article also. Although there seems to be some disagreement as to the exact date (14 April or 18 April 1955), the consensus appears to be that that during test-firing of the M61 Vulcan cannon, the hatch in the floor for the downward-firing ejection seat blew out, causing rapid decompression in the cockpit. Test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon's pressure suit inflated, restricting his vision and causing him to mistake the incident for a gun-firing mishap (an earlier incident of which had caused severe engine damage for a different test pilot). He promptly ejected, but a review of the incident revealed that wasn't crippled and could have been landed safely, though Salmon had no way of knowing this at the time. I'll put together a few sentences for this section.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest keeping it succinct.
I was going to suggest something, but if "the downward-firing ejection seat blew out", how did the pilot "promptly eject"?
Just the hatch blew out, leaving a big hole in the bottom of the airplane. The pilot and seat were still inside.
I thought as much. In which case the statement in the article is incorrect. How about something like 'The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials when the hatch to the ejector seat blew out, depressurising the cockpit and causing the pilot to eject in the mistaken belief that a major system had failed.'?
Thank you, I modified the above slightly but for the most part that's what I went with. I did want to emphasize that his belief was that specifically the gun had malfunctioned and blown off part of the plane.

This is not an image review.

  • Agreed, I removed one image that I found causing SANDWICH in the the Taiwan Strait subsection. Do you see others?
  • "Formosa"; "Taiwan" in consecutive image captions. Is there a reason this isn't standard.
  • Not a good one, no. Changed the two instances of "Formosa" in the captions and prose to "Taiwan", as that was used more often.
  • Insert Wikilinks into the image captions where applicable.
  • Done.
  • "Several images are missing alt text.
  • Embarrassing how many of these there were, because it is something I thought I checked. Evidently I didn't finish checking. Done.
Alt text tool.
  • "the red coloring has been added by the museum". "the museum"? What museum?
    The Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim, Germany. Added.
  • "M61 cannon installation of a German Navy F-104G". Should "of" be 'on'?
  • I just rewrote the whole caption to make it clearer what it's showing.
  • "A Martin-Baker Mk.7 Ejection seat from an F-104G" Why the upper case E?
  • No good reason that I can think of. Fixed.
  • "West German F-104G with a Zero-length launch rocket booster and a B43 nuclear bomb at Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow." 1. Why the upper case Z? 2. There is I assume (I hope) a missing 'replica of'.
  • 1. No good reason, and 2. yes. Both fixed.
  • Image captions should only end in a full stop (period) when completing a grammatical sentence.
  • Agreed, and fixed everywhere that I found.
  • "YF-104A, AF ser. no. 55-2961, NASA aircraft number 818 was flown by NASA from 27 August 1956 to 26 August 1975 for 1,439 flights flown." "AF ser. no." in full or not at all please.
  • Agreed, and spelled out. Also slightly rewritten in general.
  • "Italian Air Force F-104S in original camouflage scheme with Sparrow missiles mounted under the wings, c. 1969" Why the italics?
  • Good question. It shouldn't be italicized. Fixed and linked.
  • Be consistent as to whether the translations into English have uppercase initials. Eg "Fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin")"; Badmash ("Hooligan"); Spillone ("hatpin").
  • All nicknames should now be capitalized, and translations lower case (with the one proper name exception).
Further development
  • "with the other 16 trial aircraft" What 16 other trial aircraft?
  • Added sentence to clarify that these are the 17 YF-104A service-test aircraft ordered on 30 March 1955 by the USAF.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I will do that. That's the first time I've seen this tool, very cool.
  • What is "the horizontal reference plane"?
  • The plane bisecting the fuselage into two equal top and bottom pieces along the longitudinal centerline. I've added "along the longitudinal centerline of the fuselage" as an explanation.
  • What is "the minimum-drag angle of attack"?
  • It is the angle of attack of the wings to the surrounding airflow calculated/tested to experience the minimum amount of aerodynamic drag. I've changed this to "which allowed the plane to fly at an angle of attack experiencing the minimum amount of drag through the air."
  • "the most efficient shape for high-speed supersonic flight was a very small, straight, mid-mounted, trapezoidal wing" Is there a reason why the thinness of the wing is not mentioned here?
  • It wasn't mentioned specifically in the passage I was using as a reference, but it is mentioned other places in that reference and in other references, one of which I added.
  • "during high-g maneuvers during air-to-air combat" Any chance of swapping out one of these?
  • How about "commonly used in air-to-air combat"? Or, we can just end the sentence at "high-g maneuvers."
  • "potential top speed" Why only "potential"?
  • I believe I added that because its actual top speed tended to suffer pretty dramatically as external stores were added, but that happens to most aircraft, and in re-reading the source passage, "potential" top speed isn't really discussed, so I have taken it out.
  • "allowing a maximum speed well in excess of Mach 2" In which version(s)?
  • All of them, really. Even the YF-104A could reach Mach 2.2+, but only for a limited time as the engine would overheat quickly. I've hopefully addressed this and the next point below.
  • "aerodynamic heating limitations of the aluminum structure" Maybe also explain this in English?
  • It now reads "Available thrust was actually limited by the geometry of the inlet scoop and duct; the aircraft was capable even higher Mach numbers if the aluminum skin of the aircraft were able to withstand the heating due to air friction. Furthermore, speeds above Mach 2 quickly overheated the J79 engine beyond its thermal capabilities, which resulted in the F-104 being "placarded" at Mach 2."
  • "presenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard with discarded links" And in English this means?
  • Changed to "resenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard as discarded links were occasionally sucked into the engine."
  • "The F-104S models added a pair of fuselage pylons" "models" or 'model'? (or maybe 'variants'?)
  • "Variants" works, as there were two (an intercepter version and a fighter-bomber version). Fixed.
  • Done.

I shall pause here and await responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your great review so far. I've read through your copyedits and agree with all of them (and cringed at a few actually, I shouldn't have missed them in the first place). This gives me plenty to work on tonight. I already have a new draft of the lead in flight; I'm not starting entirely from scratch but it deserves a fresh look. CThomas3 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Copy edit: don't worry, it happens to all of us. I remember being picked up on Julius Ceaser and simply not being able to see what was wrong with it. Face-blush.svg
No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Take your time and get it right. As my father used to say "measure twice, cut once".
I usually leave fine tuning the lead until the very end. It is difficult to create an accurate summary of the article when it is subject to change. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's as far as I could get tonight. Assuming you are okay with the fixes thus far, I'll tackle the design section tomorrow. I agree it's quite technical and could use some clarification. CThomas3 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking good. A couple of responses above.
  • Why does "Retired" specify the nation and "Introduced" not?
  • That wasn't my edit, but my supposition is because "National origin" already indicates who introduced it and, were it not qualified, the assumption would be the same country retiring it. I'm fine with both being qualified.
  • The Canadian Air Force used the Canadair CF-104 variant. Why is it not listed under primary users?
  • WP:AIRMOS says to limit this to three additional, and as I add them all up I actually see I made an error (I was missing a couple of variants in my spreadsheet). The top four users were West Germany (916), Turkey (somewhere around 434), Italy (361), and the United States (296). I've corrected the infobox to list the US as the developer in the first primary user slot, and then the top three international users as the remainder. Taiwan is fifth with approximately 276, then Canada sixth with 238 and Japan seventh with 230.
Operational historyEdit
  • Done.
  • Done, though I had a question about this. I've been trying to be careful not to link things more than once, but the earlier occurrence in this particular case is way back up in the first sentence of the lead. Do you have a rule of thumb you go by when it comes to situations like this?
  • "PLAAF": in full at first mention please.
  • Done.
  • "Col. Howard "Scrappy" Johnson" 1. "Col." in full please. 2. Who was he and why should weight be attached to his comment. These two questions probably have the same answer.
  • He was one of the pilots deployed to Taiwan. I like the quote, but if you think it needs to be taken out, I'm okay with that.
  • "1Lt" In full please.
  • Done.
  • "after the 6 October ceasefire" → something like 'after a ceasefire was agreed on 6 October'.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Red link "Operation Stair Step".
  • Done.
  • "did not directly engage any enemy fighters" Did any US aircraft?
  • Yes, many aircraft did directly engage the enemy, especially the F-4, which served as the primary counter to the Vietnamese MiGs. The F-100, F-102 and F-105 also were deployed in MIGCAP roles. I've not changed anything here yet; the point I was trying to make was the aircraft was used as a deterrent rather than for direct engagements. Accounts seem to differ as to why this was, which is one reason why I haven't expanded it.
  • Done.
  • "The subsequent F-104C" I think that we need a better word or words than "subsequent". And why is this under "Berlin Crisis of 1961"?
  • It shouldn't be there in that section, for sure. I've removed the redundant part of that paragraph and placed the remaining parts where they belong, and removed the word "subsequent" since it doesn't really need to be there where the sentence is now. See below.
  • Link "multi-role" to Multirole combat aircraft.
  • "Although not an optimum platform for the theater, the F-104 did see limited service in the Vietnam War" This seems a bit redundant as you then have a whole section on the Vietnam war.
  • Removed.
  • "in the air-support mission" That's not grammatically correct. You can have 'in [or "on"] a air-support mission', or 'in the air-support role'.
  • Agreed, it now reads "in the air-superiority and air-support roles".
  • Why is "Big Eye" in italics?
  • "an additional nine aircraft were lost" Why are the first five losses detailed plane by plane, while the subsequent nine get a brief mention? Why are the first five detailed in the text at all, when the information is then repeated in a table?
  • I've cut down the text to address just the Philip E. Smith incident that claimed three Starfighters.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great. There are a few items above that probably aren't resolved yet, but hopefully we're making progress. CThomas3 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We are, we are. You can see why I didn't think that it was ready for FAC - it could have been a chastening experience. But you have put in a huge amount of good work, so most of what is needed is presentational or MoS fixes. I'll try to get another chunk reviewed tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Table of losses; 1 Aug 1966 : Were both aircraft lost in the same incident? If so, this could, optionally, be mentioned. If not they should have separate entries. The start of this entry "Two F-104Cs" is redundant.
  • Agreed. They are now two separate entries, as they were unrelated incidents about two hours apart. Rather than just "MIGCAP" I have included the fact that both were on escort missions for Operation Iron Hand SAM suppression.
  • "procured only 296 examples in single-seat and two-seat versions." This suggests that other versions are available. Perhaps 'procured only 296 examples; in both single-seat and two-seat versions' or similar?
  • How about "procuring only 296 examples including both single-seat and two-seat versions"?
  • "US" or "U.S."? Standardise.
  • I went with US, and revised one of them entirely.
  • There seems to be excessive detail on the Indian Gnat incident.
  • Shortened to ({tq|The Starfighter was also instrumental in capturing an IAF Folland Gnat on 3 September 1965, which opted to land at a nearby unused Pakistani airfield and surrender rather than engage the intercepting F-104s (though this account is disputed by the IAF).}}
  • "Squad Leader Rashid Batti" Really? Or 'Squadron'?
  • Squadron Leader, fixed, as well as the typo of his name (Bhatti).
  • "its pilot was listed as MIA" In full at first mention.
  • Done.
  • Link CL-1200 Lancer at first mention in the main article.
  • Done.
  • "U.S. favor" → 'favor with the U.S.'
  • "and eventually a total of 2,578 of all variants of the F-104 were built in the U.S. and abroad for various nations" I don't see how the total built belongs in this sub section and it repeats information from Further development. Is the number built just for non-US use known?
  • I don't know that I have exact numbers of how many of the remaining 2,282 aircraft were built solely for non-US use. The USAF didn't purchase any additional aircraft for itself beyond the 296, but according to Davies 2014, 110 F-104G/TF-104G were purchased by West Germany and operated by the USAF to train NATO pilots. This leaves roughly 2,172 that were likely produced exclusively for non-US use. However, since I don't have an exact number, I just went with "more than 2,000".
  • Done.
  • Linked to the Mk.7.
  • Link U.S. Senate.
  • Done, but my thought was the {{Main}} link at the head of the section meant I shouldn't link it again.
  • Is there an appropriate link for "advanced research aircraft"?
  • "their performance in moisture" is a bit clumsy. Reword?
  • Changed to "evaluate their performance when exposed to moisture". The wording from the source is They were also flown through rain to study how moisture would affect them.
  • " bringing the F-104's service with NASA Dryden to a close" Just NASA Dryden, or all of NASA?
  • No, all of NASA. Fixed.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of questions for you above, otherwise all set. CThomas3 (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Flying characteristicsEdit
  • "and its high-alpha stalling and pitch-up behavior was known to command respect" I am left wondering what "command respect" means. Could it be phrased less euphemistically?
  • I agree. How about "required attentiveness from its pilot"?
  • "raise the landing gear to avoid exceeding the limit speed of 260 knots" And "limit speed" would be?
  • Changed to "maximum landing gear operating speed" and linked to V speeds.
  • "Landings were also done at high speed:" Is there a better word or phrase than "done"?
  • How about "performed"?
  • "shortened the Starfighter's landing roll" "roll" will not mean much to most readers.
  • Changed the entire sentence to "To limit the Starfighter's landing roll, or distance traveled while decelerating from touchdown to taxi speed, powerful brakes were combined with a 16-foot (4.9 m) drag chute."
  • "Uncontrolled tip-tank oscillations" What is a "tip-tank"?
  • Changed to "Uncontrolled oscillations of its wingtip-mounted fuel tank sheared one wing off of an F-104B".
  • "Some aircrews experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation" I don't think that "aircrews" is a good choice of words. (Was the aircraft a single seater?)
  • There were both single-seat and twin-seat versions, though the two-seaters were mostly used for training. Changed the entire sentence, see below.
  • "at low level when flying straight and level," Is it possible to avoid using "level" twice in six words?
  • Changed sentence to read 'Some pilots experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation at low altitudes when flying straight and level, so F-104 crews were often directed to deactivate it for flight operations.'
  • "Asymmetric flap deployment was another common cause of accidents, as was a persistent problem with severe nose wheel "shimmy" on landing that usually resulted in the aircraft leaving the runway and in some cases even flipping over onto its back" Suggest that "asymmetric flap deployment" and "nose wheel "shimmy" on landing" are two separate topics, best dealt with by separate sentences.
  • Hmm, I'm not all that happy with the way it reads, but it's now two sentences. I unfortunately don't have a lot of detail to add about the asymmetric flap deployment.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • "by flying to 91,243 feet (27,811 m)[a] at Edwards AFB" I am not sure about "at".
  • Does "over" work better? The source text does say "at Edwards AFB", and the base is 470 square miles in area, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility the record was set within the confines of the base.
Your choice.
  • "Jacqueline Cochran" Why is her (reserve) rank not specified?

Very good question. I had no idea she was in the Air Force reserve, as none of my F-104 sources that reference her (I've found around five so far) mention that fact; they all call her simply "Jacqueline Cochran" (in one case, "famed aviatrix"). I was wondering if perhaps it was because she was 58 (exactly) at the time and therefore likely retired from the reserve, but after looking her up she didn't retire from the USAF until 1970. I then wondered if perhaps it was because she was flying a Lockheed-owned TF-104G rather than an Air Force one, and thus perhaps not flying in an official Air Force capacity, but that's just conjecture on my part, and I'm not really sure if that should make a difference anyway. I have a feeling it's just been omitted for no good reason. I added "a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force reserve", but I am open to better suggestions.

That seems fine to me. I suspect that the rank was missing due to, hopefully unconscious, sexism.
  • "77 fighter-bomber versions for USAF Tactical Air Command" Sentences should not begin with numbers. I know, I know; I don't write the rules.
  • Fixed. I've rewritten a lot of these to be complete sentences.
  • "21 built." See above. This is also not a sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • "20 built by Lockheed."
  • Fixed.
  • "After their retirement in Japan, the U.S. delivered some F-104J/DJs to the Taiwanese Air Force" The same airframes?
  • Yes, the same airframes. I've changed it to "some of these F-104J/DJs".
  • "Inertial Navigation System" I am not sure about those upper case initial letters.
  • Lower-cased.
  • "with simplified equipment and optical gunsight" was the optical gunsight also simplified? If not, best 'with an optical gunsight and simplified equipment'.
  • It wasn't a simplified optical gunsight; it was an optical gunsight that replaced the NASARR radar system. I've swapped them.
  • "no strike capability" Sentence fragment.
  • Fixed.
  • "After being retired in Japan, the U.S. delivered some 104J/DJs to the airforce of Taiwan" The same airframes?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • "Combat radius was up to 775 mi (1,247 km) with four tanks" fuel tanks?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • "49 airframes upgraded from 1995 to 1997"
  • Fixed.
  • "200 Canadian-built versions"
  • Fixed.
  • "Operators" section: it would make sense to swap the paragraphs, so they are in chronological order.
  • Agreed, and swapped.
  • "Aircraft on display" I am not sure this is worth a section. I would put it at the end of the previous section - and rename the section.
  • I've removed the section entirely and moved the link to the list to "See also".
  • "Notable appearances in media" section. It is normal to put links like these in the "See also" section, rather than in a blank section.
  • Interestingly this is exactly how WP:AIRMOS says to do it. I've removed the section and placed the link to the aircraft in fiction article to "See also".
  • "See also" section. There should be nothing here which is already linked in the article. It is see also.
  • (I think) I've removed everything that appears elsewhere in the article.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

On a skim, that all looks good. I am a bit busy at the moment, so it may be a couple of days before I get back with a more detailed response. In the mean time other editors may comment, or comment on my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Good changes and amendments IMO. If you have the "Highlight duplicate links" tool you need to use it. And Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location. Otherwise it is looking about ready for FAC. You could really do with someone who knows about modern combat and/or jet aircraft looking it over. Do you know any such editors who might oblige? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help! I think it's definitely a large improvement, and I appreciate you working through all that. I still have the new lead to finish, so I'll get that going now that the rest of the article looks like it's in shape. I don't have the "highlight duplicate links" tool, but that seems like something that's very handy. I'll go grab that and use it. And I'll take care of the last few issues like the Mohan/Chopra publisher and the images that haven't yet been verified. I do have a few people I can ask to review it from a more technical point of view, so I will go do that as well. CThomas3 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Images: if I haven't mentioned them, it means that I have checked them and considered them fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I meant the three images that you identified but I haven't yet been able to locate an archived copy or suitable alternative for. CThomas3 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Dup link tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • "File:Lockheed XF-104 (modified).jpg" Give the original source, not a link to another Commons file.
  • Fixed.
  • "File:Lockheed F-104A-15-LO 060928-F-1234S-008.jpg" The source is dead. (404)
  • Found archived version and updated source.
  • "File:Dafb-c-124-f-104-1958.jpg" Could we have a page number for the source, like for any other source.
  • Added.
  • "File:TF-104G LukeAFB Nov1982.jpeg" The source is dead.
  • I can't seem to locate an archived copy. In fact the entire website appears to be inaccessible. I tried, which evidently is where you look up VIRIN numbers, and that site appears to be down (but was archived at on 4 May 2020). I'm hoping this is just a temporary problem.
  • "File:Chuck Yeager in NF-104.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.
  • Added archive link.
  • "File:West German F-104 Starfighter.jpg" The source link is dead.
  • Not having any luck with this site either, or finding an archive. It looks like the entire site has moved to an .edu address, and their online search isn't showing the file. I will try contacting them, but of course they have a COVID-19 notice on their new webpage.
  • "File:North American XB-70A Valkyrie in formation 061122-F-1234P-035.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.
  • Updated link and included archive link.
  • "File:Lockheed F-104C Starfighter USAF.jpg" The source link is dead.
  • Added archive link.
  • "File:F104s.jpg" The lack of author information is likely to be a problem here.
  • There appears to be a black-and-white version of this file on Commons, and other F-104S photos as well, so this one can probably be swapped out.

