Open main menu

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers
Instructions
Requesting a review

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

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
  3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  7. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal). In this case, please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.

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.

Current reviewsEdit

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of SettepozziEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

A small article on a naval battle between the Venetians and the Genoese in 1263 off Greece, with the Byzantines as onlookers; a fairly typical example of the power dynamics between the three states at the time. Few details are known about the battle itself, but its diplomatic repercussions were great, leading the Byzantines to a rapprochement with Venice soon after. The article is quite old, but was revamped last year and passed GA in October. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and ready for A-class. Any comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine 12:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • No links for all the commanders in the infobox?
  • As far as I can tell, these commanders are historical hapaxes, so unlikely to ever have an article
  • I reckon we can just link everything once in both the lead and the body. Why? because it's really small. Like.
  • Republic of Venice/Venitian, Monemvasia, Republic of Genoa/Genoese, War of Saint Sabas and Genoese navy.
  • Good point, done.
  • passive in the Aegean Link Aegean here.
  • Done.
  • or 39 galleys and 10 saette Is there a link for saette?
  • Not that I know of. Generally the topic of medieval ships is not one that is well covered in Wikipedia. Hence the footnote.
  • and commanded by three Genoese and one Byzantine admiral Do we know who they were?
  • While researching this, I dug deeper and deeper and found a series of issues, including chronology, that are unclear. Initially I tried to include these in footnotes, but since the issues were interrelated, I made a new section. I've added the relevant part of the Annales Ianuenses, but my understanding of Latin comes via Spanish and French, so if anyone can double-check at pp. 49–53, and see if I've missed something, I'd be grateful.
  • No original URL in The Navy of Venice source?
  • What do you mean by 'original URL'?
  • The Genoese Annales Ianuenses claim that when you mean claims?
  • Indeed, fixed.
  • may have been due to the fact that the Venetians claimed In my ears it sounds better if it should be "may have been since the Venetians claimed" probably wrong?
  • No, that definitely doesn't sound better to me.
  • capture four Venetian taride cargo Is there a link for taride?
  • Amazingly, there is. Added
  • I see British and American words like councillors (Br), southeastern (US)
  • Generally I favour British English, but some things may slip through, thanks.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

I looked at this for GAN and was happy with it then.

  • "Genoa and the Byzantines had been allied against Venice since the Treaty of Nymphaeum in 1261, while Genoa had been engaged in the War of Saint Sabas against Venice since 1256." "since" twice. Possibly make the second one 'from'?
  • Done.
  • Lead gives "48 or 49" Genoese vessals; infobox 38 plus 10.
  • Removed the alternate number (39/49) throughout. The primary sources are explicit in that there were 38 galleys.
  • "was necessary for the Nicaeans and their aim of successfully recovering Constantinople" The "and" suggests that there was a necessary reason for the Nicaeans other than recovering Constantinople. If so, could you give it? If not, perhaps 'was considered by the Nicaeans to be necessary for their aim of successfully recovering Constantinople'?
  • Good point, fixed.
  • "In May–July 1263" That should be a spaced en dash.
  • Done.
  • "failed to effectively confront its Venetian counterpart throughout the war, often" Optional: replace the comma with a semi colon.
  • Done.
  • Possibly a footnote brisfly explaining what a taride is? Or just delete it?
  • Linked now.
  • "for their excesses...and malfeasance in the areas of" Tgere should be a space either side of the ellipsis.
  • Done.
  • While I am not doing a source review, Dotson should be in title case.
  • Done.

