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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

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

Restrictions

1. 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 is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. 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.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

Demotion

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

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

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

First Jewish–Roman War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Mariamnei (talk)

First Jewish–Roman War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm nominating this article for A-Class review following its recent promotion to GA, with the intention of eventually submitting it for Featured Article status. The topic is of considerable historical importance: it covers a major conflict that shaped both Jewish and Roman history (the first among the three major Jewish–Roman wars), and includes some of the most well-documented and thoroughly researched episodes in ancient military history. Given its significance and clear military focus, I believe it's highly relevant to the scope of this project, and I'd greatly appreciate any detailed feedback to help strengthen it further. Mariamnei (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Great work! Some comments:

• "moderate government" sounds a bit WP:EASTEREGG-y and non-WP:NPOV. Suggest replacing with the link, Judean provisional government.

• Changed to "provisional government" — I figured "Judean" is implied. Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure about referring to Vespasian as "General"

• Switched “General” to “commander”, thought about “future emperor” too, but that felt a bit clunky in context. Please let me know if you disagree! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nero is linked twice in the Lead

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the date of the Bar Kochba Revolt

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "as the province of Judaea." Why is Judea italicized here?

• It was first written using the Latinized spelling, but since the article now consistently uses the anglicized form, I've removed the italics. Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Judaea under the Romans: "High Priest" and "Roman Syria" are doubly linked

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why is Claudius "Emperor Claudius" but Nero and Caligula just "Nero" and "Caligula"?

• Fixed! all are now introduced with their titles on first mention. Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Josephus is mentioned, but not introduced or linked.

• Added a brief introduction and link: "a Jewish commander who became a historian after his capture by the Romans." Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• " modern national liberation movements, citing their struggle to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and the adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples." It is not clear here whether the coins were minted by the Ancient Judeans or the modern national liberation movements

• now reads modern national liberation movements, citing the rebels' struggle to free Judaea, their minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and their adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples, Hope that resolves the ambiguity! Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Outbreak of the rebellion: Agrippa II, Berenice, Perea are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Link cohort

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unlink "Bethoron Pass"

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Do we have an article on what a talent was?

• Yep! Linked! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is a "decisive ambush"?

• Removed 'decisive'. Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Scholars compare this defeat to the Roman defeat against the Germans in the Teutoburg Forest" That sounds like a stretch - part of one legion vs three complete, and the Romans retained control over most of the province.

• Regarding the comparison to Teutoburg Forest: good point. The original version noted the difference in scale: Scholars have compared this Roman failure to the disastrous Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE,[75][79] though the latter was much larger in scale, resulting in three times the losses.[83], but that was trimmed for brevity. Since much of this is already covered in the battle's own article, I've removed the sentence from here. Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Judean provisional government: High Priest, Jericho, Perea, Herod Antipas, Parthian Empire, Tyre, Acrabetene are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vespasian's Galilee campaign: Now he his Emperor Nero

• Since we now introduce him as emperor earlier in the article, removing the title here. Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alexandria and Akko-Ptolemais are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Civil war and coup in Jerusalem: Zealots, Joseph ben Gurion are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "the leaders of Gadara, in Perea, sent a delegation to Vespasian to surrender: Suggest "offering to surrender"

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vespasian's campaign in Judea: Jericho, Thamna, Yavneh, Samaria, Dead Sea

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Vespasian visited the Dead Sea and tested its buoyancy by throwing bound non-swimmers into the water". He had a sense of humour.

• A real pioneer of the scientific method... assuming ethics weren't part of it. 🤷‍♀️ Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've done this myself. They were in no danger, because on the Dead Sea you'll bob like a cork. You can't swim in it really, because you float on top of the water, so usual swimming strokes don't work. You can stand up in the water too. They might have panicked before they realised what was going on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

more to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Vespasian was officially recognized as emperor in the winter of 69/70" By whom? And do we have a more specific date than "winter"? (MOS:SEASON)

• Changing to With Vitellius, the reigning emperor, dead on 20 December 69, the Senate conferred imperial authority on Vespasian the next day. That should clear up both points! Mariamnei (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Siege of Jerusalem: suggest splitting the first paragraph after "John's faction infiltrated the Temple's inner courtyards and subdued the Zealots"

• Split, thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dup links: Antonia Fortress, Caesarea Philippi, Berytus, Herodium, Lod, Yavneh, Tarichaea, Gabara, Sepphoris, Tiberias, Transjordan, High Priesthood, Sanhedrin, Ein Gedi, Pliny the Elder, Domitian, Suetonius, Samaritis. Egypt, Antioch, Cyrenaica, Qumran, Philip S. Alexander, Roman Colony, Roman citizenship, Tacitus, Suetonius, Rabbinic literature

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is a "relative majority"?