Comments from Nimbus227Edit

  • The word 'Lockheed' appears ten times, I'm not sure mention of Johnson's other designs is relevant here.
  • Citations, can be removed from the lead per MOS:LEADCITE providing the facts are cited elsewhere. Cite number 4 appears after 'Luftwaffe' against WP:REFPUNCT.
If you could help me understand how this citation violates REFPUNCT I'd appreciate it. I am not seeing any restrictions there that would preclude a citation after Luftwaffe. The citation was included because a few editors were debating the accuracy of Luftwaffe vs. German Air Force.
All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies (and also any adjacent punctuation, except as below)... A citation to prove that German Air Force and Luftwaffe are interchangeable is daft, the blue link is enough. It's sometimes known as the Bundesluftwaffe with the whole armed forces being the Bundeswehr.
The footnote in this case does immediately follow the text it applies to (Luftwaffee), and there is no adjacent punctuation for it to be after. My reading of REFPUNCT is that it doesn't prohibit mid-sentence references if there isn't punctuation; it just says that if there is any, it needs to go immediately after it and not before. I'm not arguing that the citation is necessary, and I'm happy to take it out on the basis that it's daft. I just don't see why REFPUNCT would prohibit it, assuming it weren't daft.
  • Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine (seen later in the article) are foreign words and should be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
  • ...the F-104S, an all-weather interceptor designed by Aeritalia for the Italian Air Force... is incorrect, it was designed by Lockheed with the test programme flown in the US. They were license produced by Fiat/Aeritalia, 40 of this batch (of 245) were for the Turkish Air Force.
  • The Florida based F-104s (which is a growing fleet) are not mentioned.
I'm still planning on rewriting the lead in its entirety. I have a draft mostly ready to go, but I'll incorporate these comments.
If a new lead is on the way then there is no point reviewing the current one, this is part of the instability that I mentioned earlier, one of the FA criteria is article stability.
I totally get that. I'm not sure I fully agree that it is 'unstable' per se; the previous reviewer, Gog the Mild, correctly pointed out deficiencies in the lead which I hope to address in a new draft. You've pointed out further deficiencies that I also will take into account. The lead isn't subject to ongoing edit wars and the only "significant change" it is undergoing is in response to the review process.
Instability is not solely edit warring, this article is subject to daily edits, most of them from new editors and IPs, you can imagine that they are not high quality additions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Background and early development
  • The image of an XF-104 says 'The XF-104 Starfighter prototype', there were two aircraft, this was the first to be built. The caption implies that there was only one.
Agreed, now says 'The first of the two XF-104 Starfighter prototypes'.
  • The word 'design' appears 13 times.
Down to 7, with two of them actually "designate/designation" and one part of "Temporary Design Number".
  • Plane, the av project generally uses the internationaly neutral 'aircraft'.
  • Fixed, though that now makes 10 instances of the word 'aircraft'. Are there any other acceptable terms?
Airplane, airframe, examples, unit. Some words are unavoidable to repeat.
  • The image of the M61 states that the aircraft is German Navy, 22+45, F-104G 683-7123 only served with the Luftwaffe (JaboG 36, LVR 1, TSL 3). The caption at Commons makes no mention of the navy?
Yup, I can't see any service with the German Navy either. I hadn't checked that caption evidently. Fixed.
  • The abbreviations CB and CI are not explained (caccia bombardiere/caccia intercettore).
Both added.
Operational history
  • The India–Pakistan Wars section is subject to daily edit wars with editors from both sides claiming and counter claiming losses, work to describe the conflict according to reliable sources is rapidly undone. If this section was moved out of the article the edit wars would move with it. The whole section is probably big enough to be split off.
I don't think it's appropriate to remove the section entirely as it's a significant part of its operational history, but I am absolutely open to reducing it. My last attempt at trimming it brought a CTHOMAS3, DON'T TRY TO HIDE FACTS FROM THE WORLD admonishment. Your advice on what to reduce would be welcome.
Not remove, move. There are two articles covering this conflict where they can edit war happily. The whole operational history section can be split in to a new article which is common for aircraft articles. This is encouraged by the summary style guideline.
Agreed, and I would support that. There would still be some mention of it here as part of a short summary, but hopefully it would be minimal enough to substantially reduce the possibility of edit-warring. To be fair, there have only been three full or partial reverts to the India-Pakistan Wars in the past 30 days, and only one additional in the previous 11 months, from 19 total section edits in that time (7 of which are mine).
That's how it works, I've been watching this article for 12 years, fixing the edit wars was one of the reasons I gave up with it. The F-86 Sabre and Folland Gnat articles suffer from the same problem. I notice the main article is edit protected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
German service
  • The total fatalities of aircrew was 115 plus one ground crew passenger, not 110.
I actually spent quite a bit of time with this one, because sources aren't consistent regarding how many aircrew were killed. Bowman 2000 states twice that 120 Lu/Mfg pilots and ground crew were killed, along with 8 USAF pilots (page 67). Dobrzynski 2015 (page 27) does say 116 pilots; Paloque 2012 (page 46) agrees with this number. Donald 2003 (p. 164) says 110 pilots, as does Fricker and Jackson 1996 (page 92) the magazine article actually referencing the number in the article (though that one just says "about 110"). What I would have expected to be the best source, Kropf 2002, does indeed have a full list of 115 pilots and one passenger in Appendix F on page 164, but 8 of those pilots are listed as USAF, for a total of 108 German aircrew losses. The rest of the sources I have either don't mention a number, or were published before the last German fatality in 1984.
Kropf is the most accurate, the criteria needs to be defined which is lost in German owned aircraft. The USAF crews were either exchange pilots serving Germany or instructor pilots (in German aircraft) at Luke AFB.
I understand that, and I am aware of the background. I was merely pointing out the complete lack of agreement of the numbers across multiple sources.
I've changed the sentence to read "A total of 116 pilots were lost in German F-104 accidents, including 1 ground crew passenger and 8 USAF instructors." and cited it to Kropf.

I skip read from there on and ought to go through the rest of the text another time. In the variants section the NF-104 should be NF-104A. I'm sure there is a guideline that says not to to link the bolded line titles and use Template:Main instead as is done at List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants#XF-104 and others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the NF-104A, thank you. There is a guideline about not linking section titles at MOS:HEAD, but that is a description list (MOS:DLIST), which as far as I can tell does not speak to whether they should be linked or not. I'm okay with them not being linked at all, but I think adding a bunch of {{Main}}s to it would clutter the list.
Summary style again, the guideline itself is formatted this way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that it has some section headers defined this way, but it does not use any DLISTs that I can see. As I said previously, rather than add {{Main}} templates I would simply prefer to unlink them, as they are all already linked elsewhere anyway. List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants article already provides {{Main}} links as you point out, and we're already in jeopardy of reproducing most of that content here as it is. If anything I'd prefer to make this shorter and include more content on the variants article. CThomas3 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions thus far! CThomas3 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A small point I meant to make, the Specs section is cited from 'Quest for performance' which sounds like a fan site but it's actually NASA. I would alter the cite slightly to add credibility to the source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Manuel NoriegaEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Manuel Noriega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Manuel Noriega was a military strongman in Panama for a while, and a large player in Central American politics of the time. This is my second nomination of this article; the first nomination received some helpful comments on the sources (from Buidhe) and content (from Peacemaker67), but I found myself without the time to address their comments, and asked the nomination to be withdrawn. I have done my best to address their comments before renominating this; where I have not, it's usually because the sources do not provide the necessary information. Before that, the article underwent a thorough GA review from Midnightblueowl. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Most of my concerns from the prior review were addressed but the Gilboa article is 23 pages long and really needs page numbers for verifiability. There is a discussion ongoing on WT:FAC which suggests that for verifiability around 10 pages or less may be acceptable but not for longer papers.

Okay, fair enough. I'll work on this when I get back online in some hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Gilboa says that "on and off the CIA payroll as early as 1971", not that "The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." It does not support the previous sentence either as far as I can tell.
    Due apologies; the bit about previous payments, and the regularization, are both supported by Dinges 49-52, which I had cited in the previously nominated version; I guess the citation got lost in the reorganization. I have replaced it. I have also reorganized the section a tiny bit to make it clear that the specific agency making previous payments is unknown.
  • Gilboa says that Secretary of State attended Barletta's inauguration and that it recognized the flaws in the election. But I can't tell if it supports the second part of the sentence: "The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite recognizing the flaws in the election process." Where is cooperation mentioned?
    Cooperation between Barletta's government and the US is discussed extensively in Dinges 198-199, which is the other source cited there; specifically, he discusses state department papers suggested Barletta would be an important ally; the meeting between Barletta and Secretary of State Shultz, in which Shultz asked for Barletta's diplomatic assistance; and describes the outcome of this meeting as a "quid-pro-quo".
  • "Noriega's rule of Panama has frequently been described as a dictatorship," I was unable to verify this because a search for "dictatorship" in Gilboa did not return results. Is this just his own opinion or is he reporting that it is a common opinion? buidhe 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    Gilboa is fairly explicit in describing Noriega as a dictator; there's "Despite the end of the cold war, dictators such as Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Serbian leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic will continue to exist and to challenge the international order" on the first page, for instance, and several other equivalent statements. You are correct in suggesting more citations here would be helpful, though. I have added three others; any number more are available, and it's quite evident that it reflects scholarly consensus.
      • For "frequently been described as a dictatorship" you really need a secondary source reporting that it's a commonly held opinion. I don't doubt it, but it does have to be verifiable. Otherwise, all that you can do is say is something to the effect of "Gilboa, Galván, Kempe, Koster & Sánchez describe Noriega as a dictator" (each is WP:PRIMARY for the opinion held by the author). See WP:RS/AC.
        • @Buidhe: I appreciate that that's what our policy says, but when you move out of the anglosphere, the number of people writing syntheses declines drastically; I'm unaware of a literature review related to Norieaga. In this case, if a source does not call Noriega a dictator it will call him an authoritarian ruler or a strongman, and being unable to convey that seems problematic (I don't imagine you want me to list three dozen historians using these descriptors). In large part that's because, unlike some other leaders whose legacy is contested, Noriega's isn't. I can think of a couple of alternatives to the current wording; 1) I could cite an encyclopedia, which is generally considered a tertiary source, but doesn't seem to be mentioned as such at WP:RS/AC; 2) I could stick to the present sources, and write something like "Historians studying Noriega's rule in Panama, including [...], have referred to him as a dictator." 3) I could use the sources I've cited (and several dozen others) for the statement "Noriega was a dictator [refs] and a strongman[refs]". I didn't do 3) because qualifying it seemed more circumspect than stating it baldly, but the sources would actually explictly support (3). (2) seems like us being wishy-washy because scholars don't bother analyzing a question when the answer is widely accepted. How would you like to proceed here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Buidhe: I've addressed your page range concern above; also, I really would appreciate more discussion of the question here. A fourth option, to add to those above, would be to say "Noriega has been described as a dictator[refs], strongman[refs], and authoritarian ruler[refs]. I would have the same concern as with (2) above, but it's an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I think option 4 is probably best, although I would not object to 3. Note that "Generally described as a military dictatorship" in the lead also should be changed to match the body. Page ranges are OK now, thanks. buidhe 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
            • @Buidhe: Okay, after further thought I've implemented something in between 3 & 4. Happy to discuss this further if you feel the need. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass

Comments by PMEdit

I may be too close to this, as I've already reviewed earlier this year in some detail, and some points I raised have not been addressed:

@Peacemaker67: I'm not sure you are too close to this, given that I asked for a procedural close last time, and it's not as though we had a conflict over your comments. I did make an effort to address your comments from that review in the interim. I'm happy to work through any comments I missed, or anything additional that crops up; I do want to note though, that in most cases where I did not act on your comments, it's because the relevant information doesn't exist in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest expanding the infobox with relevant parameters such as nickname, criminal_charges and criminal_penalty
    Is it a deal-breaker if I don't? The nickname was fairly clearly a derogatory term, obviously not used in his presence; the charges, and penalties, are extensive; in the US, alone, he was charged with ten crimes, and convicted of eight of them. It seems a bit much for the infobox.
  • is anything available on the foreign or domestic awards he received other than the French LoH?
    Afraid not. I dug a fair bit.
  • when mentioning Arias for the first time, include that he was a candidate of the Panameñista Party
    Added, though the party was called something else at the time, so rephrased a little.
  • when mentioning Chiari, mention that he was from the National Liberal Party

Down to Rise to power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • do we known when Noriega was promoted to captain?
    We do not. I have dug fairly deep. I suspect that to find this information one would need to go through stacks of paperwork belonging to the Panamanian military.
  • "Bush, now US Vvice Ppresident"
  • what was the reason for deleting the information about BCCI, Bush and the Dukakis campaign statement?
    As Buidhe pointed out in their source review, that needed a better source than the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis was running against Bush, and had an incentive to show him in a bad light. I tried to see if independent sources had given it any weight, but found no evidence for it. For the record, the material predated my involvement with the article, but I should have caught it regardless.
  • "and announced his intent to return to Panama to oppose him" but we have already learned he returned to Panama in 1981? The timeline here isn't clear, did Spadafora return to Panama, leave and come back? If so, when was he killed?
    I can see why this is confusing, but to me it simply reflects the fact that a) travel between the small central american countries was commonplace, and b) the writers are probably using that phrasing because Spadafora may not have been in Panama when he made the 1985 announcement. However, it's the substance of the announcement that matters, so I'm just dropping the "return" piece of that; we simply do not have a detailed account of Spadafora's movements over four years. It's a good guess that he left the country a dozen or more times. In the same vein, there's little I can do about the travel to Costa Rica; we know he was returning when murdered, but have no idea where else he had been and for how long.
  • suggest "His decapitated body was later found wrapped in a United States Postal Service mail bag and showing signs of brutal torture."
  • "While Noriega was out of the country"? Where was he?
    Dinges doesn't say. I've rephrased to make it clear it was his absence that mattered, and that it's not a reference to previous travel
  • Spadafora was murded

Down to 1989 election. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "other intelligence services"? Cuba, but any others?
    I saw this comment earlier, but I don't quite see the issue; it could mean multiple countries, but also multiple agencies, or really "anything besides the CIA".
  • Defense Forces→PDF
  • add a main template linking to United States invasion of Panama at the top of the Invasion section
    It's already at the top of the section; does it need to be over the subsection too?
  • the number of US casualties during the invasion is clearly stated as 23 killed and more than 300 wounded in the NYT per [8], and the LA Times said 23 killed and 324 wounded per [9]. I reckon you should just go with the LA Times figures, and perhaps include the number of friendly fire casualties from that article as well.
    Not too happy scrubbing the scholarly source, but the 23 figure is repeated everywhere and the 60 is not, so okay.
  • Panama city→Panama City
  • With regards to the local civilian casualties, Physicians for Human Rights said that there was no evidence of several thousand civilian deaths. See the NYT article [10]
    We've already added a bunch of lower death tolls, and I think the higher number comes from enough people that it needs mentioned...
  • link land mine
  • The Guardian says his nickname was due to his heavily pockmarked features as the result of a childhood illness, per [11].

That's the redux of my first ACR, I'll reread when you're finished with the above and see if anything else jumps out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks; I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

First Battle of NewtoniaEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

First Battle of Newtonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This will be my first experience with the A-Class system, although I have been active at GA, so I have a decent idea of article standards. This one's a bit more of an obscure topic - a battle on the fringes of the American Civil War. It recently passed a Good Article nomination, and I think it's close to the A-class requirements. Warning - a fair deal of the sourcing is offline, and in somewhat obscure texts. Again, this is my first A-Class experience, so please bear with me. Hog Farm (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kges1901 Always good to see more coverage of the Civil War.

Gerteis and O'Flaherty's accounts are good for a summary, but because they were covering broad subjects, they could not extensively detail the battle. Ed Bearss has an article about the battle in the Missouri Historical Review that you can access online.

  • In terms of coverage, I'd suggest adding an order of battle between the background and battle sections that details the forces involved in the battle, where you can also state their strengths. That way you can specifically refer to the 9th Kansas Cavalry and the other units in the battle by name.
    • I'll see what I can do. The secondary sources I've consulted so far (Wood, Gerteis, O'Flaherty, Foote, Kennedy, etc.) don't give detailed orders of battle. I've found a Confederate return of casualties in the Official Records, but it only gives regiments by their commanders' names, which wouldn't be particularly helpful if I'm discussing the 31st Texas Cavalry because that's how the secondary sources identify the regiment while the primary source refers to Hawpe's regiment, Alexander's regiment, and Jean's regiment. Additionally, the report I've found doesn't distinguish between infantry and cavalry (and refers to the Confederate battery as Howell's battery, while all of the secondary sources I've seen use Bledsoe's battery) The NPS gives a good Union order of battle, so I'll use that and see what I can turn up on the Confederate side. Hog Farm (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Added. How does it look? OR was the best I've found so far.
        • On Bledsoe's Battery, I think you should go with the preponderance of sources. McGhee's unit guide is arguably the best source in the movements of MO CSA units and his statement that Hiram Bledsoe's battery was at Corinth at the time is pretty definitive. As Joseph Bledsoe's battery was regularly attached to Shelby's brigade at the time of Newtonia it seems pretty clear that it is Joseph Bledsoe's battery and that O'Flaherty was in error. Note Howell's battery is a completely different unit (a Texas battery), see Bearss who states that it was a fresh unit sent from Camp Coffee (a reinforcement I presume). If you've noticed, the figures in the ORs are used by Bearss for Confederate casualties.
  • Foote is good, but he didn't use inline refs in his books, though I'm sure that his figures are from the ORs. The Bearss article can shed more light on the strength as well.
  • Wood may have something to add as well, if he didn't rely exclusively on Bearss, you'll have to check to see what sources he used
    • The inside cover of Wood contains a disclaimer stating that the information in the book is true to the best knowledge of the publisher, but that the publisher makes no guarantees as to accuracy. I've never seen that in a book before, so I'm unsure about the reliability of Wood.
      • That looks like publisher boilerplate, probably because they have a heavy emphasis on local history where some books may shade into storytelling. I wouldn't use Wood too much either except for the fact that the CWBA review of the Newtonia book [12] mentions that he used the University of Missouri's manuscript collections, so there might be something new there.
  • There's also Embattled Arkansas: The Prairie Grove Campaign of 1862 by Michael E. Banasik, which apparently covers in the battle in detail as well.
  • For A-class, you'll need to significantly expand the battle section to make it detailed enough. If this were a battle where there wasn't detailed information available, Gerteis & O'Flaherty's accounts would be sufficient, but since Bearss wrote several pages about it there's enough to add several more paragraphs.
    • Heavily expanded battle section using Bearss, I'll skim Wood later and see if there's anything new in that work.