Reads just as well as it did at GAN. If you were to nominate it for FAC, I would not, personally, consider its brevity a disqualifying factor; or even one to be considered at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and CPA-5: thanks a lot for taking the time. Trying to answer some of your questions, I've been forced to re-review my sources, find some new ones, and rewrite quite a few parts of this article, so please have another look. Apologies for this, I really didn't expect to find so much when I started digging. Constantine 18:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Been there myself, and felt suitably embarrassed. It reads well now. A couple of queries:
  • "the Genoese were able to increase their naval armament considerably" I'm not sure that a reader would know just what this means. Increase their number of ships; or increase the armament of existing ships; or something else?
  • "to 1,000 men (400 captured and 600 killed or wounded)" "to" → 'at'.
  • "The 14th-century Venetian historian Andrea Dandolo placed it at the end of" "it" → 'the battle'.
  • "Modern historians generally tend to" Either generally or tend is redundant.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Calais (1349)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Calais (1349) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another Hundred Years' War article in which the French attempt to bribe their way into the recently fallen town of Calais. It ended badly for them. I have used this event to explore a few of the motivations for war in this period, including brief consideration knightly honour and dishonour, examples of personal gain and personal enmity, and consideration of the perception of behaviour. Hopefully a look under the surface of war in the Pale of Calais. As ever, I would be grateful for suggestions at all levels as to how my infelicities might be addressed. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Amerigo, and their king, Edward III, personally King?
No, used generically, not as a personal title; per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • who were attemting to take the city Typo of attempting.
Oops.
  • Calais garrison in a surprise counterattack American counterattack.
Changed.
  • with the highest ranking captives Needs a hyphen between "highest ranking".
Done.
  • by both fighting during a truce and by You mean fightings?
No.
  • with French finances and motale at a low ebb Is motale a typo? Because I do not know it.
It is. Well spotted. (morale.)
  • the fighting in Gascony, Brittany and the area Link both Brittany and Gascony here.
Done.
  • it being all but impossible to land You mean is all but impossible?
Yes.
  • the north-west corner had its own moat and additional Remove own here.
Why? The phrase does't make sense then.
  • I only comment if it sounds good in my non-English native ears. If it doesn't sound good in your ears then it's more an opinion then rather a grammar or typo. I could be wrong too but that's why I'm here to learn how to master it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • larger than his in order to gain access Remove "in order" here.
Done.
  • and materiel prior to a campaign Remove "prior to" with "before" it sounds better.
Not in my opinion it doesn't.
  • evening of 1 January 1350 (other sources give 30 December 1349) Maybe add "(other sources give 30 December 1349)" in a note here?
Done.
  • son for the first installment of his bribe American installment.
Changed.
  • having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce You mean fightings?
No.
  • were said to have "maintained a tight lipped silence" There should be a hyphen between "tight lipped".
It's a quote. There isn't a hyphen in the quote. (Because it doen't have to follow the strange rules of the MoS.) So it should be left as is per MOS:PMC.
  • I keep forgetting this one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Philip VI should have a first hand account Same as above but this time between first hand.
Done.
  • allowed to keep the installment of his bribe Again American installment.
Changed.
  • strong keep, by a midnight escalade Remove "a".
No; the "a" is meant to be there.
  • Ref 5, should have full numbers in its page numbers.
  • Ref 7, pp. 108–09. --> pp. 108–109.
  • Ref 12, pp. 225–26. --> pp. 225–226.
  • Ref 19, pp. 226–27. --> pp. 226–227.
  • Ref 20, pp. 269–70. --> pp. 269–270.
  • Ref 21, pp. 192–5. --> pp. 192–195.
  • Ref 32, pp. 194–5. --> pp. 194–195.
Whoops. All done.
  • Why hasn't ref 24 a(ny) page number(s)?
I have no idea. It has now.
  • One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it. Maybe standardise the hyphens in the ISBNs?
Apologies. I thought that I had. Corrected.

That's anything that I got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks CPA-5. Very thorough. All changed or responded to above. You are very prompt here. It isn't even showing on the MilHist summery yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I'm on a conquest to reviews. Yesterday I destroyed the French battleship Iéna 's nomination which is ready to get promoted. I'm almost done with reviewing the French battleship Richelieu's GAN (only source, image and infobox to go). I also started with eating my popcorn during the Japan v. France's lists' nominations which I reviewed and need to continue the French one. I also claimed my seats in the Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship, 149th Armor Regiment and Project Excalibur's nominations. I'm in a pretty rush right now, since I came back from holiday on 17 July. I have some wikihomework to do. Since the last time I got my WikiChevrons I already reviewed six nominations I need to make enough reviews because in begin August I'll go on holiday again this time 2 weeks. Also happy 21st july. Cheers.
And a happy Belgian National Day to you too CPA-5, and thanks for the support. You are getting bolder it your critiques, which I think is good; and are happy to listen to the nominator's point of view, which is also good; and are amazingly eagle-eyed, which is excellent. I hope that you keep it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well Gog, the summer months are always the busiest, so I'm working on every review I could find. I'm not a god or dictator to tell what the nominators should do because I think it sounds better. I'm just an editor like any else here so I can make mistakes or I should respect any opinions we get here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupertEdit

Support: Nice work, Gog, I have a few minor comments/queries/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • should the figure of at least 400 casualties be mentioned in the body?
  • same as above for the 900 figure?
I can hardly believe that I did that. Both fixed.
  • Note 2 has a slightly different citation style (usually a numbered citation instead in contrast to the other notes
Fixed.
  • Some sources give 30 December 1349.Kaeuper & Kennedy 1996, p. 11 --> "Kaeuper & Kennedy 1996, p. 11 give 30 December 1349"? (this would make it consistent with your earlier style)
OK.
  • "File:Clock Tower of Guînes - panoramio.jpg": seems to be missing a caption
Thanks. I deleted an upright when I added the alt text.
  • Edward III. Who was...: probably best not to start the sentence with "who" here
Done.
  • in the Sources, Kaeuper should be before King alphabetically
Done.
  • in the Sources, Rogers and Sumption are overlinked
Fixed.
  • Pale of Calais appears to be linked twice in the body -- suggest maybe moving "area known as the Pale of Calais" to the earlier mention if this is the same area
Done.
  • suggest linking portcullis
Done.
  • nobility involved were Earl Suffolk, Lord Stafford: the link for Lord Stafford seems to go to the town, not the person
Lol. I suspect an editor with a sense of humour. Thank you for picking it up.
@AustralianRupert: Thank you for giving this your usual close scrutiny. I am aware that you have reviewed far more of my articles than vice versa, so as and when you have nominations I would be grateful if you could ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Gog, that would be fantastic. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by PMEdit