• It means the largest group overall (even if they don't make up more than half the population of the country) Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Link Ala (Roman cavalry unit)

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Jews ceased to be a political entity, resembling a nation-state for almost two millennia" I think the placement of the comma here makes this read the opposite of what was intended.

• You're right! I removed the comma Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "This idea appears in New Testament texts, and is echoed in the Gospels" Aren't the Gospels part of the New Testament?

• Did a copy edit to make it clearer, thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Move to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ben Roberts-Smith

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has recently been brought to WP:GA status by myself. Roberts-Smith is one of the most decorated Australian soldiers, who has been awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

I didn't expect to see this article here.

• The fourth paragraph of the lead is overly-detailed; I think it should be cut back to the size of the other three paragraphs. Suggest something like this:

  In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement.

• In the lead, 'Enemies' looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which is not permitted.

• The MOS currently says that the first sentence should not contain post-nominals, but that is currently subject to an RfC (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM) so no action required.
• Unlink Fiji and Iraq. (WP:OVERLINK) Consider instead linking Operation Quickstep and Security Detachment Iraq (Australia) instead, which I think the reader would find more informative.

• "[He] was part of personal security detachments in Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006". Not throughout 2006, only for a (four or five month?) tour of duty. (Note that the article also says that he was in Afghanistan "throughout" 2006) Suggest changing "throughout" to "in" in both cases.

• "Careful consideration is being given to the additional content and context to be included in collection items on display" The use of present tense hits a wrong note here.

• Link The Sydney Morning Herald, Seven Network, Fairfax Media (on first use),

• Corporate career: split paragraph at "In April 2015"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, for the fourth para of the lead I added a couple of sentences to what you suggested:

In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement. An appeal to a Full Court of the Federal Court, comprising three judges, commenced on 5 February 2024; on 16 May 2025, the appeal was unanimously dismissed.

Please let me know if that satisfies your comment regarding it previously being over detailed.

Regarding linking Seven Network, I couldn't find it used in the article. All instances of Seven are in relation to Seven Queensland or Seven Brisbane. Please let me know if I've missed something.

Please let me know if the rest of the edits I performed are what you had in mind or if there are any other areas for improvement. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. I thought they would link to Seven Network. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I've also moved the post nominals from the first sentence to the infobox until such time as there is consensus for change to MOS:POSTNOM. I think I've made all the other changes you suggested. Was there anything else you suggest? TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ben Roberts-Smith-2015.jpg: Wikipedian-created image, File:Ben Roberts-Smith medals December 2011 (cropped).JPG: Wikipedian-created image - okay
• File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture (5).jpg, File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture.jpg - link rotten - consider adding archive link

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, those two files that you've advised the links are rotten (http://old.gg.gov.au/events/98th-australian-victoria-cross-awarded), I've not been able to find an archive of that page using Wayback Machine. There is a page on the gg.gov.au website which deals with the event (https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/governor-generals-program/corporal-ben-roberts-smith-vc-investiture-visit-flood-affected-areas-carnarvon-western-australia) but notably there are no images. A reverse image search on the images shows them being used by heaps of news agencies. I would presume they took the images either from the gg.gov.au website or from us and haven't attributed, but I can't be sure of that. Do you recommend removal of the images? TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Matterhorn

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Operation Matterhorn was a World War II project to bomb Japan into submission from bases in China. It ranks right up there with the most fantastic projects of the war. It arose from a political and military impetus to keep China in the war, and a belief among air power advocates that Japan could be defeated by air power, without the need for action by the ground and naval forces. I came to it from an interest in the logistics involved. After working on the article on Operation Matterhorn logistics, I overhauled this, the main article. It has recently passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

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

• Regarding the first para, my understanding is that the main goal of Matterhorn was to bomb Japan, though attacks on other locations were part of the plan. If this is correct, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to note that Japan was the main objective.