  • the state of Missouri went through a period of decreased military activity - The takeaway from Gerteis seems to be that the Union commanders declared victory, but this quickly proved a tenuous claim with a few months
    • Stated directly
  • the chaotic state of affairs - Schofield was replaced on September 24 per Gerteis, a week before Newtonia, so the date may be relevant as the shift might have had an impact on Union command & control. Also, given that Gerteis notes that Schofield was replaced because Confederate activities gave the lie to Union claims to have full control of Missouri, the exact reasons should be mentioned more than just 'chaotic state of affairs.'
    • I've made this a little clearer
  • When introducing Cooper's raid, the reasons for why they were in Newtonia instead of other places should be explained, as Gerteis mentions that the Confederates were after the grain at the town's mill. Bearss also notes that the town was a key road junction. Kges1901 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Expanded
      • @Kges1901: - How does the clearer background information and the expanded battle section look? Hog Farm (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
        • The description of the background and expanded battle section is satisfactory except that the details become much more vague in the last paragraph. Bearss has more details about the rout and the intervention of Hall's Missouri militia brigade to discourage the Confederate pursuit. Kges1901 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kges1901: - It's clear to me now in hindsight that at the time of the nomination, this article was nowhere near the depth required for A-class. Does this article after the expansion stand a reasonable chance of reaching that high standard, or should I withdraw this nomination? Thanks for your helpful comments and work on the article, it's in a much better state than it was a week ago. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Given that Bearss probably wrote the most in terms of detail about the battle, you've covered the standard that ACRs comprehensively use the reliable sources about the battle. This article does have a good chance of promotion. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PendrightEdit

Thank you for nominating this article. The comments that follow are meant to help make a good article better. Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


  • A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper composed mostly of cavalry led by Colonel Joseph O. Shelby and a brigade of Native Americans moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.
This is a sentence of 36 words without a punctuated pause?
Split into two sentences
<>A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.
Add a comma after Missouri to join the independent clauses - Pendright (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line, leading Salomon [to decide] to withdraw from the field.
  • Replace the comma after line with a semcolon to properly join the indepeden clauses.
  • [to decide] - seems unnecessary?
  • Unionist militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat, although Confederate artillery fire struck the retreating Union forces.
Need the definite article to begin the sentence and before confederate.
  • A large Union force began advancing towards Newtonia in early October, leading Cooper [to decide] to abandon Missouri.
  • Replace the comma with a semicolon to join the independent clauses.
  • [to decide] seems unnecessary?
  • A portion of the battlefield was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District.
  • Do you mean "just" a portion of the balltefield is listed, but the site is identified as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District?
Yes. Only part of the site is listed, and the listing is referred to by that name
<>Okay, thanks - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "is listed vs was listed?
I feel like was listed is the correct usage, since the sentence is referring to the action of the listing, which occurred in 2004.
<>Good point - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


  • After Union victories at the Battle of Pea Ridge and the Battle of Island Number Ten in early 1862, Union control of Missouri seemed secure, with the Union high command proclaiming that "[there was] no Rebel flag now flying in Missouri".
Add the definite article before Union control
    • Added
  • Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri in order to get supplies and new volunteers, and Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter raided into the state.
This sentence is problematic for me! Read it again, and we'll discuss it if need be?
Changed to "Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri [in order] to get supplies and new volunteers. The state was also raided by Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter.", is this better?
<>Deleting [in order] would make it even better! Pendright (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Removed "in order"
  • Union forces suffered another defeat on August 15, this time at the Battle of Lone Jack.
Add "The" before Union
  • Cooper's force included the Confederate cavalry of Colonel Joseph O. Shelby as well as a brigade of Confederate-sympathizing Native Americans and several Texas cavalry regiments.
Add a comma after Shelby
  • Cooper sent a scouting force commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion, to scout the Newtonia area on September 27.
Consider this or something like it - • Cooper sent a scouting force to the Newtonia area on September 27; it was commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, and composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion.


  • The Union force engaged at Newtonia was a mixture of all three arms of the Union army: infantry, cavalry, and artillery.
Union Army is considered a proper noun


  • Foote estimated the total Confederate strength to be around 5,500 men,[11] an estimate which is consistent with the range found in other sources.
Change which to that - that is used when what follows is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

September 29:

  • After realizing the his cannons lacked the range to shell Newtonia,
  • "the" or "his"?
It was intended to be "that his"
  • While this link does speak to cannons, it does mot address specifically the various types of cannons actually used during the Civil War. Suggest relinking cannons to Field artillery in the American Civil War.

September 30:

  • Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin moved to the cover [of some] of the houses on the edge of Newtonia and began sniping at the cannoneers of Bledsoe's battery.
  • Delete [of some]
  • Add a comma after Newtonia
Went with "the edge of Newtonia; they began sniping", I like that a little better stylistically. If that phrasing is objectional, I'll change it
<>It's fine - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The 22nd Texas had planned on assaulting the Union artillery position, but the Missouri cavalry, commanded by [a] Colonel Gordon, mistook the Texans for Union troops, and the delay caused by the confrontation eliminated the opportunity for an assault.
Why the [a]?
I didn't have the colonel's full name at first, I've hunted it down and removed the a
<>Good - Pendright (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • He then proceeded to arrange the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin into a defensive line.
... "into a defensive line" seems more appropriate in the opening clause instead of at the end of the sentence?
Rearranged the whole sentence to "He then proceeded to form a defensive line from the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin."
<>Good enough - Pendright (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the cannon crews that had seen heavy action in Lynde's morning action, along with the 10th Kansas Infantry, formed a reserve.
The word action appears twice in the first clause - you might consider replacing one of them.
Replaced the first one with fighting
  • The 3rd Indian Home Guard pursued the retreating Confederates[,] and threatened the stability of the main Confederate line, but a counterattack by the 1st Choctaw Regiment and the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles stabilized the situation.
Add a [,] comma as above
  • Salomon then order a withdrawal, and the Union troops began to retreat from the field.
... order or ordered?
Should've been past tense
  • Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed.
...which lost 15 men - does this men injured and kiled?
Are you referring to "Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed." ? I think it's pretty clear, I also wrote it though. I've inserted the word overall after men, does that help clarify?
<>I’ll rephrase my comment! Of the 15 "lost", four were killed but a reader is left wondering what happened to the other 11 solders. What does "lost" specifically mean in this context? Here, lost is being used as a verb and can mean " having perished or been destroyed". Pendright (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It was four killed and 11 wounded, I've specified that in the text now.
  • Union losses were highest in the 9th Wisconsin and Lynde's cavalry.
Add the before Union.
  • I suspect related images of this battle are difficult to come by.
In their absence, an image of a Civil War artillery piece would certainly complement this section of the article.
Yeah, I don't believe there's any quality images from the time of the battle in existence. I'll hunt something down.
I went with an image of the flags of one of the regiments that fought at Newtonia, the regiment is mentioned in the text, and the flag has a clear "Newtonia" battle honor, so I thought that was more relevant than a generic cannon
<>Since you did not select a neutral image, I suggest you also add something relative to the Confederate Army – which would reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Pendright (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Image of Shelby (Confederate second-in-command) added to the aftermath section, since Shelby is the primary figure in that section
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


  • However, Shelby's additional stay in Newtonia was short, as he soon received word that his line of retreat was in danger of being cut by the Union advance.
Change cut to cutoff
Went with cut off, as cutoff can have a different indication in some forms of American English
<>You are correct - Pendright (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ... and [the] Union troops occupied Newtonia after a brief shelling of the town.
Add [the] as above
  • First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War in which Native Americans fought on both sides in an organized manner.
Replace "in which" with "that" - that is used when the informatin is essdential to the meaning of the sentence.
Changed to "First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War that saw Native Americans fight on both sides in an organized manner"
  • In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price as the Confederates retreated southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri and Mine Creek, Kansas.
  • a Union army should be the Union Army
I disagree. In many contexts, Union Army refers to the whole Union war effort, while this was only a subarmy
  • a Confederate army should be the Confederate Army
I disagree. Confederate Army is the overalll Confederate States Army, while this was only a portion of that
<>There is room here for debate, but it would be a useless excercose. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after Price
Split sentence, not necessary
<>Resolved with sentence breakup. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after Missouri
  • You might also consider breaking up this sentence into two
Split sentence to "In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price. The Confederates had been retreating southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri, and Mine Creek, Kansas."
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Much as he did in the 1862 battle, Shelby would play a prominent role for the Confederates in the Second Battle of Newtonia.
Replace he with Shelby and Shelby with he
Done, without noting - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


  • 152.3 acres (61.6 ha) of the battlefield are preserved in the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004.
"Avoid beginning a sentence with a number" say some style guides.
Rearranged the sentence
  • While much of the land in the district is privately owned, although the Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association has ownership of 20 acres (8.1 ha) within the district.
  • Is although necessary?
Nope, removed
  • ... within the district seems redundant?
  • ... preserved 8 acres (0.032 km2)
Why the switch to km from ha?
Oversight, fixed

The article is interesting and, for the most part, well written, but it certainly would have benefitted from a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors before its nomination.Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pendright: - I've replied to all of your points above. Hog Farm (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
All of my comments have been addressed, and I gladly support this nomination for A-class promotion. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I am not a ACW buff, so defer to Kges1901 and any other editors with more intimate knowledge. A few comments:

  • what type of troops were the a brigade of Native Americans? Infantry, skirmishers, cavalry? Also in the body
    • I have no idea. Bearss just calls them "Indians", O'Flaherty and Wood use "Indian troops", and Gerteis uses "Indian brigade". Not sure.
  • at the top of the Background section, use a main template linking to Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War
    • Done
  • Confederate units of regimental or battalion size that are notable should be linked or redlinked, this may extend down to artillery battery level in the ACW if this source is reliable.
    • Done. The piped link for Howell's Battery is a little awkward, can you think of a better way to accomplish that link?
  • Alexander's 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment, who was Alexander? full name? same with Alexander, Jeans, Shelby, Stevens, Howell, also Jean's regiment was the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment, wasn't it?
    • Shelby's is Jo Shelby, who's been named above. It still bore his name even though Gordon was in charge of the regiment
    • Working on the other's full name,s got Jeans and Stevens so far. Alexander also done, and Howell too.
    • Yes, Jean's is the 12th. However, since all of the sources I've seen refer to it as "Jeans' Regiment", I've just footnoted it and I think since the sources all use that nomenclature, I should keep it that way in the text.
  • instead of "Action of September 29" I suggest "Preliminary action" as the lead says the battle occurred on September 30.
    • Done
  • suggest "On September 29, Salomon sent a 150-man scouting force towards Newtonia, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde from the 9th Kansas Cavalry."
    • Done
  • "The detachment from the 9th Wisconsin would reached the Newtonia area on the morning of September 30."
    • Fixed, use of would is a bad habit of mine
  • which unit were the Union mountain howitzers from?
    • Bearss doesn't say, Lynde's battle report suggests Company "F" of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Added a footnote
  • "The artillery duelexchange was inconclusive"
    • Done
  • "34th Texas Cavalry (Alexander's Regiment)"
    • Done
  • "Bledsoe's guns would ruan low on ammunition"
    • Done
  • use either 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles or First Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
    • Standardized
  • "one of Shelby's Missouri cavalry regiments arrived" which one, Jeans or Shelby?
    • The 5th. Specified
  • "22nd Texas Cavalry (Stevens' Regiment)"
    • Done
  • Jeans' cavalry regiment→the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
    • See my comment above
  • "Captain Sylvanus Howell" as you should have given his name in full in the Opposing forces section
    • Fixed
  • "Howell's Confederate artillery" as you will have established that he was a Confederate, there is a later instance of this
    • Done
  • "Cooper would later sendt an officer"
    • Done
  • Shelby's Regiment→5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
    • Done
  • 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Rifles Mounted Rifles
    • Fixed
  • Lynde's cavalry→the 9th Kansas Cavalry
    • Done
  • Salomon's brigade had represented only the advance guard, and link advance guard
    • Went with "Salomon's command", as it appears that some of the units may have technically been from other brigades, but assigned to Salomon
  • what regiments made up "Shelby's cavalry"?
    • Wood, the source for this, doesn't say. I'll look in Bearss later, but he didn't go into as much detail about the retreat.
    • Bearss doesn't mention anything about the retreat, he only covers through the end of the fighting.
    • O'Flaherty, who is focused on Shelby's actions, isn't specific, either.
  • On October 28, 1864, the Second Battle of Newtonia would bewas fought near the site of the 1862 battle.
    • Done
  • Much as Shelby did in the 1862 battle, he would played a prominent role
    • Done
  • author-link Shelby Foote in the References
    • Linked Foote and Bearss

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Peacemaker67: - The website I can access Bearss' article on is currently down, so I'll need to wait on most of the rest of these until it's functioning again. The website has a good history of working properly, so it shouldn't be long. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: - I've replied to everything. There's one or two points I disagree with, but I'm open to further discussion there. There's also a couple points where the sources just don't answer the questions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Nassau AgreementEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Nassau Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nassau agreement (also known as the Skybolt crisis) came about when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missile, which the UK had based its independent nuclear deterrent on. After a series of negotiations, the US permitted the UK to buy the Polaris submarine instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • three days in the Bahamas following --> "three days in The Bahamas following"
    ☒N See MOS:THECAPS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • But that's the official name of the country another example is The Gambia not the Gambia. The Bahamian Government's website uses the article with an upper case. The Bahamas article also uses upper case.
  • agreement ended the Skybolt crisis Is crisis not part of the proper noun here?
    ☑Y I guess so. For some unfathomable reason., "crisis" is capitalised but "campaign" is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The British government had then cancelled --> "The British Government had then cancelled" Unless it's written in American English but I doubt it is.
    ☒N Lower case per MOS:POLITICALUNITS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) I don't think NATO should be linked.
    ☑Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The British government trusted that the United States --> "The British Government trusted that the United States"
    As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • the British government restarted its Same as above.
    As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The first British atomic bomb was tested in Operation Hurricane on 3 October 1952 We haven't mentioned yet that it was in Australia.
    Is it relevant? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "sputnik crisis" Not proper noun?
    ☑Y I guess so. Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • a ballistic missile with 2,000-nautical-mile Link nmi.
    ☑Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Don't think NATO should be linked.
    ☑Y As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • agreement on 12 August 1954.[11][10] Re-order the refs here.
    ☑Y Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • with a range of 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
    ☑Y Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • range of at least 600 nautical miles (1,100 km; 690 mi) Same as above.
    ☑Y As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It carried a 4-megatonne-of-TNT Link the unit.
    ☑Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • range of 1,000 to 1,500 nautical miles Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
    ☑Y Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 600 to 1,000 nautical miles (1,100 to 1,900 km; 690 to 1,150 mi) and a CEP of 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km; 1.7 mi) Same as above.
    ☑Y Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A May 1960 report to George Kistiakowsky Sounds awkward compound adjective.
    ☑Y Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link B52.
    ☒N Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As the Skybolt crisis Not proper noun?
    ☑Y As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • was supplied by Vice Admiral Michael Le Fanu Rank needs a hyphen.
    ☒N The RN doesn't hyphenate any more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • of the Suez crisis Proper noun.
    ☑Y As above Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • get the Skybolt project re-instated Per Ngram.
    ☑Y Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A Polaris missile lifts off after being fired from the submerged British nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine HMS Revenge in 1986 Maybe add a citation here?
    Don't need to cite the picture captions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I've replied to the comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape, I reviewed it at GAN in late 2017, couldn't find a real lot then and have looked at what has changed since. I only have a few comments:

  • "cancellation of the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile project" with link to Air-launched ballistic missile, and drop the later link
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "enabled the UK Polaris programme"→"enabled the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile programme" with links, and drop the later links
    ☑Y re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • for Britain's nuclear deterrent link Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
    ☑Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest "cited Britain's dependence on the United States under the Nassau Agreement as one of the main reasons..."
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • link ballistic missile submarine at first mention
    ☑Y linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • say who Dean Acheson was
    ☑Y Ooops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "making the prospect far less interesting" seems an odd turn of phrase
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence"
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • if it is necessary to italicise En route (I don't think it is as it is in widespread use in English and is in Merriam-Webster, it should be encased in {{lang-fr}} per MOS:OTHERLANG
    ☑Y I think of it as French, but I believe it is in common enough usage to not require italics. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "The missiles were equipped with British warheads" which one?
    ☑Y ET.317. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "to which various nations contributinged ships"
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • say who Richard Neustadt was
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find this time around. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just a few things.
  • I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of the presence in Nassau of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who wanted a similar deal for his country, but was on the outs with both Kennedy and Macmillan and did not get it. In fact, the presence of Diefenbaker, who had an awkward lunch with both men, may have contributed to Kennedy's hasty departure. Google "Diefenbaker Nassau Agreement".
    Aaarggh! This is the sort of comment that one always fears, but also the main reason that one puts articles up for review. I'll confess that I didn't know about this, and it wasn't in my sources, but now that I'm aware, I will add it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    ☑Y Added a section on Canada. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    I sympathize entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "but avoided cancellation by reprogramming $70 million from the previous year's allocation.[23]" I might say "appropriation" rather than "allocation"
    ☑Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, met with President Dwight Eisenhower, at Camp David near Washington in March 1960, and secured permission to buy Skybolt without strings attached." I would delete the second comma. Camp David is not THAT near to Washington by the way.
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you want to update the 2019 inflation equivalents to 2020?
    The {{Inflation/year}} template is is used, so it will automatically update the year and the amounts when more recent data is uploaded.
  • In Grimond's comment, do you want to correct B52 to B-52?
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Tennessee-class battleshipEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Tennessee-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's been a while since we've had an American battleship or class at higher levels of review, so I figure it's time to bring one up. The two Tennessees remained in the US Navy's inventory for nearly 40 years, but of course, their most notable service came during World War II; both were damaged at Pearl Harbor, though only California seriously so. They formed part of the bombardment group that supported amphibious assaults across the central Pacific, and were present at Surigao Strait, the last action between battleships ever fought. As always, thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

First the Spanish and now the Americans' comeback. :)

  • Tennessee took part in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • Done
  • Tennessee and California both took part in the Philippines Campaign Same as above and I believe a "they" instead of the ships' names.
    • Done
  • Therefore, the new ship's ability to resist underwater attack You mean "class" or do you mean "Tennessee"?
    • At that point, the class hadn't been named - the project was still referred to as "Battleship 1916"
  • Ships of the Tennessee class were 600 feet (180 m) long at the waterline I think "Ships of" is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • They displaced 32,300 long tons (32,818 t) standard, and 33,190 long tons (33,723 t) at full combat load Link both normal and full load.
    • Done
  • which significantly increased displacement to 37,947.5 long tons (38,556.4 t) Ehm, that's a little bit too detailed.
    • Rounded
  • The ships' propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW) --> "Their propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW)"
    • Done
  • On speed trials, Tennessee reached a maximum of 21.378 knots (39.592 km/h; 24.601 mph) That's really detailed?
    • Rounded
  • The ships had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) --> "They had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)"
    • Done
  • Since Tennessee and California had been completed after the Battle of Jutland Which year?
    • Added
  • The ships' main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick --> "Their main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick"
    • Done
  • The ships underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft --> "The Tennessees underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft"
    • Done
  • The ships' weapons suite was also overhauled --> "Their weapons suite was also overhauled"
    • Done
  • ashore to assist with relief after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.[22][21] re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii.
    • Done
  • when the Japanese attacked the fleet at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
    • Done, but earlier
  • forcing her up against the concrete quay.[6][22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • This is what happens when I write an article before we have lengthy discussions on capitalization...
  • Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • During the fighting on Tinian, Tennessee was hit by Japanese field artillery and slightly damaged.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • triggered the Japanese to launch Operation Shō-Gō 1 Why is "Operation Shō-Gō 1" redirect to the Battle of Battle of Leyte Gulf?
    • There isn't an article on the plan
  • resulted in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on 23–26 October.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24–25 October --> "of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24/25 October"
    • Done
  • the Allied fleet destroyed the Japanese Southern Force Was this a proper noun? If so is there a link too?
    • Not an article - there's the redirect Southern Force, but that just points to the Leyte Gulf article
  • only one Japanese destroyer escaped the overwhelming Do we know which one?
    • Yes, but I don't figure it's a relevant detail in this article
  • though by then the fighting ashore was in its final stages.[22][21][28] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • {{xt| sold for scrap on 10 July, and thereafter broken up.[22][21] Same as above.
    • Done

So that's it from me. Not much to say. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Parsecboy: Hey mate it's almost 20 days ago when I made my review and is it me or is there no progress made in those almost 3 weeks? Just a friendly reminder. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Hey, I don't know if you've noticed, but these French protected cruiser articles aren't going to write themselves ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