This article is in great shape and I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. The sources all appear to be of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and AustralianRupert: Hi guys, thanks for looking at this, and for the supports. I wonder if I could ask your opinions as to whether this article may be worth nominating for FA? I worked on it last October as a bit of a light hearted article, not intending to take it past GA. Barring my sloppy grammar and MoS-compliance it seems to have gone through ACR easily enough and I would value your frank opinions as to whether it may be worth a shot at FA, as and when I have an open slot. Thanks.
PS Just a quick "sure", or "probably not" is fine - no need to waste your time rereading.
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the shortness of the battle section might draw some attention, but so long as the level of detail reflects the sources I don't think it would be an issue. To be honest, I don't have much FAC experience, so I would defer to PM on this one, but overall I think it is a very interesting and well put-together article so if you are keen, I say go for it. Have you thought of a peer review before FAC? That might give you a few more ideas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitely FAC material. I've put quite short ship articles through FAC, so brevity shouldn't be a problem as long as it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

French battleship GauloisEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnoughts in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, and sinking one of them, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gaulois_in_Toulon-Agence_Rol-2.jpeg: as per the EU tag, the image description page should include "reasonable evidence" of anonymity. Same with File:Cuirasse_le_Gaulois_endommage_aux_Dardanelles_en_1915.jpg.
    • It's down below the licensing. Should I move it up, perhaps to the author line?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Cuirassé_le_Gaulois_touché_par_une_torpille_1916.jpg is also missing evidence of anonymity, and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Adding the anonymous declaration, but it says that it was published in February 1917.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupertEdit

G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • slightly inconsistent: "Conning tower: 274–326 mm" (infobox) v. "conning tower had a 326-millimetre (12.8 in) thick face and 276 mm" (body)
  • slightly inconsistent style: "Nashville, TN" v. "Annapolis, Maryland"
  • "defenses" --> "defences" for consistency of ENGVAR
  • "armor" --> "armour" as above
  • "armored" --> "armoured"
  • rammed the battleship Bouvet: Bouvet is overlinked here
  • on 11 August to bombarded a Turkish --> "bombard"
  • suggest linking SM UB-47 in the body of the article
  • sources: all look reliable to me, although I wasn't able to confirm Gille. Can you tell me something about him, the work or the publisher?
    • Gille is a naval historian with at least three other books to his credit and Marines éditions is one of the two major nautical history publishers in France. The book is kind of a version of Conway's, with better photos and more operational detail, although its been made rather redundant by Jordan & Caresse.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

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

  • suggest a comma after "where she was repaired"
  • naval review links to a dab page
  • suggest "both captains were relieved of their duties" if that is what is meant, as the wording is a bit unclear
  • in some cases you have led with the rank in English, in others with the French. I personally prefer using the foreign rank, but just be consistent
    • I think that I've fixed all of these.
  • also, no explanation of what "Capitaine de vaisseau" means?
  • "escorted President Loubet" as he has already been introduced
  • I'm not familiar with target ships, was "Gaulois sank the target ship Tempête" accidental? It reads like that, but perhaps state if that is the case?
    • See how it reads now.
  • suggest " Shortly afterwards Gaulois moderately damaged the bow of the destroyer Fanion while training when it was struck by one of Gaulois's torpedoes."←"Shortly afterwards, one of Gaulois' torpedoes struck and moderately damaged the bow of the destroyer Fanion during training."
    • I struggled with this sentence for some stupid reason.
  • "Training Division of the ? Squadron" seems like something is missing here, as she had just be assigned to a division?
    • My sources aren't real clear about the training division and how it related to the Complementary Division
  • "Later in September, her main turrets" but then the problem seems to be with just her forward turret?
    • Forward turret had the worse problems, but they caught it early in the aft turret.
  • suggest "Following these repairs, in November Gaulois was ordered" and drop "in November" later
    • I think that simply deleting that introductory phrase works even better.
  • in the lead it says Yavuz was ex-German, but this is actually stated in the body
  • suggest "Gaulois became the flagship", as we've just been discussing Suffren
  • link SM UB-47

AR already mentioned the other things I noticed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

All done. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

  • At the risk of appearing picky, the publication locations given for Corbett suggest that London has relocated to Tennessee.
    • Happy to take suggestions on how that might be clarified.
'London; Nashville, Tennessee: Imperial War Museum in association with the Battery Press' would be the usual formulation.