  Y Tweaked the wording to emphasise this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't note the raids on Formosa, which as the map in the infobox shows were repeatedly conducted

  Y Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "a quarter of Japanese divisions" - this wording is a bit unclear

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The B-29's 141-foot (43 m) wing span was considerably wider than the 104-foot (32 m) of the B-17, the next largest aircraft in the inventory, and a fully-laden B-29 weighed about 70 short tons (64 t), nearly twice as much as a B-17." - this seems unnecessary, as the article has already discussed the size and sophistication of the aircraft.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The material on the early raids seems over-detailed in comparison to that on the later raids, even allowing for their greater importance
• "Despite this, the results were impressive" - I'd suggest using different phrasing here, given the text is describing the firebombing of a city. Are figures for the numbers of civilian casualties available? - they must have been significant.

  I don't have a reliable source for civilian casualties. I found this Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The article's coverage of the final raids against Singapore and other locations in South East Asia, such as the Bombing of Kuala Lumpur (1945) seems rather brief in comparison to that of other operations.

  The intention was to put this into another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "End of Matterhorn" section also seems to wrongly state that there were further B-29 raids on Palembang. I think that the only part of the NEI targeted in this period were the islands close to Singapore.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Hyperion (1807)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

HMS Hyperion (1807) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hyperion started her career in 1808 under the command of a captain so poor he attempted to attack a rock and caused passengers to abandon the ship in fear of his abilities. In 1810 the ship participated in a confusing diplomatic incident at Haiti in which several crew members were killed by a gun battery, and two years later she lost a thirty-seven ship convoy she was escorting through Atlantic storms. In 1820 the actions of her captain saw the ship removed from the South America Station to avoid another diplomatic incident, this time with Chile. The ship's varied career ended with a period of anti-piracy duties followed by six years as a base for smuggling patrols. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Just a few comments.

• "In February 1811 an incident at Gonaïves resulted in Haitians killing three members of Hyperion's crew," Comma after "1811"
• "Brodie died of a illness probably caught there." "an illness"
• Convert knots to kph, not mph (MOS:METRIC)
• Convert fathoms to metres
• "Hyperion took on board specie worth $1,500,000 (equivalent to $30,811,957 in 2024)" Suggest rounding to six figures
• Link paid off

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

Please ping me once Hawkeye's review is resolved and I will take a look. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Action at Sihayo's Kraal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Action at Sihayo's Kraal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't have as much time to edit on here as I used to but I've been focusing a bit on improving existing articles rather than creating new. Catlemur kindly reviewed this article on the first engagement of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War for GA back in 2020. I've had a read through and think it could be a candidate for A-class (and possibly onwards to FA), but it's been four years since I brought anything here so please feel free to disabuse me of that notion! Any and all feedback welcomed - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good. Some comments:

• "The action is believed to have led Cetshwayo to attack Chelmsford's force in preference to the two other British columns operating in Zululand." You haven't told the reader who Cetshwayo was.

Done and linked, I also clarified that he ordered the attack and didn't lead it himself - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "1st battalion", "3rd regiment" Capitalise "Battalion" and "Regiment" when in use as a unit title.

Corrected, I think I got them all - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also: you linked "battalion" on the second use instead of the first

Switched - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Great White Queen" Consider linking Queen Victoria

Good idea, done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In the meantime Russell's mounted contingent had also reached the heights." Comma after "meantime"

Added, there was also one in "Action" where I did the same - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The Zulus were driven off by 10.00 am" should be "10:00 am" (MOS:TIME)

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over Hawkeye7, I think I've addressed all your comments - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead mentions 40 Zulu killed, but the aftermath has only an estimated 30, which seems to be the max from the description of the battle as well (12 in the gorge + 10-18 on the heights)

Good spot, the British narrative of the campaign (Rothwell) is more definitive stating "the losses on each side were as follows: Zulu, 30 killed, 4 wounded, 10 prisoners; British forces, 2 natives killed, 1 officer and 1 non-commissioned officer wounded, and 12 natives wounded"; I've amended the numbers in the article to suit and corrected a typo in the page number I had for Rothwell - Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead uses the exact number of 22 British wounded, but the body places more uncertainty on this figure. The infobox has 20 NNC + 3 officers/NCOs

There's a bit of inconsistency in the sources, I've tried to settle on a minimum figure taken from the official British narrative and added a bit of detail in a footnote - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This is in good shape and I expect to support once the casualty inconsistencies get sorted out. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hog Farm, some good points on consistency. I have tried to address them above - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good; supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Romeo