I'm highly tempted to support this article without reading it simply on the grounds of the excellent infobox photo, but that might set a bad precedent! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first sentence is a bit clunky: especially the " and were named Tennessee and California" part: I'd suggest re-wording or splitting here.
    • I was trying something new - sometimes new isn't always better ;)
  • "The problem was eventually corrected with the Mark VII gun" - were these guns fitted to the battleships, and if so when?
    • Friedman doesn't say when, unfortunately. Cracknell mentions the Mark VII guns in passing, but not when they were installed
  • Why were the ships so extensively reconstructed in 1942-43? It seems an interesting and possibly unwise decision to have taken two elderly battleships out of service for such a long period when the USN was in a pretty difficult situation and space in dockyards was in high demand. What was the intended role of these ships, and did the returns justify the investment?
    • In a nutshell, the USN lacked the logistical support to operate the carriers and the battleships, so the Navy wasn't really giving anything up with the reconstructions. And Tennessee was already back in service by the time there was enough of a buildup of supplies and troops for the Aleutian campaign. I've never seen anyone do a cost/benefit analysis of the reconstructions, but I imagine the increases in anti-aircraft firepower were greatly appreciated off Okinawa at the very least
  • "The new towers had been removed from one of the Brooklyn-class cruisers that had recently been rebuilt" - do you know which one?
    • No, I haven't seen any recording of what towers went where
  • "but she saw no active operations owing to the crippling fuel shortage in the Pacific at the time" - I can't see where this is in the DANFS entry on Tennessee, which says instead that she and the other old battleships in Task Force 1 were too slow to be of much value during this period
    • Apparently I forgot to add the cite from the Tennessee article - good catch
  • The sentence starting with "Both ships were ready for action" is a bit over-complex and repetitive.
    • Reworded - see if that works better
  • As always, I worry about the heavy reliance on DANFS for details of the ships' service histories given the significant problems with many DANFS records (self-censorship, mistakes, etc). I'd suggest consulting sources like Samuel E. Morrison's official history of the USN in World War II and the recent Osprey books on these ships. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that more with regard to individual ship articles where the narrative goes into more depth (since I've had to email the NHHC about errors I've discovered in the past—you may have noticed I've never brought a USN ship article past GA, and it's for this exact reason, as I don't have the sources needed to go beyond DANFS), but in the case of a class article we're just hitting the broad strokes. The bulk of the narrative recounts the battles where these ships saw action, none of which is particularly controversial, and I think DANFS is fine to cover that. As a counter-example, if we were talking about activities of ships in the Caribbean in the 1910s and 1920s, it would be a problem (having gone through the DANFS entries for the battleships of that era, I can tell you that none of them took too critical an eye to what the fleet was doing). Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: - is there anything else you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by the rationale for not going beyond DANFS here: it's a flawed reference, and sticking to it means that the article is potentially missing discussions of problems with these ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I don't understand that; the technical stuff is all covered by Friedman, Cracknell, and Conway's, not DANFS. DANFS is only being used to cover the where and when of their service histories, and only the broadest of strokes at that. None of the material it's being used to cite is at all controversial, and I don't think the sources you suggested would be any different; I don't know that I've ever seen Morrison to discuss the details of any ship (which is to say, he wouldn't highlight problems with a given ship), and I don't think the Ospreys are all that good (there's a reason I don't use them anymore - even Staff's books on the WWI German ships, which are among the best of the Ospreys, are little more than abbreviated translations of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz). You will also note that the one battle in the narrative that goes into a bit of detail—Surigao Strait—is covered primarily by Tully, not DANFS. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I can't support here: this isn't A-class sourcing Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
              • Your objection doesn’t make sense. First you said the problem with DANFS is it’s tendency to include errors or be censored, but I pointed out that it’s only being used to cover the broad strokes of the ships’ careers, so those problems won’t affect how the source is being used. Then you said DANFS won’t cover defects or criticisms of the ships, but I’m not using it to discuss the technical details of the ships. It seems like you’re moving the goalposts on me. If you categorically object to DANFS, say so, but don’t make up justifications that don’t apply. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
                • My concern here is that DANFS is almost the only source for the section on the ships' service histories. As various discussions at WT:MILHIST have noted problems with this resource, I don't think that this is satisfactory for an A-class article: there's the risk of errors, omissions and missed opportunities to note interesting things. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
                  • But those details wouldn't be included in this article. That would be a perfectly valid criticism if I brought an article on an individual ship here, but since we are only talking about the broadest of strokes in this article, it isn't. To illustrate the point, let's say the DANFS entry on Tennessee omitted reference to some detail about the ship's actions at a given battle. For the purpose of this article, we don't care. It wouldn't be included here, regardless of whether DANFS mentioned it or not. I could just as easily go through An American Battleship At Peace and War, which at 146 pages, likely includes material that DANFS doesn't, and this article would read exactly the same. All we care about here is whether Tennessee and California were at a given battle, whether they were damaged during the action, etc. We don't care if Seaman Joe Snuffy stubbed his toe during the bombardment at Okinawa.
                  • As for errors, yes, DANFS has errors, but they don't make mistakes on the scale we're talking. Let's look at a passage cited to DANFS, chosen at random: "Tennessee was completed first, returning to the fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands campaign, thus beginning her career as a naval gunfire support vessel during the island-hopping campaign against Japan. In this role, she conducted preparatory bombardments to destroy Japanese defensive positions and provided support to marine and Army ground forces as they fought their way ashore, suppressing Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints." Are you suggesting that DANFS is wrong that the ship was ready by May 1943? Or that Tennessee wasn't part of the Aleutians campaign? Or that she wasn't used for shore bombardment? Or that the US didn't wage an island-hopping campaign against Japanese forces in the central Pacific? This is the level of detail that DANFS is covering; yes, DANFS makes mistakes on matters of detail at times, but that's completely irrelevant. It'd be like discounting a source that mistakes minor details about the composition of Saturn when all we're talking about is the order of the planets. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest "The Tennessee class consisted of two super-dreadnought battleships"
    • Works for me
  • suggest link ship class in "The class was in most respects"
    • Done
  • suggest "four threetriple turrets"
    • Done
  • marines infantry→United States Marine Corps troops, and link
    • Done
  • suggest "that could reach well into the expected battle ranges of the day"
    • Done
  • suggest " Theis class was essentially"
    • Done
  • 16-inch (406 mm)→16 in (406 mm), as you have already introduced inch
    • Done
  • 14 in (356 mm) guns the Tennessees carried
    • Fixed
  • for turbo-electric drive propulsion system link Turbo-electric transmission, and drop the later link
    • Done
  • high-capacity shell? what is that?
    • Some kind of high-explosive shell, but I don't have any further details from Cracknell or Friedman on its composition. High capacity refers to the fact that much of its internal volume is reserved for whatever explosive they used, compared to standard AP shells that had only a small burster
  • suggest "to prepare that island"→"to conduct the preparatory bombardment of that island"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • "File:Vought UO-1 on float NAN3-60.jpg" The source link is dead.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list


Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Heraklonas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets, or else could meet, the A-Class standards, and it is part of my project to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Iazyges: I believe a reason why this article has not received any reviews is its tenuous relationship to military history in that Heraklonas seems to be more of a bystander or victim of the events described and did not reign independently. As a result, I would suggest that you could take the article to FAC and bypass ACR for these reasons. Kges1901 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Kges1901: I think that you are largely correct, although I will note that another of my nominations, Leontios, is suffering a similar issue, despite being an independent ruler. That said, classical/medieval history noms usually get a lot less attention at A-class reviews, but do not seem to suffer such at FAC. At the moment I plan to keep this open for a while longer, and if reviews are not then forthcoming, try it at FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: As a (former) classicist, I'm all for improving coverage but there's not enough here for this to be an A class article. I don't think its linked to him being a bystander or his reign ending when he was 15; I think you could write a lot more on the context, the cause of military weakness etc. Also, graphics are essential - we are writing for users, so maps etc are there to break up the blocks of text. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list


Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Leontios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets, or else could meet, the A-Class standards, and it is part of my project to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

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

  • suggest Isauria in Asia Minor and link, in the body also
  •  Done
  • "defeated decisively after the Battle of Sebastopolis" perhaps "at the"?
  •  Done
  • suggest "and imprisoned by Justinian for his failure"
  •  Done
  • Hellas→Theme of Hellas, also in the body, and say where it was. Central and southern Greece?
  •  Done
  • drop the comma from "been launched by Leontios, to recover Carthage"
  •  Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  • link Constantinople in the lead and move link to first mention in the body
  •  Done
  • link Rhinotomy, unfortunately there is not an article for Elinguation (cutting out the tongue)
  •  Done
  • "where he remained until February 706" but the first sentence says August 706/February 706?
    First sentence says August 705/February 706, could have been any point between those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    You're right of course, but my point is that the range should be reflected in the text of the lead (second last sentence). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, now I understand. Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • link Armenians
  •  Done
  • the link for Abd al-Malik is to the name Abdul Malik, not Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and drop the later link to his article
  •  Done
  • suggest " the patriarch Patriarch of Constantinople, Callinicus."
  •  Done
  • link Crimea
  •  Done
  • link Byzantine army
  •  Done
  • "allegedly lead"
  •  Done
  • perhaps Byzantine Africa→the Exarchate of Africa for consistency
  •  Done
  • Hippodrome, patrikios and Green faction are duplinked
  •  Done
  • can you add the year Leontios ascended to and lost the throne into the body?
  •  Done
  • "It is said the body of Leontios was thrown into the sea" by whom?
  •  Done
  • consistency in hyphenating ISBNs
  •  Done
  • it says Monastery of Dalmatou in the lead, but Monastery of Psamathion in the body
    They are quite possibly one in the same (there does not appear to be any discussion of which one it was, so they are perhaps different names for the same place); but Monastery of Dalmatou has more usage so I've used it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
One outstanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice job on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Historiography of the CrusadesEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Historiography of the Crusades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it turns out to be suprisingly interesting as a subject. The article is now fairly neat and tidy. It has just passed a GAR and it would be interesting to see what feedback you kind folks at Milhist would care to give it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7Edit

There are some parts where the meaning of the text is unclear:

  • The debate between religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency meant that crusading was always controversial. The debate is not between these things.
Removed The debate between Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land, but also proved applicable to other areas of interest to the Catholic Church. What are we talking about here? The crusades? The debates? Or the histiography?
With the rephrsing above this now reads better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Baltic Region Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • the argument between the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders Again, argument is notbetween these things.
Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • critical history boasted the subject Is "boasted" the right word here?
changed to increased interest in'
  • against pagans, heretics, or for alleged religious ends Suggest: "against pagans and heretics, or for alleged religious ends"?
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Historiographical issues:

  • considered a penitential exercise rewarding the participants with forgiveness for all confessed sins Was this case from the beginning?
Yes, added surviving quote in translation from the surviving eveidence of Pope Urban II's decree in 1095 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. Adopted from the French?
.....and Spanish & Latin, done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Later commentators Who? What names and numbers were posited. Since the article is on historiography, this should be there.
Used Pasquier as the earliest I could find and reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Attitudes toward the Crusades during the Reformation were shaped by confessional debates What were they about?
Changed confessional debates to the breakup of religious orthodoxy and expanded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • For them the positive effects of crusading, such as the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, were only by-products. Um, that's correct actually.
Removed by product and expanded to get closer to what they meant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You critique Michaud before introducing him. Suggest reorganising the section.
Fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby was very conscious of possible offence arising from crusading rhetoric or triumphalism This needs to be explained; most readers will not know what you're talking about. Ditto for the Kaiser's 1898 trip.
Moved, and expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The British media were not so sensitive and apocryphal, but repeated quotes were attributed to Allenby. Another sentence that makes no sense. Also seems to be in the wrong section.
Expanded for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • a dated polemic that was derivative, tendentious and misleading even at the time Derivative of what works? Tendentious in what way? Mislaeading about what issues?
Expanded this to relect who it was derivative of and why it was tendentious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Giles Constable attempted to categorise what is meant by Crusade into four areas of contemporary crusade study. Sounds like he is classifying the works, not the meanings of Crusade. Unless I've completely misunderstood what you're trying to say, which is quite possible. (Apparently I'm a popularist.)
I am more of a generalist myself, but I think Constable was only having a bit of fun with this. I have rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war war on behalf of their co-religionists. This leads us towards a discussion of the whole just war doctrine.
This is more of a statement than suggestion @Hawkeye7:. Would you care to elaborate? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


  • Don't link modern-day countries like Israel, Germany and Italy
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The usage of the term "crusade" can create a misleading impression Move this sentence to the next paragraph.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • De-capitalise "rationalists"
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye7: what are your thoughts on the responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Article looks good now. When I first reviewed I had doubts, but the work done in response to my comments ond those of others has addressed my concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Image review: Two images, both fine.
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

  • "competing interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem" "from" → 'since'.
Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." I think that you are trying to fit too much into this sentence. Religious idealism was always controversial: Umm, well, at least I understand that. Military conflict was always controversial: really? In what way? I know this is the lead, but what is this trying to communicate to a reader? The pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." You what? What does "pragmatic contingency" even mean?
Ammended to reflect use of violence & compromises the crusaders made with morality. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "While it maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land" Either delete "the objective of" or add what the objective was - eg 'to the objective of capturing/holding the Holy Land'.
Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "These wars created a body of literature, liturgy, and new religious orders" I think that you mean 'These wars created a body of literature and liturgy, and new religious orders'.
Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "culturally normative" Could this be rephrased for a more general audience, per WP:TECHNICAL.
Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different and historians found agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders challenging." 1. "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different" - from the 17th century; prior to it; or both? And by whom? 2. Are "secular and religious" meant to align with "idealistic and the materialistic" If so, it may make easier reading if only one pair of words is used. (And in the same order.) If not, I don't understand the sentence.
From 17th century, by enlightement thinkers & yes. Does it make more sense now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior and Protestants considered them morally so." To what? It doesn't seem to make sense to set up a comparison with no comparator.
themselves Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the early 20th century this became a focus on the Crusades as drivers of conquest and economics." It is unclear if this is suggesting that the Crusades were drivers of conquest and economics in the 20th Century; while they were taking place; both; or during some other period or periods.
medieval Green tickY done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "This was reinforced by the establishment of Israel in 1948 which prompted the historical parallelism that still reverberates today." Unless a reader already understands this point, I am not sure that this communicates much. (And, eg, can one prompt historical parallelism, or is it 'prompted efforts to draw historical parallels'?)
It is the latter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Crusading historiography continues to develop using the latest techniques" Which seems to beg the question of what these techniques are.
I have just removed the latest techniques, wouldn't be sensible to use out of date techniques! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish: Apologies if the above seems over critical. I had thought myself passingly familiar with the topic - in a broad and superficial way - but having read the lead several times - but not, yet, any of the article - I can't say that I actually understand what it is trying to communicate. I have tried to break this down into actionable comments, but it may be that you are attempting to cram too much information on a technical subject into the confines of the lead.

I will take a break and come back at the main article later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No problem with the the criticism Gog the Mild, as ever it is appreciated. It is a dense and difficult subject (for me anyway) and I think you may be right and I have over summarised technical detail in the lead. Will work through your comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was a bit of a mess, hope it is better now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries" "and" → 'or'.
  • "for the Holy Land" Should "for" be 'to'? If not, something is missing.
  • "The conflicts to which the term is applied extended to include" Possibly 'The conflicts to which the term was applied were later extended to include'?
  • "against pagans, heretics and for alleged religious ends." These three bundle poorly. Suggest 'against pagans or heretics and for other alleged religious ends' or similar.
  • "From the very beginning and the only surviving copy of the first papal decree" Delete "the very beginning and the only surviving copy of".
  • "were used for the campaign" Maybe 'were used to describe the campaign'? Or 'were used to describe participation in the campaign'?
  • "the modern English word "crusade" is derived Spanish, French and Latin" Is there a missing 'from'?
  • "was used for a religious war of Muslims against unbelievers" Optional: "of" → 'by'.
  • "often taught as a duty by the Quran and traditions" Maybe 'and Islamic traditions'?
  • "By the mid 13th century the cross became the major descriptor of the crusades with crux transmarina—"the cross overseas"—used for crusades in the eastern Mediterranean" By this definition the Eighth Crusade was not crux transmarina. Is that intentional?
  • "the Palestine, Syria and Egypt" Delete "the".
  • "Western-ruled" This needs expanding or recasting.
  • "The East–West Schism" Suggest adding 'between the Roman Catholic Church of Western Europe and the Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East'.
  • "church protections for property and family" 1. Why is "protections" plural? 2. Maybe 'for a crusader's property and family'?
  • Green tickY—Well there was more than one type of protection but I have generalised it to match Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Medieval & Reformation
  • "most notably Gesta Francorum" Should there be a 'the'?
Now, my knowledge of Latin is virtually non-existent, but I think the answer is no. I take this from the practice of not putting a the in front of {{lang|la|Magna Carta, I assume that the the is embedded in the Latin. I have added the language tag though.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a link for "Papalist"?
Popery and Papism is where Papalist links to. Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as in the 1520s for the defence of Central Europe, in 1536 in England for the Pilgrimage of Grace, in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots, in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto and in 1588 for the Spanish Armada." Issues with the bit "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as ... in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots" which doesn't really work.
  • "reached a peak in the legal writing of Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius" It would be good to add approximately when this was.
  • in the late 16th and early 17th centuries Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Just War concepts replaced those of Holy War" I don't think that should be an upper case Ws.
  • "He also condemned the use of the Crusades against" Optional: "the Crusades" → 'crusades'.
  • "Pasquier highlighted the failures of the crusades" Is the lower case "c" deliberate?
  • "Pasquier highlighted ... he highlights" The tense used should be consistent.
  • "The sole positive effect of crusading was the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, which had enabled towns to become the source of a new civilised rationality." I think that you have missed a "in their view" or similar.
  • I had assumed it was unwritten, now it is written :-) Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "opinionions"? Face-smile.svg
  • "The cultural consequences of growth in trade, the rise of the Italian cities and progress are elaborated in his work." The "and progress" sits a bit oddly. Just progress generally?
  • "Much of the popular understanding" This needs dating; eg, 'in the 19th century' or 'today'.
  • Link Romantics.
  • Link Ancien Régime. I am doubtful of its plural use; is it commonly applied to anywhere other than France?
  • Linked but left plural as Tyerman uses it as an analogy for all the traditional regimes in Europe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "touring the Near East in 1831" Just the Near East?
  • Green tickY—rephrased, used visted, it was only his time in the Near East that is relevant, don't you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "commissioned by king Louis-Philippe" Upper case K.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16
  • 51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "and two Armenian volumes including related miscellania" Why no publication date(s) for these volumes?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Link polemic.
  • "even at the time" I think that this is redundant; when else would a reader assume was meant?
  • "Greek specialist George Finlay" → 'the Greek specialist George Finlay' per false title.
  • "Not much reflection was given to the inclusion from the Early Modern Period of other theatres of war" Optional: → 'Not much reflection was given to the inclusion of other theatres of war from the Early Modern Period'.
  • "The German historian Carl Erdmann presented a significant challenge" I am not quite following this. A challenge to who or what?
  • "By 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition." "By" → 'In'.
  • "The key to definition rested with papal authority" This reads as if the pope had the authority to decide the definition.
  • "into four areas with differing definitions" Maybe 'into four areas each with differing definitions'?
  • "His view was that Traditionalists such as" Why an upper case T?
  • "with where the crusades were aimed" I am not sure here if you mean at what the crusades were physically aimed; 'at what they were aimed at achieving; or at where they geographically took place.
  • "Latin holy wars". I think this needs defining.
  • "Historical parallelism": is there a more accessible way of phrasing this?
  • "even if only for propaganda purposes" Delete "even".
  • "a struggle against a religious enemy" Optional: → 'a struggle against a perceived religious enemy'.
Colonialism and nationalism
  • "espoused propaganda of the country's Mediterranean colonies" I don't think that this is grammatical. (And I am not sure what it is meant to convey.)
  • "and provided a source of popular models that were criticised and dismantled when empires ceased to hold academic approval" This is grammatical, but needs unpacking a little more in order to communicate comprehensively.
  • "and Francisco Franco-era Spain" Delete "Francisco" and link to Francoist Spain.
  • "Early modern period and Francisco Franco-era Spain presented a special case where nationalism and national identity could be projected onto the crusades." I agree that this needs saying, but I think that it needs overtly tying to the Reconquista.
  • "the crsuades.
  • "with ostentatious tour" Insert 'an'.
  • "The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades as they were not considered significant events until the middle of the 19th century." → 'The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades until the middle of the 19th century, as they were not considered significant events.' maybe?
  • "a more marginal issue compared to" Delete "more".
  • "the collapse of the Caliphate through the Mongol invasions" Optional: "through" → 'caused by'.
  • "who suppressed Arab nationalism" "who" → 'which'.
  • "Arabic-speaking Syrian Christians began translating French histories into Arabic" Since when?
  • "the Egyptian Sayyid Ali al-Hariri producing the first Arabic history of the crusades" When? And what was it called?
  • "Muslim forces' triumph over their enemies" This is very broad. Do you mean something like 'Medieval Muslim forces' triumph over the crusaders'?
  • "Saladin's Western reputation for chivalry was not reflected in the Muslim world" I don't think that "reflected" works. Something like 'the Muslim world did not consider Saladin to possess a reputation for chivalry in the way that was popularly assumed in the west' maybe?
  • "He had had been largely forgotten and eclipsed" Delete "forgotten and"'
  • "The visit and anti-imperialist sentiment" "The visit" → 'Wilhelm's'.
Primary Sources
  • Why is each entry in the last three sections dated, but not those in the first?