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have not carried out any spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking them over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of battleships of FranceEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

With WP:OMT closing in on completion, you're going to see more of these lists being put together ;) This one covers the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, from the early experimental vessels built during a muddled period of French naval philosophy to some pretty cutting-edge thinking in the interwar period with the Dunkerques and Richelieus. The French portion of the project is nearly complete, so once this list passes ACR (and FLC), we'll have our second major navy completed (or third, if Japan beats France across the finish line). Thanks to all who review the list! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

I'd love to eat some popcorn here until the race end. I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • cancelled v. canceled.
  • Naval to counter growing German naval strength Pipe German with Imperial Germany.
    • Done
  • to counter the German and Italian fleets Pipe German and Italian with Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • by introducing a number of innovations Replace "a number of" with "some".
    • That doesn't seem like an improvement to me
  • were to be built over the course of the program Remove "over the course of" with throughout.
    • Done
  • 1897–1898 Greek uprising on Crete against Is there a link for the uprising?
    • No - the closest we have is the background section at Cretan State, but even that mostly skips over the rebellion and covers the international response to it.
  • was designed by Victor Saglio Link of Saglio?
    • I can add a red link, but we don't have a bio on him
  • Try to round "33.0 km/h" in the "Carnot" table.
    • Yeah, I knew you wouldn't like that - the only way to do it is to either round the mph figure to 21 or everything to two decimal places, and "17.8 knots (32.97 km/h; 20.48)" seems excessive
  • She suffered a number of minor accidents Remove "a number of" with "several".
    • Done
  • albeit of an experimental 45-caliber (cal.) It's odd to see the short form of calibre. I never saw you using it. The calibre's article even doesn't mention the short form?
    • It's a common abbreviation
  • evacuated the Allied army that Link Allied here.
    • Done
  • Dardanelles campaign v. Gallipoli campaign. And if we use Gallipoli campaign then we shouldn't capitalise campaign.
  • @Parsecboy: Yes, maybe it was meant to be, but the Dardanelles campaign's link goes to the Gallipoli campaign article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a little error in the File:French_battleship_Bouvet_NH_64442.tif image.
    • I'm not sure what you mean
  • I guess me and PM do not see the picture unless you click on the template. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • within the 11,000-ton limit It's odd to see an "11,000-ton" here. Wich kind of "ton"?
    • It's already specified earlier in that paragraph
  • they were joined by Saint Louis the next year Link Saint Louis here.
    • Done
  • were moved to the North Sea in 1909 Link North Sea here.
    • Done
  • In the "Charlemagne class" table Saint Louis' fate it states "Broken up, 1933" But its article says "25 April 1933" instead of just 1933.
    • Yeah, but that's just the date she was sold
  • In the same table this time in the Gaulois' "Commissioned". It states "23 October 1899" but its articles says "15 January 1899"?
    • Fixed

More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This list is looking good. A few comments:

  • "By the end of the decade, the British"
    • Fixed
  • link Jean Bart in the lead?
    • Done
  • I suggest an introductory note after the lead explaining what armor (I assume belt) and displacement (I assume oa) are being used in the tables, assuming it is being handled consistently
  • suggest linking long tons in the Brennus table
    • Done
  • suggest link=on in the power conversion of the Brennus table to link kW
    • Done
  • "each other in other details" could you vary the wording here? in lesser details?
    • Lesser works for me
  • ihl is in full and overlinked in the Jauréguiberry table
    • Good catch
  • both the main and secondary batteries of Masséna were the 1893 guns, suggest mentioning this in the prose section, which currently just says the 305 mm ones
    • Good idea
  • ihp is overlinked in the Masséna table
    • Fixed
  • something odd going on with the Bouvet pic
    • CPA said the same thing, but it's displaying fine to me
  • "pronounced tumblehome that characterized many French warships of the period" I think you've already covered the issues with the tumblehome above
    • Removed
  • probably link Gaulois at first mention, under Bouvet
    • Done
  • drop the comma from " the following year, she was transferred"
    • Done
  • link Dardanelles in the Bouvet section
    • Done
  • metric hp and ihp are overlinked in the Bouvet table
    • Fixed

Down to Charlemagne class. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • link Charlemagne at first mention, in the Charlemagne class section, also Saint Louis and Suffren in that section
    • Done
  • in the Charlemagne class table, what is 14,500 CV? expand and link?
    • CV is the French abbreviation for metric horsepower - have added an explanatory note to this effect
  • "apart from a collision with a torpedo boat off Toulon in 1906 that resulted in the latter's sinking"
    • Fixed
  • "The wreck was repaired to make her watertight"
    • Good catch
  • suggest "the armor layout onof the hull"
    • I'm going to say that was a typo ;)
  • "shipyard in before work"
    • Fixed
  • link Démocratie at first mention in the Suffren section
    • Done
  • I'd mention in the prose that it was U-52 that sank Suffren
    • Done
  • "1898 Naval Law"→" German 1898 Naval Law"
    • Good catch
  • link Liberté class when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done
  • link Danton-class when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done
  • link République and Patrie when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done - you'd think I'd have paid closer attention to this when I was writing the list, but...
  • link Liberté, Justice, and Vérité when first mentioned in the Liberté class section
    • Done