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

USS Romeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another tinclad. I brought this article to GA status in December 2022, but I've spent the last couple months overhauling this article to get it to A-Class standard (and hopefully FAC) to follow. This would be a potential Four Award candidate for me if I can get this through FAC. Hog Farm _talk 20:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• "who was bought" > "which was bought"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "August 1862" year unnecessary
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "by a total of two boilers"
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• The date for armament in the infobox is not reflected in main text
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "It then" You use both "it" and "she", suggest sticking to one or the other
  • Have standardized with "she" Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "It then spent through January 3, 1863..." this is worded a little confusingly when the following sentences discuss distinct actions prior to this date, and say she was withdrawn a day before that
  • Removed entire sentence; that had been a relic from before I had more detail on what was going on Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "upstream" upriver would make more sense, unless the geography is changing
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "where they captured two cannon" can you confirm whether this is the two cannon, etc, that had evacuated St. Charles?
  • Smith makes the connection which I've added, although Tomblin and Christ do not (both of those sources mention the pieces taken from St. Charles as 8-inch guns and the cannon picked up at Devall's Bluff as 8-inch guns in short succession but do not explicitly draw the conclusion). Smith has a bizarre date error referencing April 14 for some reason in the middle of this description, but the rest of the dates in that part refer to January dates consistent with the dates in other sources and it's clearly the same event. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• "under the command of Smith" we've got two Smiths involved with Romeo at this point, so suggest using their first name once here to clarify which is being referred to
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Suggest a slight rewording to avoid two sentences in a row beginning "The path..."
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Through the rest of the Vicksburg campaign" Is this separate to the Yazoo Pass Expedition/Fort Pemberton operations?
  • Rephrase Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Where's Young's Point and what's the relevance to the other operations described?
  • Added as a footnote - let me know if you think it warrants getting bumped into the main text. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Mississippi Squadron" This hasn't been mentioned before as a unit, was Romeo already in this?
  • This is another name for the Mississippi River Squadron which is mentioned earlier in the article; I have standardized. Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "having evidently been repaired by this time" The source actually says that the repairs were completed by October, while your wording makes it more suggestive
  • Dropped "evidently" Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Link Master
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Four of the final five paragraphs begin with a date, suggest switching this up somewhat to avoid this becoming a little diary-like
  • I've reworked this a bit; the WP:PROSELINE tendencies are tough to avoid when most of the topic matter for this section is a series of largely unrelated incidents. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• "to support the other vessel" Should this be a plural?
  • Corrected Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "On February 4" this has a capitalised "On" in the middle of a sentence, and uses the phrase "On February 4" twice within that one sentence
  • Fixed Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "In May, she" As this is a new paragraph, suggest starting with the name rather than "she"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "in the same area" Which area? You haven't stipulated where these actions are happening
  • I've linked to the settlement this was close to and have rephrased some things for clarity. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• "In late April" Add the year here
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• If Romeo was "earmarked" for these patrols, did she actually participate in them?
  • The source gives me a description of the perceived need for patrols and then lists Romeo as "Among the boats transferred to the pursuit ..." - I'm opening to alternative phrasing ideas. DANFS and Encyclopedia of Arkansas don't include really anything on this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Do we know if Baldwin was replaced or just reprimanded as you describe?
  • The Official Records contain negative commentary about Baldwin by Samuel Phillips Lee related to a minor incident in which some sailors were captured in March 1865. He was still in command as late as May 2, 1865, when Lee reassigned which district Romeo was attached to. An Acting Volunteer Lieutenant was put in command of Romeo for the final pre-sale days, but there's no clear disposition of Baldwin in the Official Records. The only mention of him after Lee's May 2 order is related to the haggling over prize dispositions of cotton captured during the 1864 Yazoo City excursion. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• I've had a look to see if there's anything else out there to possibly assist the article:

• [1] This source has Baldwin's forename as Thomas

• I've tacked on a page to the citation from Smith 2010 where Baldwin's first name is also given; here's too hoping that nobody accuses me of SYNTH for that in the future. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• [2] This source says that rather than escorting Empress away, Romeo actually towed her

• Smith says that Romeo only towed Empress for five miles, after which Empress' crew was able to get the machinery in working order. With Empress in running order again, Romeo provided the escort for 25 miles. I've added a brief summarization of this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• [3] This source has more details on the Empress action which I found interesting

• I actually own a print copy of this book but didn't check it because I assumed it wouldn't have any coverage of Romeo. I've added a sentence for what is more focused on Romeo rather than the steamer - here's one good source about Empress but it would take something in addition to this and the brief entry in Way's Packet Directory to create an article that would comfortably survive AFD I think. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: That's all I have for now. Another interesting article! Amazing how much these ships got up to in a relatively small and short theatre. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thanks for your review! I've tried to respond as best as possible above. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's the next article in the series (now I just need to start pushing them through FAC too)! Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