Phew! I am going to take a breather. If I have not started responding to your responses in two or three days, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild— how is it looking now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Take twoEdit

You will want to check my copy editing.

  • "subsequent debates that followed" One of "subsequent" or "that followed" is redundant.
  • "debates that followed often remained controversial" Do you mean 'were controversial'?
  • "examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building, government, commerce, and modern civilisation" I get "origins of nation building", but are you really saying that there was no functional government, commerce nor modern civilisation before them?
  • Green tickY removed functional government, commerce and modern civilisation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Crusades themselves as a nationalistic ideal" Suggest "ideal" → 'endeavour'.
  • Left this as is, itention was to use ideal as in Existing as an idea or archetype Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto" The church didn't authorise the battle, it authorised a series of maritime campaigns, one of which involved the battle.
  • "History of the crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land" Upper case C when in title case.
  • "Scott's description of an inferior culture attacking a more sophisticated one mixed with Michaud's proto-colonialist conviction." Optional: ad 'in the popular imagination or similar.
  • Constable's four types: three have upper case initial letters, "traditionalists" doesn't. Is there a reason?
  • mistake, none of them are proper nouns so all lower case now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Constable should include the page numbers for the article.

There is a heavy reliance on one source. Not that there is anything wrong with the source per se. I shall leave the issue for whoever does the source review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Now a very tidy little article which covers the A class criteria so I am supporting. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Robinvp11Edit

This is an A-class review so I'll be brutally honest, because I think you've ignored most of the points I made. I'm interested in the topic, but I found the article in general incomprehensible, over-written (ie never misses the opportunity to use a three syllable word, and if possible, several), and really hard to read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; in its current state, I can't see a general user reading it.
  • Don't take away the impression I have ignored your comments, been away, busy and cycling round to how best to address them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There are many statements in this article I would challenge eg The near constant stream of military campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt make it virtually impossible to differentiate separate campaigns; or what does 'crusade enthusiasts' even mean? However, that would be re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, while ignoring the gaping hole below the waterline.
  • The Lead is confusing and needs to be tighter and shorter, eg I've read this several times, and still don't understand what it means. It also makes a series of really sweeping statements.

From the 17th century historians began rejecting religious interpretations and instead examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building. From this period they began considering that secular and religious motivations were fundamentally different and it was found that agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic was challenging. Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior to themselves and Protestants considered them morally so.

Maybe you missed this but as before, I have no idea what this means, and it contains a number of very debatable statements that aren't adequately supported by the article. In fact, I've read the entire Lead several times and I'm genuinely unsure what I should be taking away.
The whole article needs simplification, much greater attention to grammar, and elimination of long, run-on sentences is eg His view was that traditionalists such as Hans Eberhard Mayer are concerned with the crusades geopgraphical objectives i.e. Jerusalem and the Holy Land, pluralists such as Riley-Smith concentrate on how the crusades were organised, popularists including Paul Alphandery and Etienne Delaruelle focus on the popular groundswells of religious fervour and generalists such as Ernst-Dieter Hehl focus on all wars fought by members of the Latin Church for religious reasons.
The structure bounces all over the place, eg the section on Colonialism starts with France, Francoist Spain, then reverts to Kaiser Wilhelm, before Allenby. Plus, since it ignores the Reconquista, referring to Franco makes zero sense.
Or The German historian Carl Erdmann theorised that crusading was a political ideology within Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict. In 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant and influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition. For him the key determinent of whether a campaign was a crusade was whether it was undertaken on papal authority. The connection between Erdmann and Riley-Smith escapes me, 'crusading' is not the same as 'campaigning', and it looks as if this is trying to tie two references together. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have trimmed and focussed on the Holy Land Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You mention other Crusades in the Lead, then ignore them. Arguably more people died in the Albigensian Crusade than any of the ones to Jerusalem, the Teutonic Knights built Poland, the Knights of Malta ended up as Papal privateers - so either be specific (ie Holy Land), or expand.
Edited these out of the lead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Then you also need to change the name of the article, because its not about the Crusades, but Western intervention in the Holy Land. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Much of the popular understanding of the crusades today derives from the 19th century novels of Scott Really? although I'm happy to blame Scott for many things, as an Alfred Duggan fan, I beg to differ.
That does appear to be the consensus among crusade historians. I have read and enjoyed Knight with Armour and Three's Company but for popular understanding Duggan is not really comparable, is he? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I should probably clarify; I don't believe Scott is a major influence on how we see the Crusades, and the article doesn't explain why you think he is. The Duggan reference was tongue in cheek, but he wrote considerably more (Lady for Ransom, Count Bohemund, Lord Geoffery's Fancy etc), plus his 'History of the Crusades' was a school text book.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I missed the humour. You don't believe Scott was a major influence but a number of modern British historians do, including Tyerman to whom this is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You could usefully expand on 19th century Russian and German attitudes towards the Crusading past, particularly how it drove political conflict in the 19th century Balkans. You mention Kaiser Wilhelm's Protestant reactionary posturing, but not why German archaeologists were so keen on that specific past, or the direct links between the crusading Teutonic knights, and 19th century German nationalism.
Maybe for FAC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not if this an A-class article on the Historiography of the Crusades; I think you've written an article on a very specific aspect. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ignores impact on French colonial thinking eg support for the Maronites prior to 1914, annexation of Syria post 1918.
Colonialism is mentioned, I think this may give undue weight Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, I cannot see how you can have an A-class article which doesn't consider the impact of Western thinking on the post 1918 redrawing of the Islamic world, or why Bush referring to a Crusade had such impact. How can that be undue weight? You mention the foundation of Israel - what do you think is behind the Trump administration's recognition of Jersusalem as its capital? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Over reliant on one Source, and very much a Western one. There is tons of material on this eg Modern Historiography: The Relevance of the Crusades in Islamic Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Winter 2007), pp. 527-558; worth reading, as it critiques Tyerman's approach and compares it to others.
Let me repeat; it is over reliant on one Source. I have found tons of free online articles on this topic without even trying hard.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • More pictures or maps would be nice.
  • The article needs work for me. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
If we were talking about FAC I would agree, but still think this is servicable at ACR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles are written for users; why is so hard to persuade people to include graphics that make it easier and more attractive for them to access it? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SrnecEdit

  • The medieval section is pathetic. If this article is supposed to cover all historiography from contemporary to 21st-century, then it falls way short. The only way to remedy this short of a huge infusion of content is to refocus and probably retitle the article to about modern historiography of the Crusades.
Not convinced this is constructive criticism? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The list of primary sources is oddly selective. Twelve Latin chronicles of the first crusade, plus some Armenian, Muslim and Jewish sources. Michael the Syrian isn't Armenian and is the only Syriac writer listed. No Greek works. No Latin works about any crusade after 1100. No vernacular European works.
True, rather than include an arbitrary list I have deleted the section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I cannot see how it passes the comprehensiveness criterion at this time. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • areas of interest to the Catholic Church Unlink Catholic Church is by MOS:OVERLINK too common to link.
  • I don't think centuries should be linked like days, weeks and years by WP:DATELINK.
  • by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans Unlink Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Outremer" from the French outre-mer Unlink French which is a major language per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt Maybe switch the links about both countries with the regions?
  • and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221) --> "and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221)"
  • in the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248-1254) --> "in the Sixth Crusade (1228–1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248–1254)"
  • follwed between 1844-1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872-1906 --> "follwed between 1844–1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872–1906"
  • Roman Catholic Church is overlinked by the Latin Church.
  • and the replacement of Arab rule by the By MOS:OVERLINK Arab should be not linked.
  • In the "Primary Sources" section all the "c", "d" and "fl" should have their own templates.
Removed these as they are a bit inconsistent. Don't necessarily think a long list of possible sources adds values here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done—I have addressed all the above, thank you CPA-5 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


  • was one of the first to make an attempt Remove "make an".
  • Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East became irrevocable An article before the Middle East is needed.
  • become the source of a new civilised rationality Remove the second article.
  • abuse of papal authority, irresponsibilty A typo of irresponsibility?
  • Six volumes by western historians follwed Typo of followed?
  • and 1906 that included related miscellania You mean miscellanea?
  • Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict Per Ngram glamorised is more common.
  • For him the key determinent of whether You mean determinant?
  • with the crusades geopgraphical objectives You mean geographical?
  • encouraging ideas of a modern jihad and a long struggle; Remove the first article.
  • he was very conscious of possible offence Maybe add an article between "of" and "possible"?
  • He had had been largely eclipsed by more successful Two "had"s?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done—thanks CPA-5 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Partisan Congress riotsEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Partisan Congress riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia. It's a bit off the beat but I believe it is in scope as it was primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. The article just received an excellent copyedit from Gog the Mild, whom I can't thank enough for his help, but I'm not quite brave enough to jump straight to FAC. Any comments more than welcome! buidhe 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I have just looked at this for GOCE, and I had an eye on it progressing. I will have a look at it shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Having read/skimmed through this again, I can see no issues - all of those I picked up during the copy edit have been satisfactorily addressed. The criteria all seem to be met and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

  • Does "File:Námestie Slobody (Gottwaldovo tér, egykor Esterházy tér), Postapalota. Fortepan 51364.jpg" not need a {{FoP-Slovakia}} tag? Or is it excused because of its age? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • plus Added I'm not sure, but it can't hurt anyway. buidhe 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Use of alt text seems inconsistent. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • now plus Added to all images buidhe 15:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff. All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I know there is no requirement to do so, but is there a reason this hasn't been put through GAN? I have a few comments:

    • I just thought that the article was likely to languish for months at GAN, considering the backlog at the time.
  • wasn't it Czechoslovakia rather than Slovakia in 1946?
    • There was no significant anti-Jewish violence in the Czech lands, so there isn't an article on it; also, Slovakia was an autonomous area and its government made most of the relevant decisions. My usage follows Cichopek who states, "Although Slovakia was reunited with the Czech lands after the war, it retained a large degree of autonomy until 1949. In this book, I use 'Slovakia' when speaking of issues relevant only to this region and 'Czechoslovakia' when discussing the entire country after the war." (3) I added more info on the postwar political situation in the Background section.
      • But it wasn't a separate country, so it needs to placed into its geo-political context. Suggest the first sentence is amended to read "The Partisan Congress riots were attacks on Jews in Bratislava and other cities and towns within the autonomous Slovakia region of Czechoslovakia between 1 and 6 August 1946, as part of the anti-Jewish violence in postwar Slovakia" and add a link to the autonomous Slovakia that is being referred to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that the first sentence of the lede is the place to go into detail on the constitutional status of postwar Slovakia, but I have tweaked the lead to make it clear that the sovereign state is Czechoslovakia. buidhe 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
          • It absolutely is. The problem with the current formulation is that Slovakia was a subdivision of Czechoslovakia, and when you start talking about Slovak cities and towns in the first sentence and then go on to use Slovak elsewhere in the lead, it begs the question of what you are talking about, ethnic Slovak cities or within a Slovak geopolitical entity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • link antisemitic
    • done
  • "A national conference" was it national though? Were there Czechs involved as well? perhaps use congress rather than conference throughout to avoid any possible confusion
    • Changed to "congress" throughout. "Celoslovenský" literally translates as all + Slovak, the Czech partisans had a separate organization. However, after the war Czechs and Slovaks were percieved as separate nations
      • I think Slovak national congress is needed, to clarify that it wasn't a Czechoslovak one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Done
  • weren't the Hlinka Guard also involved in the burning of villages along with Einsatzgruppe H? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions did help with executions, but I've not read of them razing villages. If they did it was under German direction and is not mentioned in the cited source. buidhe 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • in the Background section, some mention needs to be made of Czechoslovakia being reinstituted after the war and that there was a Slovak sub-division
    • Done
  • for Agrarian, link Republican Party of Farmers and Peasants or Agrarianism
    • Done
  • drop the cap on Communists
    • I left the capitalization and linked Communist Party of Slovakia (1939), because I think the author is referring to members of that political party.
  • Slovaks is used to describe the people throughout, but of course these people were Czechoslovaks, and some of the people in what had been the Slovak State were not ethnic Slovaks at all, but Hungarians and other minorities. This grates and seems ahistorical and exclusive of others living in this part of Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this is just a lack of knowledge about the internal divisions within Czechoslovakia, but if there was a formal division between Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia in 1946 (indicated by the reference to the autonomous Slovak government, then this should be introduced early in the article.
    • Where "Slovaks" are discussed in the Background section, it follows the sources and refers to ethnic Slovaks, not Hungarians or other minority groups. The rest of the article avoids ethnic references. I'm well aware that Czechoslovakia was a multiethnic state, but in this case the incidents were caused mostly by ethnic Slovaks and not Hungarians, as discussed in the media coverage section.
  • Topoľčany pogrom is duplinked, as is Slovak in the lang templates
    • The first time Topoľčany pogrom is linked it could be missed by readers, so I think the second link is helpful. Edited the lang template to fix the other duplink.
  • "government passed the Restitution Act"
    • Done
  • "or national administrators, many of whom were former partisans or other resistance members" this has already been explained
    • Done
  • drop the comma from "mostly unsuccessful, attempts"
    • Done
  • First National Congress of Partisans and Partisan Congress should not be bolded, per MOS:BOLD
    • Done
  • first name for Masariak?
    • Not stated in the source or any other I can find.
  • drop the parens from "(Previous to that,...)"
    • Done
  • link hand grenade (did these explode?)
    • Done, not stated in source
  • 1:30 in the morning→01:30 on 3 August, given you are using 24 hour clock
    • Done
  • this last sentence is really about 3 August, so should probably be moved to the 3 August section
    • Done
  • contigents→contingents
    • Fixed
  • "former Slovak People's Party regime", I assume it had been disestablished by this point?
    • Added
  • did these anti-Jewish attacks occur elsewhere in Czechoslovakia?
    • There were no significant anti-Jewish attacks in the Czech lands.
  • On 6 August 1946, the Slovak News Agency
    • Done
  • The Czech News Agency reported the riots
    • Done
  • who is Mlynárik? author? historian? First name?
  • suggest using Council of Jewish Religious Communities in Bohemia and Moravia each time instead of just "Council"
    • Done
  • suggest "destroyed during the uprisingSlovak National Uprising"
    • Done
  • passersby
    • Done
  • is there a reason why Šmigeľ (2017) hasn't been used in the article?
    • It doesn't have any information that's not in his 2011 essay. Also, I suspect it is a predatory open access journal. However, since the Slovak print source is difficult to track down it helps with verifying some of his statements.

That's all I have. Great job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for the review! I think I've fixed everything. buidhe 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Not all of my comments have been adequately addressed and I have a related underlying concern about POV. Frankly, the seeming reluctance to acknowledge clearly in the first sentence that this occurred in a country called Czechoslovakia strikes me as really odd. Slovakia was not a country in 1946, it was a political unit of Czechoslovakia. To not acknowledge the contemporary geopolitics and clearly place this in its historical context is frankly recentist and ahistorical, as is the use of the term Slovaks and Slovak without linking that to the ethnicity (in fact linking is inexplicably avoided in both the lead and the body), and instead giving the impression throughout that it was a nationality at the time. The same goes for referring to Slovak cities and towns when there were non-Slovaks living in these lands. As it is now, unless they read the note (which is frankly highly undesirable in a lead, especially when it downplays an important piece of context), the reader would be confused wondering why the Czechoslovak police were even involved when reading the lead, as they would be under the impression that this occurred in a country called Slovakia. The whole article is written this way, except for a few minor acknowledgements. It is frankly POV in my view, and I won't be supporting promotion until it is resolved. I would also add that an additional sentence or two (beyond the single sentence about economic antisemitism) about the history of anti-Semitism amongst ethnic Slovaks (assuming the perpetrators of these riots were all ethnic Slovaks) prior to WWII is a necessary addition, given neither of the articles in the main template adequately discusses that aspect. Also delegetes→delegates, and Czechia needs a link. And the quote boxes give undue weight to state propaganda which is refuted by the body of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You have a fair point about the quoteboxes, which have been removed. All of the sources say Slovaks, Slovakia and emphasize the role of the Bratislava government. Maybe that is ahistorical and POV of them, but I don't see what I can do about that. I've rewritten the first sentence of the article and linked "Czechia" and "Slovaks" as you think it would be helpful. Although none of the sources mention pre-1938/1939 events as a relevant aspect of the background or causes of the riots, it might be worthwile to add for context. I'll see what I can do about that. buidhe 02:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've had a go at adding more some background on the history of Jews in Bratislava, let me know what you think. buidhe 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey PM, just a little reminder to both of you. How's the progress? It looks like Buidhe has addressed your reply above me. Could you have look at whether all of your comments are addressed or not? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Vanamonde93Edit

Not really in my wheelhouse, but happy to give this a read. Feel free to revert any copy-editing I do.