Down to Danton class. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "construction of the Liberté"
    • Fixed
  • suggest "that Japan's success"→"that Japanese success"
    • Works for me
  • the sentence beginning "As a result, the navy decided..." is too long, suggest breaking it
    • Done
  • link Mirabeau, Danton, Vergniaud and Condorcet when first mentioned in the Danton class section
    • Done
  • perhaps mention in the prose of the Danton class section that it saw the introduction of the new Modele 1906 guns
    • Good idea
  • "by four 305 mm turrets"
    • Good catch
  • link France, Jean Bart, Courbet and Paris when first mentioned in the Courbet class subsection
    • Done
  • link Bretagne, Provence and Lorraine when first mentioned in the Bretagne class subsection
    • Done
  • suggest "with a pair of twin-turrets superfiring above them"→"each with a twin-turret superfiring above them"
    • That sounds better to me
  • link Béarn when first mentioned in the Normandie class subsection
    • Done
  • "hte vessels"
    • Fixed

Down to Fast battleships. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • link Dunkerque and Strasbourg when first mentioned in the Dunkerque class subsection
    • Done
  • link Richelieu or Jean Bart when first mentioned in the Richelieu class subsection
    • Done

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Alsace illustration
    • I dunno, to make the text legible the image would have to be gigantic - I might just upload a different version with the text removed.
  • File:Justice_1909_LOC_det_4a16114.jpg: why is this believed to be in the public domain?
    • It was gifted to the LOC in 1949, apparently, and the LOC states there are no known restrictions
  • File:Alsace.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this illustration? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Have asked the uploader, who is still active. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Apparently he used an online source that is no longer up, but the illustrations conform to the sketches and details in Jordan & Dumas' book, so I've added that to the description page. Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

23rd (Northumbrian) DivisionEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

23rd (Northumbrian) Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 23rd (Northumbrian) Division was a British Army division of the Second World War. Barely trained, the division was sent to France in 1940 as unskilled labours and with a promise of not being used a combat formation. When the German advance through the Ardennes split the Allied armies, the division was put on the frontline. With no realistic hope of stopping the Germans, the division did its best and got mauled in the process. It escaped via Dunkirk, and after it's return home was broken up to reinforce other units. The article has recently been overhauled and greatly expanded, was given a copyedit by the GOCE, and has just past its GA review. I believe it is ready for it's A-Class.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in good shape. I did have a quick look at this during peer review, but have a few comments:

Lead
  • link brigade
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "as a hindrance to good morale" as morale in itself isn't good or poor
    Added the descriptiveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • what is the Field Force? link? Or is meant to be BEF?
    This was originally "for the main fighting force's rear echelon", but was changed during the subsequent copyedits. I have switched it up to BEF.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link military logistics for logistical
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "to continue its labour duties" but weren't they guarding airfields by this stage?
    I have tweaked this point to match the main bodyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Germans had already crossed at several placessouth of their sector where French forces had yet to take up positions"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Body
  • suggest "The plan was for the existing unitsdivisions to recruit over their established strengths and then form Second Line divisions around small cadres."
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest moving "In April, limited conscription was introduced. At that time 34,500 militiamen, all aged 20, were conscripted into the regular army, initially to be trained for six months before being deployed to the forming second line units" to after "... just 25 officers and men."
    Sentence movedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "like its first line parent unitformation" as formations are distinct from units
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • for shoulder patch link Formation patch
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "nineteen as the age limitminimum age"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "TA envisioned itthe divisions being deployed singly" as piecemeal makes it sound like individual brigades and battalions would be sent over independently, which I understand wasn't the case?
    Quite correct, full formations. I have amended per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "whole force"→"whole TA" if that is what is meant?
    Quite, amendment madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "In order to free up First Line formations for training, Second Line formations were assigned..."
    I have tweaked the sentence to follow your line of thought, but also maintain the individuality of the sentence in relation to the division. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "drill parade"→"parade-ground drill"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • could the footnoting [36][37][38][39][40] be a bit more granular? Generally it is preferred to keep a cluster of footnotes down to three or less
  • AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • who is Tim Lynch?
    Descriptive addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "23rd division"→"The 23rd Division"
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link field gun
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link vanguard
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • where did 1st Battalion, Tyneside Scottish come from? You need to insert into the body at the appropriate chronological point, that the 12th DLI was retitled. Take it out of the note and insert it in text
    have done soEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link bridgehead
  • "headquarters of the 70th Brigade" if that is correct?
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "with wide intervals in case of attacks by the Luftwaffe" Luftwaffe is now in general dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, so it doesn't need to be italicized
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "At 08:30 on 20 May"
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "deployed toon either side of the road"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • companies tookwent to ground near the road
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • we've already been told that the 11st DLI had been killed or captured, but then a company turns up at Nuncq?
    So only elements were at Wancourt, I have made a change to the sentence after the Wancourt action in an effort to clarify this. Rissik is not exactly clear on how many troops were at Wancourt, but the entire battalion was not caught in the action is for sure.
  • "were knocked out" or "were put out of action"?
    My understanding is that knocked out is the more technical term? But I have changed to your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the independent 20th Brigade" if that is correct? Otherwise tell us what division it was from?
    Quite glad you pointed this out, this was a misreading of Rissik on my part: "...on the 20th Brigade" HQ, NOT 20th Brigade HQ! I have amended this. To note, there was a 20th Indy Brigade in France (part of my confusion), although looking at Joslen they didn't turn up in France for another 2 days and were involved in the siege at Boulogne.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "regulars and fully equipped divisions" do we know what formations these were? It would be better to use their names here
    I have dropped the regular part (as it included a first line TA div) and added who it wasEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Major-General Herbert" per MOS
    Rank droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "east of besieged Calais"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "without inflicting damage or casualties, before they were recognised as British tanks"→"before they were recognised as British tanks, without inflicting damage or casualties."
    Switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • drop the cap on Mole as it is not a proper name
    Cap droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the GOC section seems redundant, as there was only one GOC and he is mentioned in the body
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the ORBAT needs a date at which this was the ORBAT
    Date addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • who were the brigadiers?
    I have added them in at an appropriate place in the text: "Brigadier Richard Dawnay's 69th Brigade held the northern portion..."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • you don't need to link Osprey more than once in the Refs
    Dup link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Barnsey→Barnsley in the Refs
    Typo fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, comments, and review. I have made several changes to per a number of your suggestions. I will endeavor to address the remainder tomorrow.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I have worked on the remaining issues you brought up, I hope this addresses everything?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Nicely done. I tweaked a couple of typos and links. Also the sources look of high quality and reliable. In the Refs, there is a missing cap in Rissik's "Durham Light iInfantry". Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest including a legend in the caption of the first map
    I have amended the caption, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    Think it could use a bit more information, and could a full legend be added to the image description page? There's a lot of detail in that map. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have added a full legend to the wiki article, and expanded what is in this article. If further information is required, please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:10May_16May_Battle_of_Belgium.PNG: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have added an archive link to the commons page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "the re-emergence of Germany" My usual comment, to which I expect you will respond with your usual amendment.
    An unfortunate slip considering the various changes I made to this based off our previous work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "and moved to surround the British and French forces in northern France" Suggest "surround" → 'cut off'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "and came to the Munich Agreement, the German annexation of Sudetenland" Reads a little clunkily. Maybe 'and came to the Munich Agreement, which accepted that the Germans would annex the Sudetenland' or similar?
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Second Line" → 'second line'. Similarly with "First Line".
    Capitals droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "from small cadres" Consider removing "small" as this seems implicit in "cadres". Link cadre.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sources differ on the background indicating it was either blue or green" is a little unclear to me. Perhaps 'Sources differ on whether the background was blue or green'?
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Those who remained were issued with rifles and other essentials." Just checking that for the first five months of its existence the division was so unmilitary a formation that its infantry did not even possess rifles. Given the stocks left over from WWI it seems difficult to credit.