The astonishingly-large number of portholes in the ships certainly help to explain their unhappy wartime history! I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "was a group of two" - "was a pair of" perhaps?
  • Works for me
• There's a bit of repetition in the lead
  • I'm guessing you're referring to the "their"s in the first paragraph? That's been reworded
• "The operation proceeded as planned, however," - perhaps tweak this to "The remainder of the operation proceeded as planned, however," or similar?
  • Good idea
• Did E9's attack cause any casualties?
  • Yes, added
• Do we know how many torpedoes hit Prinz Adalbert in the fatal attack? The current text implies that all of the torpedoes that were fired hit the ship.
  • I'll have to do some digging on this point
• Have any experts commented on this design? The loss of both ships suggests they were not fit for purpose as large combat vessels. Was this the result of them being optimised for colonial service but ending up being used against the British? Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I've added some criticisms from Lyon, which I had forgot to consult. As to their loss, poor underwater protection was very common in the pre-dreadnought era (as evidenced by the Action of 22 September 1914, SMS Pommern's loss at Jutland, etc.). Thanks Nick! Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Is there a reason for having Prinz Adalbert's speed in the infobox rather than Friedrich Karl's?
  • I typically use the lead ship's stats for the box (though occasionally there are exceptions, like Deutschland-class battleship, where the lead ship differed from the other 4, which were all identical)
• Are you using "German Navy" or "Kaiserliche Marine"? Right now you use both (and both "German Navy" and "German navy")
  • Should be standardized now
• "operations with the fleet as well" Clarify which fleet?
  • Good idea
• I've been asked to do this at FAC before so would like your opinion on adding a sentence to provide a generic description of what an armoured cruiser actually is
  • I think an explanatory note makes sense (and I should probably copy over to other articles in this series)
• Link Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
  • Good catch
• You say "a number of defects" but only describe one
  • There are 2 there - poor armor protection and casemate guns too low
• Link beam and draft
  • Good catch, not sure how I forgot those
• Move flagship link to first mention
  • Done
• "These guns were provided..." This sentence and the next both begin "These guns" and the next "The guns" which makes for awkward reading
  • Reworded
• I expect this is an obvious point, but is it possible to note whether the torpedo tubes were fixed?
  • I'd assume yes, but Groner doesn't specifically say (nor does Dodson or Lyon)
• In my opinion the images would be better used if the Friedrich Carl early career photo was moved to where the line drawing is, and that is in turn moved to the armor section, although that might require the splitting of that section
  • Swapped
• Is it possible to say where exactly the two conning towers were? You mention them in relation to the positioning of guns and their own armor, but it isn't too easy to understand where we're talking about
  • Added a line
• I realise this is mentioned in the individual articles, but your opinion on adding the ship namesakes here as well?
  • We can do that
• The Friedrich Carl article says she was laid down in August 1901, not August 1900
  • Good catch
• Link commissioning
  • Done
• "Cruiser Division of the Baltic Sea" is this a title by itself or should this be the Baltic Sea Fleet or similar?
  • That's the unit title - translated of course
• "managed to keep the cruiser afloat long enough" While I realise this is mentioned in the proceeding paragraph it would be useful to specifically mention that she sinks here
  • Done
• "1 July 1915" Repeated year not needed
  • Removed
• Where was Prinz Adalbert sailing and/or sailing to when she was torpedoed?
  • Clarified
• "September 1915" Repeated year
  • Removed
• Link destroyers
  • Done
• Out of interest, is there any coverage on the two wrecks? I wondered whether there's been any salvage or similar
  • Nothing I've been able to find - they're not mentioned in Dodson & Cant's book on postwar fates of the Central and Axis powers of the world wars. I did track down this, which has a photo of the wreck, but not much else to note
• "a pair of two armored cruisers" > "a pair of armored cruisers"
  • Just a wee bit redundant, eh?
• Lede says they were built under the Second Naval Law, while main text only mentions the First Naval Law
  • First is correct - the Second went into effect after Prinz Adalbert was laid down
• Is it the "cruiser squadron" or "Cruiser Division"? Differs between lede and main text
  • Division is correct
• "Six-hundred and seventy-two men were killed" Suggest not spelling out the number here, as you do in main text
  • Done

@Parsecboy: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Prinz Heinrich, was an alteration of an earlier vessel, Fürst Bismarck," - would it be worthwhile to clarify that this was a design alteration, rather than physically altering the prior vessel?
  • I suppose that could be ambiguous - sure
• For infobox draft figures, it is standard practice to use the forward draft if the aft draft is deeper? At least in my mind, it would make sense to use the deeper draft, as that would be the actual restricting figure for the ship's operations
  • A fair point
• "The ships' casemate guns were placed too low, which rendered them exceedingly wet even in a slight swell. " - is it necessary to have this in the article twice?
  • Good catch - I didn't notice that was there when I added the criticisms per Nick's comments above.