  • I find the first sentence difficult to parse; there's a lot thrown in there. Could you break it up?
    • Done
  • "Aryanization" may have been linked, but is a concept crucial enough to the article that I wonder if a one-sentence explanation in the lead is worthwhile.
    • Done
  • "Rioting began on 1 August" do we know where it began, and what the targets were?
    • Expanded on this
  • " Unusually, the Slovak State organized the deportation" why was this unusual?
    • Cichopek notes that the Slovak State was one of the only countries that organized the deportation rather than it being organized by German forces. However, it's not super relevant so I deleted it
  • The sentence beginning "Anti-regime forces" strikes me as out of place
    • I think it's relevant because these are the partisans which are causing the rioting
      • I could have been clearer; it belongs in the article, but feels out of place where it is. Perhaps it could be moved to just after "sparking the Slovak National Uprising".
  • "between Jews and Slovaks" but the Jews were Slovaks too, in many cases, were they not? you've used "non-Jewish SLovaks" in the lead
    • Done
  • The distinction between "background" and "leadup" isn't very clear to me at the moment; certainly there's material about broad post-war phenomena in both sections.
    • I separated them because the leadup is the events that RS say led directly to this particular outbreak of violence, rather than the causes of Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia more generally.
      • Hmm...In that case I'd suggest retitling it "proximate causes" or some such, but that's a suggestion only.
  • The second paragraph of "lead up" may benefit from a slight chronological reorganization.
    • I found it more helpful to separate incitement from physical attacks.
  • "soldiers, officers, and civilians" soldiers of the Czechoslovak army? If so, might be worth specifying.
    • Presumably but the source doesn't say so explicitly, so want to avoid OR.
  • There's many uses of "reportedly" in the article; and it's often not clear whether you mean media reports, or intelligence reports, or whether the sources themselves don't know. If it's the latter there's not much to be done, but if the former, some clarification may be helpful.
    • Usually these are police reports, which are presumably written from eyewitness testimony and are the main source of info cited in the papers.
  • "Other Jews were beaten or stabbed in the streets" it isn't obvious whether this is still in Nové Zámky
    • Clarified
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 01:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you link restitution, or some more specific term? It's not everyday vocabulary outside academia and law, I don't think.
    • Done
  • "non-Communist Democratic Party" why is this adjective here? I don't see it used there reason to think the Democratic party would be communist?
  • This brings me to another point; I think it is helpful, whenever a political party is introduced, to have a descriptor of their ideology there, too; otherwise they're just names. I'd suggest whatever descriptor is most frequently used by the sources.
    • After 1945 there were only two legal political political parties in Slovakia: the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. So most sources describe the former as a "non-Communist party" since it contained all legal non-Communist politics.
  • "published an article on the events on 11 August" implication that the riots took place on 11 August, which as far as I can tell isn't what you mean
    • Fixed

That wraps it up from me; happy to support, as none of the rest of the comments are deal breakers. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Much appreciated! buidhe 22:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

  • Mlynárik needs a page range. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the review! Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book but used this RS website, which has an excerpt of it. It should be verifiable either to the website or the book as it is a pretty short chapter. buidhe 19:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I checked the link. Ho, hum.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of HelEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA recently, is relatively short but I believe comprehensive, well written and referenced. Please let me know what could be further improved. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CommentSupport by CPA-5Edit

Hey Piotrus, I'm happy to see you nominating this article. Before I'll start I just wanna say the lead needs to summerise the whole article (the "Prelude", the "Aftermath" and the most important information about the battle need to be added in short and not too detailed) - see WP:LEAD. This is my responsibility because I didn't realise this was a thing here in Wikipedia before I passed the GAN, my apology. I'll continue after you solved this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I've expanded the lead a bit. Is it sufficient? I don't see anything else right now that doesn't seem like undue detail for the lead, but I am open to suggestions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I believe in 2019 MILHIST decided to scrap the rule of capitalising campaigns even if it is part of the proper noun. Look at these links if you have some time to read [13] and [14]. The article of the September campaign does not capitalise it.
  • If we are not sure what kinda guns we are talking about then I rather not link them to any guns.
  • sixty two machine guns Are these figures meant to be 60 2 or 62? If the is the later one then we need a hyphen between the two figures if not then change the two into a 2?
  • Rear Admiral is overlinked.
  • The second air raid, the same day at 18:00 I think we need an "at" before the second "the".
  • damaging the Polish light minelayer Mewa Add "ORP" before her mention. Same with the rest of the ships.
  • On 3 September 1939, the Polish destroyer Wicher Remove the year and the month and make the day an ordinal and add an article before the date.
  • engagement of the September Campaign --> "engagement of the September campaign"
  • operational in the theater.[12][5]c re-order the refs here.
  • Link German Army.
    • Done.
  • On the night of 12–13 September 1939 --> "On the night of 12/13 September 1939"
    • Done. How about '12 to 13'?
  • Baltic Sea is overlinked.
    • Done.
  • the Hel Peninsula by 2 October 1939 Year is not needed.
    • Done.
  • v After Hel's surrender Typo v?
    • Fixed.
  • D note needs a citation?
    • The first sentence ("It is unclear whether these estimates...") is my editorializing, hopefully, allowed. The problem is that it is unclear if the casualties count the sailors. The issue is just not addressed, nobody presents at able breakdown, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ceasefire orders were issued Per Ngram.
  • I'd better not to move the article to "ceasefire", 'cause, cease-fire is declining in Ngram and ceasefire took the spot. However right now the numbers are almost the same but it's possible that cease-fire has declined more in recent years.

I think that's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • In both the "Prelude" and the "Battle" sections there are figures and metric units who are separate with a hyphen. The hyphen should only be used in a compound adjective. Per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS units who are

abbreviated and should stay like that shouldn't have a hyphen.

  • and outnumbered by about 10 to 1 Maybe change these to ten and one?
  • week of September, the German Army German Army is a MOS:EGG.

@Piotrus: The rest looks pretty good. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: All done, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day CPA-5 this looks GTG, but I wondered if you were happy with the responses and wanted to add your support for completeness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • On my way sir PM. I've made some small edits here. It now looks good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
  • Short and choppy paragraphs throughout—could I persuade you to combine some of them?
  • These sources look really dodgy: [15] and [16] buidhe 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding combining sentences I'll ping User:Nihil novi, who may catch what I didn't, through I think he already did c/e of this article previously. Regarding the Facta Nautica, I'll ping User:Nigel Ish, who wrote about SMS M85 and who may have access to better sources to replace this, if this is indeed deemed unreliable. Regarding the last, I was simply unable to find any more reliable source for the uncontroversial, I think, statement, that some of the former fortifications still survive. It is a tourist website, and I think it can be considered acceptable for such a simple statement. All other sources on this are similar, ex. [17] (article on Internet portal that dabbles in mid-quality journalism), or [18] (ditto on Think they are better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Don't wanna disturb this but I should note the first source was made by Piotr Mierzejewski who has a degree on paleobiology - see this. Why he made this I have no idea this is nothing about his job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced the Facta_Nautica cite with one from Haarr, which has the advantage of already being used in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, Was this an ACR-level source review? And if so, what is your view on the changes? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a formal source review, or I would have marked it as such. buidhe 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

  • The map and the image of the AA gun create a MOS:SANDWICH. Perhaps drop the latter down a little.
  • Consider adding a location map, so a reader can locate Hel within modern Poland. You could cut and paste the one from Hel, Poland.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Good ideas, but 1) I am afraid it will sandwitch something else, I'd appreciate if you or someone else would move it to the best position and 2) I tried copying the code and it didn't work, and I couldn't find an example of a milhist tempalte with such a feature to copy the code. Help, anyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't either. Ah well, it was just a thought. Passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It can be done with any infobox apparently, as with Hel, Poland, but only if both are push pin maps. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It took a while but map has been added :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I have done a little copy editing. Flag up anything you are not happy with.

  • Could we avoid having "battle" twice in the first ten words.
  • "comprised one battery of 4 152-mm (6.0-inch) guns, two older batteries of 2 105-mm (4.1-inch) guns, and three batteries of 8 75-mm (3.0-inch) guns The 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division [pl]'s anti-aircraft batteries were equipped with 6 75-mm and 8 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, 17 machine guns,[2] and two 120-cm (47-inch) searchlights" Could you be consistent with numbers: when giving the numbers of weapons etc, either all should be spelt out - "Two" = or all given in figures - "4".
  • "The Coastal Artillery Division was 162 soldiers strong" Is that true? Or do you mean the detachment of it at Hel?
  • In the second paragraph pf "Battle" you state "with only three light minelayers remaining operational in the theater". In the fourth you list five; they were only reduced to three on 13 September.
  • "About 3,600 Polish soldiers were taken prisoner." Should that be 'soldiers and sailors'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for missing this. As far as I can tell, despite the name 'division', the Coastal Artillery Division was composed only of the elements stationed at Hel, and the source states it had 162 personnel. Godo catch about the three light minelayers; I chanted it to several light units as I think some support units might also have been operational at that time. Other issues should be all fixed. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem.
That all looks good.
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by ZawedEdit

  • Suggest amending the first sentence of the lead: "The Battle of Hel was an engagement of World War II ...fought from 1 September to 2 October 1939
  • The Invasion of Poland is linked twice (as pipe links) in the lead
  • "defended the Area from 1 September to 2 October 1939," : the length of the engagement is already stated in the first sentence of the lead. Suggest replacing this phrasing with the number of days, i.e "...defended the Area for 32 days,..."
  • In the prelude section, write out the smaller numbers, i.e ten or less? E.g. "comprised a single battery of four 152-mm (6.0-inch) guns,..."
  • Prelude: "Coastal Artillery Division [pl]'s"; suggest moving the [pl] to after the possessive, same for 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division
  • Prelude: Given the number of times it appears, perhaps consider introducing an abbreviation for Hel Fortified Area, e.g. HFA
  • Prelude: "...was 162 soldiers strong..." Strong is repeated in the following section of this sentence, suggest rephrasing at least the second mention, e.g. "...the 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division numbered 1,000 soldiers while..."
  • Prelude: "...the numerous German battleships." Is it overstating to refer to "numerous"? Nazi Germany only had a handful of battleships. I wonder if you mean that the coastal batteries posed no real threat to modern well-armoured ships?
  • Battle: Suggest combining the first two sentences and refer to the "opening day of the invasion" so that "first" is only used in respect of the "first air raid". And link invasion to Invasion of Poland.
  • Battle: "...of the September Campaign... The context of the term September Campaign is unclear. Maybe just refer to German invasion?
  • Battle: "A number of air raids targeted the Area;..." I suggest moving cites 6 and 7 to the end of the sentence rather than trying to put them right next to the casualty figures.
  • Battle: The cites in the paragraph discussing Commager can be consolidated, i.e. just one at the end. The same applies to the following paragraph discussing Komorowski's work. As an aside I like the way you contrasted the different accounts.
  • Aftermath: Suggest "3,600 Polish soldiers and sailors..." The battle section mentioned the crew of sunken vessels joining the initial 2,800 strong garrison so I assume the increase in numbers is due to the sailors. The refs in the first paragraph can be consolidated to the end as well.
  • Suggest combining some of the separate paragraphs in the aftermath section. Given their content, 1st and 2nd paras could be combined and also 4th and 5th paras combined as well.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, just checking you've seen my comments? Zawed (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Zawed I missed it, thanks for the ping. Mostly done; I don't know how to fix the code in the Template:Ill to produce the results you want (" moving the [pl] to after the possessive"). Please let me know if anything remains to be addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to be too fussed over the possessive. Happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments from ParsecboyEdit

  • Remove the unnecessary .0 from several of the conversions
  • "six 75-mm and eight 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, 17 machine guns" -> "six 75-mm and eight 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, seventeen machine guns" per the MoS
  • Ditto for "(four 75-mm, and six 37-mm), 62 machine guns"
  • Why do we have an in-depth order of battle for the Polish garrison but not for the German force? This is a serious scope/balance issue
  • "were engaged by two German destroyers" - passive voice
  • "as well as the Polish light minelayer Mewa" - we've already been introduced to what Mewa was and who operated the vessel
  • link gunboat, armored train
  • "targeted the Area" - why is this capitalized?
  • Move the link for capitulation to the first use of the term
  • "After Hel's capitulation...which capitulated after..." - capitulation twice in the same (overly long) sentence is repetitious. Switch one of them and split the sentence
  • Why do we have inconsistent citation styles? Some give page ranges in the footnote, and others use the abominable "[fn]:page number" format
  • Many sources lack complete citations; for example, Boje Polskie 1939–1945 has no author, location of publication, or year. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments! I fixed all that were explicitly mentioned and that I understood (passive voice is a statement of fact...). Except: OOB - there are just no sources on the German one, at least I wasn't able to locate any. Area refers to the Hel Fortified Area, hence the capitalization. Please let me know what issues remain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Active voice is generally preferred - an engagement is a mutual affair, so one could just as easily say the Polish vessels engaged the German ones. As for the area, yes, but just as one would refer to the Vistula River, if one simply says "he crossed the river", even if specifically referring to the Vistula, it would be lowercase. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Roger, fixes made. How does it look now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
Looks good. Most of the refs still need work; almost all of them still need locations, Derdej's book also needs an ISBN, and I noticed that some ISBNs are hyphenated and others aren't - if you're taking this to FAC at some point in the future, you'll want to standardize the formatting. Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I've added ISBN/location to Derdej book. Do you want me to add locations to other books? I think this is a totally useless piece of metadata... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
For the purpose of identifying a source, yes, I agree that it's useless, but it's standard practice to include it in per any of the various citation style guides. Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Food for thought: Publisher locations are no longer included in APA Style references for books and book chapters. I doubt anyone will miss them, even the cited (official?) APA blog is rather clear on that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough - either way, you should standardize one way or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to nitpick you to death (but hopefully it'll prevent someone else from doing it at FAC!) but you've got some US states spelled out and others abbreviated (for example: Boston, MA vs. Annapolis Maryland). Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Might as well. Thanks :) Done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It occurred to me to check the articles on Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien, and the dates I have there don't exactly jive with the ones here - according to Schleswig-Holstein's article, that ship was present for bombardments of Hel and Redłowo between 7 and 13 September and then again from 25 to 27 September. And Schlesien's article has her only joining bombardment operations against Hel from 21 to 27 September. These details are sourced to Jurgen Rohwer's excellent Chronology of the War at Sea and Hildebrand et. al.'s Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, both of whom I'd trust with the minute details of what ships were where and when far more than I'd trust a general history of the war like Commager. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Nice finds, I've expanded the article a bit using the sources. The only problem is the ambiguity (Hel and Redłowo, Hel and Jastarnia) since each account conflates two different locations in a single timeframe. Granted, they are not far from one another if you look at the map (in fact Jastarnia is on Hel Pennisula), but I think Redlowo refers to the Battle of Kępa Oksywska or Battle of Gdynia. Frankly, the locations are so close I kind of wonder what the ships were doing if they were not there, or really, if they weren't shelling all those locations during the same days... -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
They would have had to withdraw to refuel and replenish ammunition, and I imagine while off the coast, they were firing at whatever targets observers called in (I don't know what process the Germans used, but during bombardments in the Pacific, US battleships frequently used spotter aircraft to locate targets, observe the fall of shot, and send corrections to the gunners). But I doubt we're going to find a lot more detail than what we already have. I think we're in pretty good shape now. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

  • can you provide a translation of Boje Polskie 1939–1945. Przewodnik Encyklopedyczny and Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939?
  • can you be consistent with the hyphenation of the isbns?
  • what makes reliable?
  • where you have multiple authors, can you add |last-author-amp=yes to put a & between the last two authors?
  • fn 11 should start with the author name, not "(in Polish)"
  • the other sources seem fine, although I do not know much at all about Polish publishing houses.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

    • @Peacemaker67: All done (there is nothing to translate in Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939, this title is just place names and dates). I've added one more ref to back up NaszBaltyk. NB calls itself an online sea-themed magazine, published since 2012, has an ISSN number, is legally registered in Poland as a magazine, and its editorial team is non-anonymous ([19]), so I think it can be seen as RS for non-REDFLAG claims anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Dęblin–Irena GhettoEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Dęblin–Irena Ghetto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this article meets the A-class criteria and I'm hoping to get some feedback in order to polish it for a future FAC. Dęblin–Irena was an anomaly in the history of the Holocaust in Poland. While 99% of the Jews in surrounding areas were murdered, in Dęblin–Irena the chance of surviving was as high as ten percent. The article explains why. (In short: some were able to make themselves indispensable to the Luftwaffe, which had a key airfield nearby, and this prevented them from being murdered.) Thanks in advance. buidhe 01:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Because I have Polish ancestry it's my duty to review this nomination as soon as possible. Am happy another concentration camp in modern-day Poland is nominated for A- and maybe later FA-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Lead

  • Dęblin–Irena was a Nazi ghetto for Jews in Irena (merged into nearby Dęblin in 1953), a Polish town located in the Lublin District I'm a little bit confused here. First why is this article called "Dęblin–Irena" if the Ghetto was only in Irena? Or is this the most commonly used term in the source?
    • Only one source has "Irena" and several have "Dęblin", while others call it "Dęblin–Irena" so that seemed a reasonable compromise between commonname and historical accuracy.
  • In 1942, two thousand Jews arrived from Slovakia and hundreds more from nearby ghettos that had been liquidated Pipe Slovakia to the First Slovak Republic.
  • The first deportation was on 6 May 1942 and took around 2,500 Jews to Sobibór extermination camp --> "The first deportation was in May 1942 and took around 2,500 Jews to Sobibór extermination camp"
    • Done
  • In October 1942, the ghetto was liquidated; about 2,500 Jews were deported --> "In October that same year, the ghetto was liquidated; about 2,500 Jews were deported"
    • Done
  • retained as inmates of forced-labor camps Link forced-labor camps.
    • I don't see how that article (Labor camp) would be helpful to understanding this subject. In my opinion, "forced-labor camp" is pretty self explanatory.
  • To me, it shouldn't be helpful to understand the subject, this might be a common term but sometimes common terms like this use information which most of the readers don't know. Like an example do you know when the first labour camp was in use? I don't think so, that's why it might be helpful to link it. If you disagree I'm fine with that because this is just my view about labour camps.


  • Dęblin and Irena (Yiddish: מאדזשיץ‎, Modzhitz)[3] are located 68.7 kilometres (42.7 mi) northwest of Lublin in Poland In this sentence you used British kilometres and it's a little bit weird that both towns have only one word in Yiddish?
    • As stated below the two towns were long considered one unit. The majority of sources imply that the Yiddish word covered the entire area although some state that it was just one neighborhood.
    • Fixed British spelling
  • and at an important point on the Lublin–Warsaw rail line Was this an important station or an important rail intersection?
    • Both, but the junction was more important, I think
  • The two municipalities, having long been considered one unit, were officially merged in 1953. Weird spot to have this sentence in the background, I'd put them in the aftermath except you have a good reason?
    • I think it helps explain the confusion between Dęblin and Irena in many of the sources. Moved to footnote.
  • Local Jews supported the January Uprising of 1863 --> "Local Jews supported the January Uprising in 1863"
    • Done
  • Modzitz Rebbe Yisrael Taub settled in the town in 1889.[6][5] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • later participated in the development of the town as a summer resort.[7][3] Same as above.
    • Done
  • In 1927, the civilian population of Dęblin and Irena was 4,860, including 3,060 Jews You mean populations?
    • I think both of these are technically correct. The first usage seems to be more common.
  • Since 1927, Dęblin housed the Polish Air Force Academy --> "Dęblin also housed the Polish Air Force Academy in that same year"
    • I think that your suggestion would be confusing. The Polish Air Force Academy was founded in 1927.
  • the airfield was one of the largest in Poland. --> "its airfield was one of the largest in Poland."
    • Done
  • During the German invasion of Poland, the Luftwaffe bombed Dęblin between 2 and 7 September Add the year here?
    • Done
  • Link Polish Army
    • Done
  • on 11 September the remaining Polish forces detonated the ammunition and withdrew[10] The Wehrmacht arrived on 12 or 20 September --> "on 11 September the remaining Polish forces detonated their ammunition and withdrew,[10] while on the 12th or the 20th the Germans arrived in the region" and pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • I don't think that's an improvement. "Germans" is less specific than "Wehrmacht" and the suggested sentence structure reads awkwardly to me.
  • community was forced to pay a fine of 20,000 złoty.[4][11][3] Re-order the refs.
    • Done
  • The Judenrat ("Jewish Council") was formed at the end of 1939[4][3] Same as above and change "1939" to "the year".
    • Done
  • later than other Judenräte in the region I assume "Judenräte" is the plural form of "Judenrat"?
    • Yes
  • conscripted for forced labor in Janiszów, Bełżec, and Pawłowice Link these places.
    • Done
  • The first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman, and the secretary were expelled in 1941 You mean chairman?
    • Yes, the words are synonymous
  • and then a Konin native named Drayfish in September 1941 Remove the year here.
    • Not done—although the last reference is to 1941, I think this could lead to confusion.

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Staromiejska Street was removed from the ghetto in September 1942; its residents moved to Bankowa Why was it removed?
    • None of the sources say
  • so many of the Jews were able to survive by trading material goods for food With the Poles?
    • Yes, clarified this
  • A Polish-language secular school, run by Aida Milgroijm-Citronbojm, instructed 70 to 100 pupils When?
    • I would guess that this occurred throughout the existence of the ghetto, but this is not made explicit.
  • In late 1941, Poles were banned from entering the ghetto Wait a second in the above paragraph you told that Poles were allowed to enter and live in the ghetto why does this sentence do not support this, this doesn't make sense? Also we should go chronically because here we have a sentence about late 1941 but this sentence "Staromiejska Street was removed from the ghetto in September 1942;" tells us it's not chronically?
    • I'm not being completely chronological here, but a mix of chronological and topical. If I moved the second part about the boundaries changing, I feel that would be more confusing because readers would have to check back to find out what Staromiejska Street was. The first paragraph deals with the original situation/overview; the second discusses changes that happened in late 1941/early 1942.
  • at a thirty-bed hospital run by Dr. Isaar Kawa from Konin; See MOS:DOCTOR and what kinda doctor?
    • Fixed MOS. Source doesn't say.
  • some Jews fled to towns there including Dęblin–Irena;[19] twenty Jews were shot for being unregistered refugees When?
    • Source doesn't say explicitly but it is in the section dealing with late 1941/early 1942.
  • The Judenrat's command altered again as Drayfish was executed, accused of filing complaints with the Puławy County administration Name is needed here.
    • I'm not sure whose name you're looking for? Source says "In April 1942, Drayfish, among a group of local Jews sent to a penal camp in Kazimierz Dolny reportedly for registering complaints with the Pulawy Kreishauptmann’s office, was shot. Timber merchant Yisrael Weinberg replaced him."
  • These consisted mainly of Jews expelled from Puławy Ghetto and the Warthegau region Where was the Puławy Ghetto?
  • On 13 and 14 May 1942, two transports of 2,042 Slovak Jews arrived from Prešov.[20][18] Link Slovak Jews and re-oder the refs.
    • Done
  • These included 300 people from Ryki, 300 from Gniewoszów and Zwoleń, and a group from Stężyca A group of how many?
    • Not known.
  • In August 1942, 5,800 Jews were reported to be living in the ghetto, of whom only 1,800 were from Dęblin Remove the year here the last time mentioned date also used 1942 so I think it's clear to the readers.
    • Done

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

    • Thank you! buidhe 03:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • There's WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks for your comments and I hope your real life issues resolve in your favor. buidhe 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Forced labor

  • Until late 1942, Jews earned wages as forced laborers I assume they got low wages paid?
    • That's the implication, although it's not stated explicitly.
  • Many were conscripted to work for German companies such as Schwartz and Hochtief They were specialised in?
    • Reworded this part
  • Schultz was under contract for construction on the Ostbahn.[24][13] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • The municipality conscripted other Jews for tasks such as street cleaning or snow clearing; these workers were not paid I would move this sentence to the first one and add "with exceptions to tasks such as street cleaning and snow clearing; these workers were not paid" These workers weren't paid even before late 1942; I think this needs clarification.
    • Reworded
  • The Jews from Dęblin–Irena tried to take the best jobs, so 200 of the Slovak --> "The Jews from Dęblin–Irena tried to take the best jobs; 200 of the Slovak"
    • Done
  • so 200 of the Slovak deportees ended up working for the municipality. Another 200 of the Slovaks worked for the Schultz firm following an expansion Do we know who they were? Communists, Jews, Poles or others?
    • The only Slovaks mentioned in this article are the Slovak Jews who were deported from Presov in May, which is discussed in the paragraph immediately preceding this section. Do you think this would benefit from additional clarification here?
  • Survivors recalled that although German soldiers supervising the forced laborers tended to treat them relatively well, some Polish supervisors beat Jews, and the Ukrainian guards at the railway camp were especially harsh This doesn't look neutral in my view; in the last few years Isreal and Poland had a controversial topic about the Holocaust. Especially when Israelians call those camps Polish after the Polish Government passed a law which would criminalise the use of the expressions "Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" or Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even if it was written by a professor I think (and I try to be neutral here) a second independent source who supports Farkash's claims is needed. And probably because this is a controversial topic without a second independent source it'd probably be removed by someone who thinks this claim is "bull shit".
    • All this says is that the postwar testimony of survivors stated something, which could be verified by looking at the individual testimonies that Farkash cites. Furthermore, the German soldiers were in this case Wehrmacht troops, and there's evidence that Wehrmacht soldiers did not mistreat Jewish forced laborers as much as the SS. This sentence has already been discussed on the talk page and was kept in.
  • Jews had to work twelve hours a day, but were treated relatively well by the Luftwaffe personnel This is the second time that let's say Germans treated the Jews relatively well; maybe add the "Luftwaffe" to "although German soldiers supervising the forced laborers tended to treat them relatively well".
    • Removed as redundant.
  • Link typhus epidemic (it has a separate article then typhus itself).
  • Epidemic typhus not.
  • "Epidemic typhus" refers to a specific type of typhus, rather than typhus epidemics.

More is coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I look forward to it! Thanks again. buidhe 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

First deportation (6 May 1942)

  • The first deportation was on 6 May 1942,[30][18] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • Slovak deportees who arrived a week later.[31][18][32] Same as above.
    • Done
  • Jews to assemble in the main square at 09:00 hours Hours isn't needed.
    • Removed
  • Most of the Jews from neighboring communities Does this sentence miss something?
    • Removed, as it is discussed in the next paragraph
  • and 2,300 to 2,500 from Dęblin—mainly the elderly --> "and 2,300–2,500 from Dęblin—mainly the elderly"
    • Not done.
  • fter the deportation, the bodies of the dead were collected at the synagogue and removed from the ghetto in carts To where?
    • Source doesn't say.
  • deportations in the Lublin district --> "deportations in the Lublin District" Proper noun?
    • Capitalized

That's it for now; more coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Second deportation (15 October 1942)

  • I'm not sure why the dates are needed in both the First and Second deportation?
    • I thought that the dates were helpful, but since you disagree I've removed them.
  • Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman; gendarmes Did Nazi Germany had a gendarme?
    • I wasn't sure exactly what force Crago was referring to, so I followed the source.
  • Many Jews tried to enter the Luftwaffe camp I'm a little bit confused why they did that?
    • Clarified
  • Talia Farkash estimates that about 500, including 60–90 young children A little introduction of hers is helpful?
    • Moved descriptor to first mention
  • were shot while clearing the houses.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • about 100 total --> "about 100 in total"
    • Done
  • retained to clean up the ghetto.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • Perhaps another 100 Jews were hiding illegally in the ghetto
    • I'm not sure what change you're suggesting here?
  • Oops, I forgot to add the question here. How can Jews illegally hide in their own ghetto? Didn't they want to work? And if they hide weren't the Germans not hunting them?
  • The Germans ordered all the Jews to report and be deported; these are those who refused without permission. Changed "illegaly" to "without permission" to make this more clear. The Germans were probably looking for them.[original research?]
  • Dęblin Fortress and 200–500 of the Luftwaffe's workers.[18][10] --> "Dęblin Fortress and 200–500 of the Luftwaffe's workers.[18][10]" Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • Estimates of the number at the Luftwaffe camp range frmo 1,000 (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) A from typo here.
    • Fixed
  • rest were deported in late 1943.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • hundreds of Jews were still alive, they were murdered during Operation Harvest Festival Because this was part of an operation I'd change "murdered" to "killed".
    • The operation was exclusively to murder Jews.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Camp leader

  • The camp leader (German: Lagerälteste) at the Luftwaffe Unlink German because it's too common.
    • Done
  • Is there a better picture than this "File:UT_2_w_Szkole_Orlat_w_Deblinie.jpg"? It doesn't really make sense to add an image about the Polish Air Force in the town in 1947 if we are talking about the camp leader and the conditions.
    • That was the closest in time photograph that I could find of the airfield, which I think is good to show a picture of. You can see other photographs of the airfield in Commons:Category:Lotnicza Akademia Wojskowa, although many of them are under dubious licensing. There are no free German photographs that I'm aware of.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


  • good compared to other camps.[48][42] Re-order the refs.
  • were allowed to practice their religion.[49][29] Same as above.
  • The children received education in Polish, but had to hide when the SS conducted inspections This is so confusing; they received education by whom?
    • Clarify
  • with the camp command was partially responsible for the good conditions What was the other responsible part?
    • Farkash is vague on this point, and I think it would be misreprenting her to say that it was entirely responsible, but she doesn't explicitly mention any other factors.
  • What's a Volkesdeutscher?
  • friction between the two communities.[55][27] Re-order the refs.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


  • it was illegal for them to settle in town --> "it was illegal for them to settle in the town"
    • Done
  • prisoner of the ghetto,[18][10] Re-order the refs here.

Second review

  • It looks like that the lead doesn't summarise the background, Ghetto, Forced labor and the Aftermath section which it should by MOS:LEAD.
    • Done
  • pay a fine of 20,000 złoty.[5][4][12] Re-order the refs here and do we know how much that is in the major currencies (US dollar, Euro or British pounds) today?
    • It's very difficult to say given the unsettled situation of the Polish currency just after the German invasion, before a fixed exchange rate (with reichsmarks) was established.
  • consisting of local Volksdeutsche and Ukrainian auxiliaries Can you add here a note what Volksdeutsche means?
    • done
  • the Dęblin train station (some 2.5 kilometers (1.6 mi) away) Per MOS:UNITNAMES; this is the second time we mention here km fully written.
    • done
  • received kosher food for the week of Passover.[52][44] Re-order the refs here.
  • Link Sergeant Major.
    • done

That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Thanks so much for your review; I have made the requested changes.
  • I'd like to support this article but I first want to see if PM's comments could be addressed and become a support. Originally their comments were also my comments but I dropped them because he already comment it and I'm not gonna comment something which is already mentioned by another review. But he got a point and I believe their comments should be first addressed before I could give you my support. Anything else looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    CPA-5, As I stated below, I don't think the ghetto and labor camp are independently notable from each other, or that a split would improve the article. I'm happy to retitle to something like The Holocaust in Dęblin–Irena or History of the Jews in Dęblin–Irena (1939–1945) but both these titles are basically WP:OR as sources don't use them. buidhe 23:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PiotrusEdit

I have reviewed this before GA, and the article is still solid. There was some sock activity in early January but I think the sock has been weeded out in a wide range proxy range ban, so the article is stable. I am still mildly concerned whether the aftermath section isn't overly detailed, and would welcome further comments on this. Still, I cannot figure out which article any of the information from it would belong instead, and it would be a shame to lose referenced content. So right now I don't have any changes to suggest, nor errors to point out. Good job :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose by PMEdit

Great work on this so far, but I am having trouble with what the scope of the article is. I have a few comments:

  • the Background section goes into things that happened after the ghetto was established (in the last para). I suggest moving this down into the Ghetto section and integrating it with the material in that section
    • Not done—since sources disagree over which of the Judenrat were in charge at one time, splitting this material up would increase confusion.
  • Sonderdienst means "special service" (dienst meaning service) not "special forces" (Spezialeinheiten) which has a totally different connotation relating to elite troops.
    • Fixed
  • suggest "local Volksdeutsche who were later supplemented by Ukrainian auxiliaries recruited after the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941."
    • Source doesn't say so, so it would be original research
  • "More Jews arrived in May 1941: 1,000 from the ghettos at Warsaw, Częstochowa, and Opole, although they were not housed in the ghetto but at work sites in the area" really isn't about this ghetto
  • "On 13 and 14 May 1942, two transports totalling 2,042 Slovak Jews"
    • Done
  • link Hochtief
    • Done
  • The Forced labor section is all over the place chronologically, and also strays from sticking to information about the ghetto and its occupants, and seems to refer to other forced labor camps and projects in the district for which the link to the ghetto isn't clear
    • All the camps were located in the town of Deblin/Irena.
  • this also applies in the Deportation, murder, and liquidation section, where there are details of deportations from places other than this ghetto
    • I do think it's relevant to mention deportations that passed through the town in a substantial way and would have been noticed by the local Jews, and to contexualize the deportation of Irena's Jews as part of a systematic operation.
  • was the Luftwaffe camp part of the ghetto? The ghetto has been defined in geographical terms earlier, and doesn't appear to include the Luftwaffe camp
  • I'm reluctantly putting this review on hold as an oppose, because I don't think it sticks to the existing scope of the ghetto, and ranges across Holocaust-related activities throughout the district or region, including Jews who were apparently never held in the ghetto and forced laborers who didn't live in the ghetto. I suggest it be trimmed down to focus much more closely on ghetto-related material only, or properly expanded to cover all Holocaust-related activities in the district or region, with appropriate retitling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I considered a split, but I'm not sure that either the ghetto or the Luftwaffe forced-labor camp are independently notable, since there is only one source which goes into detail on the ghetto and two for the forced labor camp. Such a split would also require duplicating a lot of material. I am happy to retitle but I don't think a title such as "The Holocaust in Dęblin–Irena" would be suitable since it does not occur in any of the sources and I've never seen such a descriptor applied to towns (only countries and regions). buidhe 22:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How's the review going PM? A couple of weeks have been passed without any replies here? This just reminds me I should continue mine too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Invasion of KageraEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Invasion of Kagera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In 1978 under extremely confused and unclear circumstances, Uganda's armed forces attacked Kagera, a small region in northern Tanzania and occupied it, killing civilians and looting property. Unamused by this hostility, Tanzania launched a counter-attack that saw the Ugandans withdraw from Kagera. This marked the opening chapter of the Uganda–Tanzania War which ultimately saw the overthrow of Ugandan President Idi Amin, and this battle was the only part of the war that took place on Tanzanian soil. This article has passed a GA review and I think it is ready for A-class review, with an eye on one day making it an FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review — passEdit

Sources all look reliable and correctly formatted. I'm not turning up any new information with simple search methods. No source checks done because of nominator's history. buidhe 11:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: Sorry, these are a bit scatterbrained. I've not been feeling well. Anyway, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • citation 96: "John Darnton" --> "Darnton, John"
    • Done.
  • in the References, Borders, boundaries, peoples, and states : a comparative analysis of post-independence Tanzania-Uganda border regions: remove the space before the colon
    • Done.
  • same as above for the the title of the Legum source
    • Done.
  • According to this account, Kiiza was promoted to captain and commander of the MiG-21 squadron after returning to Entebbe.[87] This cannot be the case, however, as Kiiza was already lieutenant colonel and head of the MiG-21 squadron since before the Uganda–Tanzania War: suggest attributing the contrary opinion here
    • Both sides attributed.
  • "guerillas" --> "guerrillas" if using British English variation?
    • Done.
  • that the Kagera Salient—a 1865 square kilometre (720 square mile) stretch of land between the official border and the Kagera River 29 kilometres (18 miles) to the south, should: suggest adding an emdash where the comma is after the word "south"
    • Done.
  • "neighboring" --> "neighbouring" ?
    • Done.
  • Only one Tanzanian company: suggest linking company here
    • Done.
  • a fight between an Ugandan woman --> "a fight between a Ugandan woman"?
    • I mean, a vowel is a vowel? I Googled this and found no definitive answer for what the grammar rule is.
      • G'day, my understanding is that it relates to the beginning sound, not so much the letter. In this case it seems to make a consonant sound "yoo" rather than "oo", so it would be "a Ugandan": [20] AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @AustralianRupert: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • but concurred that the incident occurred --> "but agreed that the incident occurred"? (suggestion to vary the language here)
    • done.
  • several different variations of this account, which was mostly --> "several different variations of this account, which were mostly"?
    • Done.
  • messaged Singano via radio --> "contacted" rather than messaged?
    • Done
  • had advanced 15 kilometres (9.32057 miles) into Uganda: this level of precision in the conversion seems unnecessary (9.3 km is probably enough to enable readers to conceptualise the distance here)
    • Truncated.
  • However, the explosions' reverberations: the apostrophe doesn't seem necessary here
    • It seems grammatically correct, as the reverberations did "belong" to the explosions.
      • Actually, looking at this again, I think you are correct; apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • agents got in a shootout in Kampala --> "agents took part in a shootout in Kampala"?
    • Changed to "engaged in a shootout"
  • observation posts reported Ugandan manoeuvers --> "manoeuvres" if you are using British English variation
    • Done.
  • link platoon
    • Done.
  • The Tanzanians used a Bailey bridge (example pictured) to cross the Kagera River and launch their counter-attack: suggest (example from World War II pictured)" to make it clear that the image doesn't relate to the war that is the subject of the article
    • Clarified as "example in British service".
  • concluded successfully in 2001: do we know the result of this -- did the border remain the same, or was it moved?
    • It appears that the border was restored to whatever the two parties agreed to be its original condition, but the source does not comment on the details of the arrangement.
  • "labor" -->"labour" if using British English
    • Done.
  • "defenses" --> "defences" (as above)
    • Done.

@AustralianRupert: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added my support now. regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I did a cheeky c/e of the lead (feel free to revert if I've changed meaning), and have some additional comments:

  • suggest linking counter-attack, although perhaps offensive would be a better word here and elsewhere, as a counter-attack is usually temporally adjacent to the attack, and there was quite a gap between the invasion and the offensive to retake the salient
    • Done.
  • suggest The situation remained bleak→Tensions remained high
    • Done.
  • suggest dissension→dissent
    • Done.
  • suggest "incursions into the Kagera region"
    • Done.
  • suggest "The armyUgandans attacked again"
    • Done.
  • "after being assured by his commanders" of what?
    • Changed to after being assured by his commanders of his country's military capability to react.
  • link mobilisation
    • Done.
  • link battalion
    • Done.
  • suggest "Uganda Army officers concentrated on looting and ignored intelligence reports of Tanzanian plans"
    • Done.
  • "a claim which was bitterly contested by Tanzania" what were they contesting? That Uganda was withdrawing, or that it was Amin's decision alone and not the result of TPDF actions?
    • A bit of both, I believe.
  • link Pontoon bridge
    • Done.
  • suggest "beyond expelling the Ugandans from Tanzanian territory"
    • Done.
  • "heNyerere ordered the TPDF to attack Uganda,..."
    • Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest linking Kagera (region) at first mention in the body
    • Done.
  • suggest use of convert templates for distances and areas, or at least put a comma in 1865→1,865 the convert template does it automatically. I already did it in the lead, just copy/paste.
    • Done.
  • suggest should be placed under its jurisdiction→should be ceded to Uganda (as per my change to the lead)
    • Done.
  • "Amin violently purged members of southern ethnic groups"
    • Done.
  • suggest Obote's partisans→Obote's irregular troops
    • Done.
  • suggest linking Brigadier
    • Done.

Down to Prelude. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest "and favoritism oftowards Nubian troops"
    • done.
  • suggest "the curtailing of the powers of the State Research Bureau, Amin's secret police"
    • Done.
  • who is Lumago?
    • He was the sacked army chief of staff. Clarified.
  • suggest "According to the refugees, Amin had invaded..."
    • Done.
  • suggest "Several Uganda Army soldiers, including Colonel Abdu Kisuule, blamed Lieutenant Colonel Juma Butabika for starting the war. Kisuule accused Butabika of engineering an incident at the border to create a pretext for invading Tanzania"
  • suggest "Among the incidents identified as possible start points for the war"
    • Done.
  • is there a rank for Rwehururu?
    • Sources disagree on the rank he held at the time; some say major, others say colonel. He was in charge of the Suicide Battalion/Regiment, and most other Ugandan commanders who had responsibility over units of parity were lieutenant colonels. Ultimately I thought it best to leave it unspecified here.
  • from the military:.
    • Done.
  • suggest "According to this version of events, the invasion was intended as a suicide mission"
    • Done.
  • "upon reentering to Uganda"
    • Done.
  • suggest "and mutinied with some of his some troops, attacking the Sudanese members of the Simba Battalion" unless the entire Simba Battalion was Sudanese
    • Done.
  • suggest "whereupon they invaded Tanzania"→"resulting in the invasion of Tanzania"
    • Done.
  • suggest "the bombings caused little damage, but the explosions shattered windows and caused panic"
    • Done.
  • suggest virulently→severely
    • Done.