I expect to support; this looks to be in quite good shape to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks HF! Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good; supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 22:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• "File:German cruiser Prinz Heinrich - Page's Magazine 1902.png" creates a sandwich with the infobox.
• No alt text?
• The image sizing should use upright, not px.
• "File:SMS Prinz Adalbert linedrawing.png": is the full name and/or the date of death of the author known?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Miroslav Kvočka

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Miroslav Kvočka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kvočka was a police officer who became the deputy commander of the guard force at the Omarska concentration camp near Prijedor in Bosnia and Herzegovina in mid-1992 during the Bosnian War. He was arrested in Bosnia by troops of the NATO Stabilisation Force in April 1998, was transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague and underwent a trial for crimes against humanity and war crimes in 2000–2001. He was convicted on three counts of the indictment – persecution, murder and torture – and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed, and he was granted early release in March 2005. He has reported that he has faced hardship and ostracism from the community since returning to the Prijedor area. My first ACR for a while, and my first bio of a war criminal from the Bosnian War. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Broger, the Case sheet and Prosecutor v. documents are not used as references: suggest moving to Further Reading or External links

• Early life: requires full name and birth date; currently no source for his birth date. Or for him being a Bosnian Serb.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Tailhook scandal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tailhook scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... back in 2022, for test purposes, I asked the MilHistBot to select a couple of B-class articles it felt were FAC-worthy. This was one of two articles it chose. The article is about a convention in 1991 during which U.S. military officers engaged in public nudity, excessive alcohol intoxication, public sexual activity, and other lewd behavior in and around the convention hotel. In an earlier time - or the present day - this would have been unremarkable, but it was a scandal back in the early 1990s. Can artificial intelligence select worthy FAC candidates? Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this soon but it will likely have to be in small batches over the course of several days. Hog Farm _talk 17:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Have you been able to review/vouch for the source-text integrity? I'm reluctant to conduct a full review if the source-text integrity hasn't been verified. I'm in the process of rewriting my very first GA back in 2020 where I didn't check the source-text integrity of existing text and most of it is having to be rewritten. Hog Farm _talk 17:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been reviewed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• The lead - "officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted up to 83 women and seven men," has these all as sexual assaults, but the body has "The investigation concluded that 83 women and seven men had been assaulted, sexually or otherwise, at the conference" which opens up the possibilty of non-sexual assaults

  Y Deleted "sexually" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the two uses in the references to "McMichal" are an error for "McMichael"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. (This is why I advocate the use of the {{sfn}} template.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Naval investigative agents interviewed 50 women who had experienced the gauntlet in the hallway or elsewhere, and found that 23 of them felt they had been victimized, i.e. had not consented to the activity (Zimmerman, pp. 76-77)." - I cannot find the 23 figure on Zimmerman pp. 76-77 but I may be missing where it is. Pagination issue?

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Although the sources do not specify, it is likely that Snyder was forced to retire at the rank of captain." - it's unclear which source this is in, and the phrasing has hints of original research

  Y Deleted. I would not call it OR, and it is almost certainly true, but I cannot find a source for his retirement as a captain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• " One of the women assaulted by Ibottson (on Friday, September 6) was Kara Hultgreen, who turned and knocked him down with a punch (Zimmerman, pp. 12-13)." - Zimmerman pp. 12-13 does not mention Ibottson by name, or provide any identity information that could be clearly identified to Zimmerman. On a more minor note, it discusses an elbow to the back of the head, not strictly a punch

  Y Corrected. Added another reference that identifies Ibbottson. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Jim Ibottson" seems to be a misspelling of "Jim Ibbottson"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ready for the further navy prosecutions. Hog Farm _talk 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and introduced Jeannie Leavitt and Sharon Preszler as its first female fighter pilots, followed soon after by Martha McSally" - I'm not seeing any mention of McSally on the cited pages

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• " In media reports on the incidents, the Tailhook scandal is usually mentioned" - source is from 1997; we could use something more recent to support the lasting media attention on this subject (which I think anecdotally has died down a bit)

  Y I thought it was long forgotten, but apparently not. This gives me pause about sending it to FAC. Added two additional, more recent sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's what giving me pause here as well given that the two main sources (McMichael & Zimmerman) are both from only a few years after the incident and its fallout though. Although I'm not seeing much more recent high-quality works on this; this looks like it's been some degree been drowned out by the unending parade of various military scandals since then. I have to somewhat sheepishly admit that I was not alive when the Tailhook scandal happened. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was, but I don't remember it. It may have been big news in the US, but not in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think the entire popular culture section is fairly insignificant and should be removed.