Down to Invasion. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "opposite of Mutukula"
    • Done
  • "Over 2,000 Ugandan soldiers"
    • Done.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Juma Butabika, and Colonel Abdu Kisuule" as these gents and their ranks have already been introduced
    • Done.
  • 122 mm mortars? I'm not aware of any country that has produced 122 mm mortars, 120 mm being the standard heavy mortar calibre for both the Eastern Bloc and NATO. It seems much more likely that this was a 122 mm howitzer and 120 mm mortars. Could you re-check the source?
    • Avirgan & Honey do indeed state 122mm mortars, and like you I'm also finding that 122mm seems to be limited to howitzers. It is possible they are incorrect; they've misidentified pieces of military equipment in their narratively solid work before, and cross referencing with Cooper et. al. (who are more familiar with such equipment) I've been able to fix it. However, Cooper et. al. does not say anything here.
      • OK, in that case, the best approach is to change them to 120 mm mortars and 122 mm howitzers, and add a note that Avirgan & Honey say the opposite. A search of Google Books for Tanzanian artillery and mortar calibres reinforces that they are clearly wrong, see [21] and [22]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest using convert templates for all distances, calibres etc
    • I'll try to do this the best I can, I'm not very familiar with the convert templates.
    • These two still need addressing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Down to Second attack. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  • for minefields link Land mine
    • Done.
  • "were killed after stepping on explosivesmines"
    • Done.
  • "Marajani had his troops advance with caution" but wasn't Gowon in charge?
    • Err, it's not entirely clear, since the info comes from two different reputable sources which don't mention the other commander. I've altered it to read the Ugandan troops advanced with caution to avoid the conflict.
  • "Marajani ordered the Uganda Army" surely as a LTCOL he didn't have this authority? Gowon?
    • Not as you would think. The army was so corrupt and mismanaged that essentially whichever soldier could garner enough influence among his subordinates or the favor of Amin could command whatever force. Read more here: Uganda Army (1971–1980).
  • is "house-servants" a euphemism for something? slavery?
    • Clarified that this wasn't necessarily the women. House servants is just the term the source used, probably only domestic labor, against their will of course.
  • "concubines" seems to be used inappropriately here as a euphemism for sex slavery
    • Perhaps, but it is the word the source uses.
  • suggest "In total, $108 million worth of economic assets was lost"
    • Done.
  • "were met with heavy Tanzanian anti-aircraft fire" but hadn't the TPDF pulled back to Katolo?
    • They did, but Colonel Singano's unit returned and established a position atop the high ground near the south end of the Kyaka bridge.
  • suggest "after an entire day had passed"
    • Done.
  • suggest "Though they deprecateddenounced Uganda's actions"
    • Done.

Down to Tanzanian counter-attack. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest "Nyerere ordered Tanzania to undertake full mobilisation for war"
    • Done.
  • which brigade were the Tabora troops from?
    • Probably the 202nd Brigade, which was headquartered there, but Avirgan & Honey do not explicitly say this.
    • NM, it was indeed this brigade. Cooper et al specifies. Added.
  • to martial→to marshal, martial is only ever an adjective, never a verb
    • Done.
  • President Machel, as he has already been introduced
    • Done.
  • suggest "As active members of the Frontline States, both were"
    • Done.
  • suggest "to efforts toaimed at ending"
    • Done.
  • so, the Tanzanian battalion was on Mozambican territory?
    • Yes; this was part of the Frontline States' efforts to guard against Rhodesia and support anti-apartheid guerrillas during the Rhodesian Bush War.
  • did the Mozambican battalion come under the command of the Southern Brigade?
    • It seems very little is known about the Mozambican battalion that came to Kagera other than it was stationed in the area alongside the Tanzanian troops. It probably operated under Tanzanian direction but this is not confirmed by any reliable source.
  • "Gowon in particular was later blamed"
    • Done.
  • suggest "Largely ignorant of military strategy and tactics"
    • Done.
  • "destroying the Kyaka Bridge"
    • Done.
  • perhaps use a different word for the second (or first) use of pledge

Down to Operation Chakaza. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • which brigades were represented in the counter-offensive force?
    • Avirgan & Honey do not explicitly specify. The brigade led by Luhanga was likely the Southern Brigade, Mayunga's was probably the 206th, and Marwa's was probably whatever became the 208th. The TPDF's reorganisation during this time and right after, before the invasion of Uganda, led to some name changes, which makes identifying brigades more complicated.
  • "of the troops, whichand initiated"
    • Done.
  • "Tanzanian patrols began exploring the area"
    • Done.

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  • drop link to Mutukula as it has already been linked
    • Done.
  • suggest "in the displaced persons camps" and link Refugee camp
    • Done.
  • suggest changing counter-attack to counter-offensive throughout when referring to Operation Chazaka
    • Done.

That's me done, finally. Mostly prose stuff, but a few other queries/suggestions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Indy beetle Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been making gradual progress on this; the coronavirus pandemic has sorta upended everything in real life. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You're done PM? If so then I can start tomorrow with mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Indy beetle, just a reminder that these three from Peacekeeper still need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Also Kagera (region) is duplinked in the Initial actions section, and Mbarara in the Second attack section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • I do have some comments here but I'll wait until PM has done his review maybe he will mention my comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what the end date was in the infobox?
    • No, the end date for this conflict is somewhat vague. Most of the fighting was over in November and most Ugandan troops apparently withdrew, but the TPDF didn't reestablish full control of the region until early January.
  • the official border and the Kagera River 29 kilometres (18 miles) to the south Per MOS:UNITNAMES long units should be fully once mentioned and then need to be abbreviated.
    • Done.
  • beneficiaries of his actions were Muslim northerners Is there a specific name for these kinda people?
    • Sometimes these people are given the catch-all label of "Nubian", but this is not technically accurate. I think the following statement about most of these people being Nubian or Sudanese satisfies comprehensiveness.
  • Amin and soldiers loyal to the Vice President of Uganda No hyphen in Vice President?
    • I've seen it styled both ways; I have no real preference though.
  • who held significant power in the government Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS government should be capitalised. Also by this, this, this and this it looks like this more a British English thing even though found some sources from Canada and Australia.
    • That appears to be an incorect reading of MOS, it actually says not to capitalise in the example you've listed above, because its a generic reference to "the government", not "the Ugandan Government" or "Government of Uganda".
  • were moving within 4.8 kilometres (three miles) of Ugandan border towns --> "were moving within 4.8 km (3 mi) of Ugandan border towns"
    • Done.
  • In July, Radio Uganda erroneously declared No link for Radio Uganda?
    • Done.
  • revolted at Bondo, while other uprisings took place in Tororo, Masaka, Mbarara, Mutukula, and Kampala Looks like something major is there a link for this revolt?
    • No. It's important to remember that this is all "allegedly" - the mutinies are essentially a rumour-turned-theory for how the war broke out, and there's little detail on how these apparently progressed other than supposedly leading to desertion and an invasion of Kagera. Unrest in the Uganda Army was also rather common by this point, and though while particularly revolts (with much more consensus on their historical occurrence) do stand out, the best quality sources don't offer much on these other than their purported role in igniting the war. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the war are not clear Isn't it "were" because the war is over?
    • Er, depends how you read it. I meant to convey that even as of today nobody really knows what happened.
  • Refugees claimed that several dissatisified Ugandan officers allegedly met at Kabamba on 27 October and drafted a 12‐point petition to Amin, demanding the end of corruption, factionalism, and favouritism towards Nubian troops; the curtailing of powers of the State Research Bureau, Amin's secret police; the reinstatement of Adrisi and former army chief of staff Isaac Lumago; the enforcement of religious tolerance; and an end of the alliance with Arab powers. This is a long sentence; maybe split it?
  • decision until later and went along with it to save face What's a save face?
    • Forgive me for use of the idiomatic phrase. To "save face" means doing something to keep your reputation intact and avoid others losing respect for you. I generally try to avoid using such colloquialisms on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find another satisfactory and succinct way of putting what Amin was supposedly trying to do. If you have a better idea I'm all ears.
  • troops would be killed upon reentering Uganda Reentering should be re-entering by Ngram.
    • Done.
  • Kagera salient vs Kagera Salient
    • Capitalised.
  • Tanzania had tense relations with Zaire, Kenya, and Malawi Not a lot of people know where Zaire was; maybe add a note here where it explained that it was the former name of the DRC?
    • Well, it is wikilinked, so people can click on it to see where it was. Plus some people still refer to the DRC as Congo-Zaire to distinguish it from the smaller Congo, so I don't think any extra explanation is necessary.
  • so Singano requested that his 120 mm mortars Add a convert template here and remove the second time mentioned 120 mm's template.
  • Tanzanian troops had advanced 15 kilometres (9.3 miles) into Uganda --> "Tanzanian troops had advanced 15 km (9.3 mi) into Uganda"
    • Done.
  • at his headquarters in Kyaka, 32 kilometres (20 mi) --> "at his headquarters in Kyaka, 32 km (20 mi)"
    • Done.
  • the unit set up its artillery 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) --> "the unit set up its artillery 10 km (6.2 mi)"
    • Done.
  • they successfully shot down a MiG Shouldn't it be an "an"?
    • I'm not sure how "MiG" is pronounced. M is consonant, though.
      • Sorry, but I disagree with the advice here; "an MiG" is not grammatically correct, IMO. The word "an" usually proceeds a vowel sound. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's not grammatically correct in English but in my native tongue you'd give an "em" sound instead of just a "m". I probably got confused by it, even though English grammar rules do not make that big of a difference of my native language. But I were 100% sure you'd say the M as an "em" but whatever. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I see a lot of "kilometres"; by MOS:UNITNAMES we should write only long units once and from then on use symbols.
    • That's due to the convert templates, which render kilometres in full. I'll have to "hardcode" in the lengths and conversion manually.
  • while others were employed at the Kinyala Sugar Works Was this a company?
    • Based on my research it was a joint private/state-owned enterprise. I think the source was referring to a specific facility, though.
  • the charges at dawn, destroying the 75 metre (246 ft) centre section Compound adjective here.
  • In British English specific national governments should be capitalised by these sources: The Telegraph, Civil Servant, Univerity of Sussex, Oxford and I also found out that it's also popular in Australia and Canada. MOS:INSTITUTIONS also mentions it.
    • All mentions of national governments e.g. "Tanzanian Government" now capitalised. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

More is coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Tanzanian Government made its first public acknowledgment American acknowledgment.
  • had occupied territory in the northwest portion American northwest.
    • Hyphenated.
  • invasion as Ugandan aggression: Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, Didier Ratsiraka of Madagascar, Agostinho Neto of Angola, Seretse Khama of Botswana, Samora Machel of Mozambique, and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia It maybe become handy if we add their titles at the time at their first mention; which I believe is here?
  • OAU chairman Edem Kodjo privately confided Not sure of "chairman" should be capitalised.
  • displaced persons camps were minimal or nonexistent --> "displaced persons camps were minimal or non-existent" per Ngram.
    • Done.
  • Uganda and Tanzania on reestablishing a complete Per Ngram it should be "re-establishing".
    • Done.
  • land within 100 metres of the border Convert?
    • Done.
  • Unlink Africa in the image "File:LocationUganda&Tanzania.png".
    • Done.
  • Do we know what the casualties were in the infobox and body?
    • The only complete estimate is on Tanzanian civilian deaths, which are put at about 1,500 killed by Ugandan troops. There is no total for Tanzanian soldier casualties, though we know 1 soldier was killed and three wounded when clearing a land mine and an unspecified few died in traffic accidents. There is no info on Ugandan casualties.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Was waiting until Indy has replied to my comments back. I assume I was too busy to keep an eye over here. But it looks good to go in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review – passEdit

Will look at this Векочел (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No problems here Векочел (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Tiberius IIIEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Tiberius III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman and Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the A-Class standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Tiberius III (Greek: Τιβέριος Γʹ, Tiberios III; Latin: Tiberius Augustus) Unlink both languages.
    Link comes from the lang template itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Little is known of Tiberius' early life --> "Little is known of Tiberius's early life"
  •  Done
  • Byzantine emperor from 15 February 698 to 21 August 705 Add AD here.
  •  Done
  • What's a droungarios?
  •  Done
  • Maybe add the date of his death after Latin: Tiberius Augustus)?
    His exact birth and death date aren't really known, so I don't think this would be helpful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We don't know when he was born?
    No. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The "History" section is more about the Second Fitna than him?
    It provides a lot of background for his reign; this is pretty common for articles about less important/short reigned emperors, especially usurpers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios' wrath --> "A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios's wrath"
  •  Done
  • to Constantinople were opened for Tiberius' forces by members --> "to Constantinople were opened for Tiberius's forces by members"
  •  Done
  • Tiberius had Leontios' nose slit --> "Tiberius had Leontios's nose slit"
  •  Done
  • his brother, Heraclius, as monostrategos of the Anatolian themes What's a monostrategos?
  •  Done
  • the support of the Khazar Khagan Busir, who gave Justinian Sea of blue here.
  •  Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by ConstantineEdit

Claiming my place here, will review over the next few days. Constantine 15:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Little is known about the early life of Tiberius' "his early life" might be better as more simple
  •  Done
  • droungarios, a commander of about a thousand men the lede is not a place to explain this; droungarios is already linked, so you can leave it, but perhaps simply substituting with "mid-level commander" or just "commander" would suffice.
  •  Done
  • of Cibyrrhaeot is incorrect; "Cibyrrhaeot" is an adjective. Either "of the Cibyrrhaeots", or "of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme".
  •  Done
  • Umayyads links to the dynasty, replace with Umayyad Caliphate
  •  Done
  • seizing the city, This army uncapitalize This
  •  Done
  • from the Umayyads, but campaigned against the Umayyads along the eastern border with some success. repetition; replace the second "the Umayyads" with "them"
  •  Done
  • Very little is known of Tiberius before the reign of Byzantine Emperor Leontios, except that he was Germanic, a droungarios, a commander of about a thousand men, of Cibyrrhaeot, a region in southern Anatolia, and that his birth name was Apsimar. OK, a lot to unpack here: give regnal dates for Leontios; "of Germanic origin"; put the explanation for droungarios in parentheses, otherwise it looks as if he was a commande rof about a thousand man in addition to being a droungarios; fix Cibyrrhaeot per above; the Cibyrrhaeot Theme was not just a region, but a military province associated with the fleet, which is important in order to explain the context of the expedition to Carthage; and mention that it is because of the name "Apsimar" that we know he was of Germanic origin.
  •  Done
  • Husayn ibn Ali the Alid declared himself caliph in early 680, revolting against the Umayyad caliph Yazid I, but was defeated in October 680 and executed Husayn never declared himself caliph, he was killed in the Battle of Karbala (and not executed). Despite these inaccuracies, what do this and the following sections (up to "... under Constantine IV, providing for a weekly tribute of 1,000 pieces of gold, one horse, and one slave") have to do with Tiberius? We don't need to know all the contenders for the caliphate, nor the chronology and details of Justinian's campaigns, except in so far as they have something to do with the subject of this article. To wit, that there was a civil war in the caliphate, and that Justinian made some gains, but these were reversed after a defeat at Sebastopolis in 692. Everything else should go per WP:SS.
  •  Done
  • A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios's wrath "Emperor" is redundant here
  •  Done
  • regnal name Tiberius III remove the regnal number, this is a modern convention. Also, I would suggest a footnote explaining that and point out that quite often he is found in modern works as "Tiberius/Tiberios II", by not counting Tiberius.
  •  Done
  • which was enduring the bubonic plague "enduring an outbreak of the bubonic plague"
  •  Done
  • the gates to Constantinople "of" Constantinople
  •  Done
  • Anatolia and Syria, seize part of Armenia Link Anatolia, Syria to Bilad al-Sham, Armenia to Arminiya
    Anatolia is linked earlier, have linked the other two as asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While these campaigns were initially successful, the Byzantines were later repulsed and lost control of Armenia The first part is redundant, it is already mentioned that Heraclius scored successes. Where/from where were the Byzantines repulsed? When is "later"? Can you give some details?
    Unable to find a source that gives great details unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • trengthen the Byzantine military by reorganizing its structure, as well as reorganizing the Cibyrrhaeotic Theme some details of this reorganization?
    Added what I could in paragraph. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • and Syrians who had been captured near the Propontis You are mixing things here. The PmbZ says that the Cypriots who had been moved to the Propontis, and those who had been captured by the Arabs and brought to Syria, were allowed to return home.
  •  Done
  • strengthened the garrison of the island with troops from the Taurus Mountains Bury mentions the Mardaites, add this.
  •  Done
  • Tiberius also banished the future emperor Philippikos Bardanes... why?
  •  Done
  • support of the Bulgar king Tervel. relink "Bulgar" to First Bulgarian Empire
  •  Done
  • In 693 Justinian escaped from Cherson... sought the support of the Bulgar king Tervel., In 705 Justinian led an army of Slavs ...months before being captured MooreA is used as a reference for both sections, but I see nothing from that article that might be used to reference them.
  •  Done
  • I strongly recommend ditching Norwich as a source. If you need a narrative history, use Treadgold or some other professional historian. You already have Haldon and Brubaker in the references, use them, it is an excellent source.
  •  Done
  • The 'Power and Subversion in Byzantium: Papers from the 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010' reference is wrong. This is a proceedings publication, you need to reference the paper ('Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium: image and message through coins' and the paper's authors, Vasiliki Penna and Cecile Morrison
  •  Done
  • The coin image in the infobox needs alt text
  •  Done
  • Nothing is mentioned of his son, Theodosius, who became Archbishop of Ephesus
  •  Done

Given all the above, I have to say I am surprised this article made GA, which shows the danger of people not actually familiar with a subject reviewing an article. I am pretty sure that several parts of this have been written by copying from other articles rather than actual research of the sources, which explains the wide eclecticism of the sources. In the process things have become garbled: for example the Cypriot issue above, or the fact that Haldon & Brubaker p. 586 say absolutely nothing about Heraclius and his campaigns.

Poor referencing is also evident at Haldon & Brubaker p. 730, which deals actually with the establishment of the Cibyrrhaeots, and where the only information relevant to the article is that "Apsimar rebelled against Leontios", which is used as a reference for "Tiberius gathered a fleet and allied himself with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions), before sailing for Constantinople, which was enduring the bubonic plague." This is from a brief spotcheck in a work that could and should have been the main source for this article, since it is the best and most comprehensive treatise on this period; the chances are good that if I dig into the other sources, I will find similar slipshod referencing. Constantine 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Cplakidas: The article is largely reliant upon Moore, and I inserted the derivative references within it to the related prose without checking it myself, a massive error on my part. Will work on clearing out the resulting mess. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    Total removal of Norwich and improperly cited materials should be complete, adding in better material/citations now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review - PassEdit

The single image is appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. However, this is a bit thin for such an article. There are relevant maps available, eg File:Central and Eastern Europe around 700 AD.jpg; would it be possible to include one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

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

  • but campaigned against the them
    Not sure what the suggestion is here? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    delete "the" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in full and link, also say he was the caliph, also use in full when talking about him as there are two Abd al-Malik's in this article
  •  Done
  • for "nose slit" link Rhinotomy
  •  Done
  • suggest Abd al-Malik→Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik throughout for clarity given there are two Abd al-Malik's in this article
  •  Done
  • link Cibyrrhaeot Theme
  •  Done
  • link numismatist
  •  Done
  • link abdication
  •  Done
  • is there an ISSN for Sumner, Graham V.?
    Not that I can find. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    you can link Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, it is published by Duke University, and the OCLC is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • is there a web link for Lilie et al?
  •  Done

That's all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)