  Y I am always very reluctant to remove sourced material from other editors, but removed an see how it goes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Piri Reis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Rjjiii (talk)

Piri Reis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating my first article for A-Class review because it has passed a GA review, and I would like to improve it to Featured Article status in the future. I checked out a couple Featured Articles on military leaders to compare and saw that they had gone through and benefited from A class reviews (which seem rare for most subjects). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Before I read this article, I had never heard of him. Yet he has articles in 56 languages - quite an achievement even for a cartographer. I am curious as to what led you to chose to work on this subject. Not my area of expertise either, but I have comments to prove that I read it:

• Infobox image caption: Any idea where this statue is?
  • Karaman, Turkey. I added that to the infobox and added the address and coordinates to the commons page.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "He was born in Gallipoli" I don't mind using the old at all (I use "Kiev" all the time) but in the image caption, I think it should say "Gelibolu"
  • Swapped them all to Gelibolu. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "When his 1513 world map was unearthed at the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul, it drew international attention." When was this?
  • 1929. Added into the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Early life and piracy" - you don't see that heading very often.
  • Lol, no, but it was sort of the family business. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The sultan had him beheaded in Cairo" Any idea why?
  • I expanded this into a whole paragraph. It resulted from his lifting the siege. Returning with a bunch of gold played a role in the execution, but it is not 100% clear how. WP:RS say that some of the Ottoman histories and a letter from Venetians written not too long after accuse him of bribery. This is likely not true, again according to RS, because the people that he robbed in the Persian Gulf showed up in Istanbul demanding their money back, but it may have been believed to be true at the time. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "the remaining fragment garnered international attention for including a partial copy of an otherwise lost map by Christopher Columbus." How did they know that? (Suggest moving note a and/or incorporating some explanatory text.)
  • Moved the note and also expanded some explanatory text there, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Surviving fragment of the second World Map of Piri Reis" Why are we capitalising "World Map"?
  • Lowercase now, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• In Further reading, "The Maps of Piri Reis" seems out of alphabetic order
  • Fixed, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Hawkeye7! I think I've addressed the points above. As far as why "work on this subject", years and years ago, I read about him via dialup on some Geocities page, but it was this spooky stuff about how he had mapped Antarctica from space, and I couldn't find more info about him online. My library had actual books about Piri Reis, but it was more spooky stuff. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

An interesting article, which makes a change from the more modern Milhist articles I tend to review. Some comments:

Lead

• He created his first world map and likely began drafting the...: This doesn't make it clear that this is (presumably) the map of 1513 which is part of his notability. Also, with reference to the Notable work in the infobox, I think it should be identified as 1513 world map there too for consistency
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• After their victory, he presented the world map: is this the 1513 world map or another map?
  • 1513, clarified in article, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• suggest linking Grand Vizier
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• why isn't the Hind of In 1546, Piri Reis became Hind Kapudan-ı Derya part of the blue link for Kapudan-ı Derya?
  • Fixed, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• he was executed in 1553 in Cairo.: The article body says the date of his execution is unknown. My copy of "The Oxford Companion to World Exploration" (Ed. David Buisseret) has an entry for Reis by McIntosh (the 2000a McIntosh ref is given as a source). That gives a year of death of 1554, not 1553 as stated in lead/infobox.
  • I've added an explanatory note and duplicated a citation to that part of the lead. I think most older sources say 1554 or around 1554. In the past couple decades, European letters have turned up that allow historians to be more specific. The abstract of Pedani (2015) says, "his death that happened in Cairo in 1553 (and not 1554 as many scholars have thought till now" and the cited page says, "For this fact he was beheaded in Cairo by order of the sultan. We do not know when this actually happened. On his coming back to Venice, on 17 August 1554, the Venetian consul in Cairo Daniele Barbarigo (1550-1553) reported that Piri Reis had been killed because he had not done his duty. This diplomat had finished his charge in March 1553, but his successor arrived in Egypt on the following 14 December and he had to wait for him31. Other Venetian sources say that something very remarkable happened in Cairo between January and February 1553, but they do not explain exactly what really happened32. On 16 December 1553, however, a letter written in Constantinople on 15 November 1553 reached Venice. It said that Piri Reis had been beheaded in Cairo [...] (Pedani, 2015, p. 324)". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• little appreciation during his own life.: suggest "during his lifetime."
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• ...he began sailing with his uncle Kemal Reis.[4] Kemal was a...: suggest rephrasing to avoid the close, repeated usage of Kemal
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Naval career

• link Ottoman Navy on first mention
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Piri Reis was with his uncle through this and later documented...: suggest "Piri Reis was with his uncle at this time and later documented"
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• After the Ottoman navy defeated the Venetian fleet at the Peloponnese,: navy here should be Navy
  • Fixed, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• and Pianosa in the western Mediterranean.: shouldn't that be Western (I see Eastern is used in previous sentence)
  • Western is correct, but I've tried a different wording to make the text more clear. Most of their activity during this period was to the east where they pushed back against Venice. The raids in the West are notable as the likely origin of some of Piri Reis' source maps. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• The finished manuscript of his first world map: make clear that this is the world map?
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• By 1516, Piri Reis returned to the navy as captain of a galley in the Ottoman fleet: the previous sentence says he was back in the navy by 1513, so suggest wording this excerpt as "By 1516, Piri Reis was a captain of a galley in the Ottoman fleet"
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Piri Reis presented the 1513 world map to Sultan Selim I: suggest "Piri Reis presented his 1513 world map to Sultan Selim I"
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Piri Reis was no longer with the Ottoman navy in 1518: again, Navy
  • Fixed, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• childhood friend Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha who rose to grand vizier of the empire.: suggest "childhood friend Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha who rose to become grand vizier of the empire."
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• In 1532, he fought back Dalmatian pirates in the Adriatic.: suggest "In 1532, he fought against Dalmatian pirates in the Adriatic."
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• chased Venetian ships out of the eastern Mediterranean.: again, eastern versus Eastern
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Grand Admiral of the Indian Ocean Fleet

• Piri Reis took his position as Hind Kapudan-ı Derya,: shouldn't Hind be part of the following blue link?
  • Moved it in, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• link Suez
  • Linked, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• while the Ottoman navy relied mainly: again, Navy
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• In 1552, the Turkish fleet...: suggest "In August" (I also see the map of Piri Reis' expedition against Hormuz Island gives the month as August)
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• The Turkish soldiers took the City of Hormuz,: suggest specifying the month - presumably it was September as per the expedition map
  • Done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)
• link Qeshm
  • Linked once in the lead and once in the body, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• See comment in lead RE date of execution
  • Lengthy reponse up there ↑ Let me know if this section is unclear, and I can go into more details about the date of execution in the body. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Piri Reis map of 1513

• Suggest trimming the first paragraph a little since it has previously been established that the map was given to Selim I
  • I've done some trimming, but left a briefer mention as many readers will skim down the section they're looking for. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Kitab-ı Bahriye

• Again, suggest a little trimming (the second para this time) as it has been stated elsewhere that this was a commission from the grand vizier
  • Similar to the above, I'm trimmed it but left a brief mention, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

One final comment is that you should run the Dupe links tool. This will highlight a number of duplicate links, 2nd and successive usages (they are indicated by in red box) which should be removed. All in all though, an enjoyable read. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I ran the duplicate links script. I don't think there are duplicate links within any sections now. There are still duplicates between the lead and some body sections but I think that is fine, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've started going through the notes above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zawed: I appreciate all the feedback. I think I've addressed the notes above, but feel free to offer any additional notes or clarification. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zawed? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my third A-class nomination and my first biography nomination. Maximiliano Hernández Martínez was El Salvador's longest serving president, being in office from 1931–1934 and 1935–1944. He rose to power after a coup d'état that established El Salvador's 48-year-long military dictatorship that lasted until 1979. Due to the duration of his presidency, the things he did as president, and the impact he left on El Salvador's history, MHM has had a lot written about him. While he is at least somewhat known in El Salvador, as far as I can see he is not at all known outside of Latin America. I have the goal of making the article of every Salvadoran president as good as it can possibly be (I'm a long ways from achieving that at the moment), and so I want to try to get this article to A-class since I personally believe it stands the best chance out of any president's article of reaching this assessment. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line