    This was a left over piece of the prior version of the article that was incorporated into the expansion I undertook. Looking at the source used, Cheall states that when he reported to this unit (just prior to the outbreak of the war), him and all others were give a rifle and some basic equipment. Considering he is speaking for just his battalion, I think it is best to just remove the sentence to avoid confusion or unnecessary implications.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "divisions being deployed singly ... as equipment became available"; "the deployment of the whole TA in waves, as divisions completed their training". These statements seem to me to be contradictory.
    Per the source, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up and dispatched abroad) as they completed their training. The intent was to have the entire TA in France within 12-months. Per Gibbs, on the following timetable:
    The regular army deployed within the first six weeks
    The first ten TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war.
    The remaining 16 TA divisions in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
    Assuming there were no hiccups. With that said, do you have a recommendation on how best to convey this information?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe something like "The war-time deployment of the TA envisioned the divisions being deployed singly, to reinforce the regular army that had already been dispatched to the European mainland, as equipment became available. The plan envisioned the deployment of the whole TA in waves, as divisions completed their training."
'It was envisioned that the TA divisions each be deployed intact to reinforce the regular army units in France as equipment became available, with between two and eight divisions being so transferred at a time over the first twelve months of the war.'
  • I have updated the article per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "On February 1, the 12th DLI became the Tyneside Scottish and became part of the Black Watch" The second "became" → 'a'.
  • TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "redeployed to France as front-line capable soldiers" I am not sure that this works. Strictly there should be another hyphen between "front-line" and "capable", but it may be better if you could think of a better way of expressing it.
    I have went for the simple approach of dropping "capable", seems a bit redundant. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems fine now.
  • "although few had been trained how to use them" → 'although few had been trained in how to use them'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "trapping those in Belgium from the rest of the French military along the Franco-German border" This doesn't work. Either "trapping" → 'separating' or similar, or rephrase the clause after "Belgium".
    Switched out trapping with separating, per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was spread across the Pas-de-Calais and the Somme" Optional: I know that you have Wikilinked, but it may help a reader to change to something like 'It was spread across the French departments of Pas-de-Calais and Somme' as well. If not, the definite article should be removed from in front of "the Pas-de-Calais and the Somme".
    I have gone with your suggestion, and added in the additional detail and link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Once the realisation that the German crossing of the Meuse had turned into a major breakthrough, the BEF and French armies began a fighting withdrawal from Belgium back to France" There seem to be some words missing from the first part of this[?]
    I have reworded part of this sentence. I hope it reads better now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have, rather cheekily, changed this directly. If you don't like it, please revert it.
  • "Petreforce, the grouping of the 12th (Eastern), the 23rd Division, and other nearby units" I had thought that 46th Division was also part of Petreforce, even if not much of it got to the front. If you, or your sources, know better, please disregard.
    I am not sure if it became part at a latter date. The division's role in the fighting around Arras diverges quite quickly from Petreforce, despite officially being part of it. Ellis states on formation it was the 23rd, one brigade of the 12th, along the Arras garrison (1 battalion, 18 field guns, other nearby RA and RE units, and a handful of tanks).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. It is not really my specialist area. It is fine as is.
  • "Petre informed his subordinates that the French were resilient on either side of the German breakthrough and only small German units" Maybe 'and that only small German units'?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Brigadier Philip Kirkup's 70th Brigade 70th Brigade held the southern flank"
    Gah! Duplicate wording removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "a composite battery of 11 field guns and two 4.5 howitzers" "11" → 'eleven'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "What followed, was a series of confused company actions" The comma is unnecessary.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Battle of France" is a very long section. Would it be possible to introduce some sub-sections?
    I have broken it up into a few sections, and added an extra map. Not quite to happy with the way it looks so completely open to suggestions.
It seems ok to me. I don't think that it is worth trying to be too perfectionist about. (But that may just be me.)
  • The penultimate paragraph of "Battle of France" may benefit from being split.
    I made a split where I switched from talking about the division, to its separated battalion. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
IMO, yes.
  • "the level of training on their use was still inadequate" "on" → 'in'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "5th and 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Divisions who subsequently launched a minor counter-attack" "who" → 'which'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 1: "(compared to the creation of Kitchener's Army)" "compared" → 'comparable'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 1: "This avoided the complications with the" → 'This avoided the complications experienced with the'
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As always, thank you for the comments. I have tried to address them all, and have left some comments in regards to the ones I have yet to do so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking good. A very impressive article, worthy of its topic. A couple of thoughts above. Where no comment, assume that I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, nice work, as always. I have a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Men of 7th Green Howards, 69th... --> "the 7th Green Howards"
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • outbreak of the war.[13][14][13] --> remove the second note 13
    Great catch!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • inconsistent spelling: "motorized" and "motorised"
    Went back over the article to get the "ise" back in. The one inconsistency should now be between the quoted text and the article text.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division is overlinked
    Dup link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • represented the regiment's light --> "regiments'"?
As a possessive, should it not have an apostrophe? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I tweaked the sentence, to hopefully satisfy both?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
As a plural possessive the apostrophe was in the wrong place (it would go outside the "s"). The tweak resolves this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For the 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, this resulted in the loss of upwards of 10 per cent of the strength of the division --> "For the 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, this resulted in the loss of upwards of 10 per cent of its strength"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Once the realisation that the German crossing of the Meuse had turned into a major breakthrough, the BEF and French armies began a fighting withdrawal from Belgium back to France. --> who realised this?
    I have reworded this, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, that works. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • places, let along a tank --> "let alone"?
    Quite correct!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • However, most lacked --> "However, most of the guns lacked..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "reconnoiter" --> "reconnoitre"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • sources: appear to be reliable to me based on publishers and authors

Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all pointsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Second Silesian WarEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Second Silesian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the second in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and I'd like to take it further up the quality ladder with help from this project! I'm particularly interested in help getting it into European English (I'm an American and can't tell when I'm noticeably writing like one). Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

Given I reviewed at GAN, and I tend towards a detailed look there, I haven't got much new to comment on:

  • you can drop the citation in the lead, as the preceding info is covered by citations in the body
Got it.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be moving towards reducing the use of tertiary sources as you progress towards FAC, eg Britannica, esp if the content is available from secondary sources
Indeed, thanks for the guidance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • War of the Austrian Succession is duplicate linked, as are Alsace, Elbe, Prague, and Third Silesian War. There is a script that will spot these for you, instructions for installing it are at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
Those should all be fixed. I'll try that tool!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • all the external links are good

That's all I have. Nicely done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "which confirmed Prussia's control of the region of Silesia." Optional: Add ', in eastern Germany' or ', in what is now western Poland'.
I agree that many readers will not be immediately clear about the location of "Silesia"; in these cases I'm usually inclined to let the wikilink to Silesia provide clarification if a reader wants it, but I guess I could see adding a little more context at this first instance. Do you think this detail should be added to the leads of all four articles in the series? I'd like to preserve the parallel style, if possible. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, it probably should be standard across the articles. It is not a deal breaker at ACR. How about leaving as is in the lead, but explaining briefly where it is at first mention in the main article? Ie towards the end of the first paragraph.
I think it probably goes better in the lead; I'm adding a brief gloss to all four articles' leads.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That works for me.
  • "in mid 1744, and it ended in a Prussian victory with the 1745 Treaty of Dresden" Suggest 'with the Treaty of Dresden in December 1745', to match "mid 1744" and to allow the lead to communicate a sense of the war's duration.
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest linking "crown land".
Done.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "even threatening Vienna" Suggest a preceding 'and'.
Good advice.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Austria conceded the majority of Silesia" I think that should be 'ceded', linked to cession.
Fair enough.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of linking ceded, as suggested above?
Ah, sorry; done!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "in return for Prussia's neutrality in the continuing War of the Austrian Succession" Suggest deleting "of the Austrian Succession"; readers have probably remembered which war it is.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "King Frederick apprehended that" → 'King Frederick was apprehensive that'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the invading Prussian army, numbering around 70,000 men" "numbering" is redundant.
I think I had structured the sentence that way in part to create a comma after "men" so that the reference could follow a punctuation mark, but I agree that it slows the flow of the sentence.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "entered Bohemia in three parts" "parts" doesn't, IMO, work. Could you use another word? ('columns' would do nicely.)
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "all three forces converged upon Prague by the beginning of September" "upon" → 'on'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "and gave up Bohemia for lost" "for lost" is redundant.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "which they defended against Austrian incursions through the winter" Suggest 'which they defended through the winter against Austrian incursions'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "signed 18 May in Leipzig" Could you insert 'on'?
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "Austria prepared for a more determined invasion of Silesia" Optional: Is "determined" the best word here?
The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper "invasion", meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense "invading" the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the "invasion" of spring 1745. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I see your point. Leave it as is if you wish then. Or, possibly, 'large-scale'?
How about "...more forceful"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine.
  • "agreed on a more offensive alliance against Prussia" Suggest either "a more" → 'another'; or explain just what was more offensive about it.
The contrast is with the earlier "Quadruple Alliance", which was (at least rhetorically) defensive in character and aimed at preserving the integrity of the Habsburg legacy against Hohenzollern depredations, whereas this new Austro-Saxon alliance spelled out both parties' hopes of actually gaining territory at Prussia's expense. I've attempted to clarify.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "from multiple quarters toward Brandenburg" "quarters" → 'directions'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "once again sent envoys to Maria Theresa and Frederick Augustus II to make peace" A genuine question: Is that correct? Or would 'offering to make peace' be more accurate?
How about "...to propose peace"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Very good.
Seem fair!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

An impressive article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the informative article. One minor query above and then I would be happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead image and both maps
Do you mean doing something to the image files themselves on Commons, or do you mean displaying the images at a higher thumbnail resolution in the article? None of the images currently has a resolution specified, so they're showing up at whatever size you've set your images to default to; that seemed to me to be the safest policy in light of the wide range of display resolutions people might read the article with. I don't think there's much chance of a reader getting any real detail out of a map without blowing it up to fullscreen anyway, and scaling up the infobox image also widens the infobox and would make it no longer match the other images in the article. Do people here think the article would look better with only those three images set to a hardcoded resolution different from all the others? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't do it with a hardcoded resolution, but with |upright= - this functionality respects the default image size setting, ie. if you've set your default to 240px and I've set mine to 260px |upright=1 would display at 240 for you and 260 for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Template:Infobox military conflict takes the parameter |upright=, and I'm not seeing another parameter that allows for that sort of image sizing; the parameter |image_size= just sets a pixel width for the image (and the parameter |width=, which sets the width of the entire infobox, is also set in pixels). As for the two maps, I don't personally think they would look better or be more useful if made slightly larger (and they would then stick out and not match the other images in the article, which I think would look sloppy), so if there's a size you think the |upright= parameter should be set to, you're going to have to tell me what value you think it ought to take. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Preußische_Grenadier-Bataillone_schlagen_die_Sachsische_Garde.jpg: what is the date of the actual work? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea. Commons says that the original work is at the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, but I wasn't able to find a reference to it on their website, which is quite sparse. The date would presumably be somewhere between roughly 1880 and 1920. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of narrowing that down with other sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not turning up any dated lists of Röchling's works in my searches; he doesn't seem to be very well documented. He co-illustrated a children's book of the life of Frederick the Great "in fifty images" around 1807, and it's possible that this image could have come from that work. I think the best I can do is narrow it to the time period during which this artist was alive and making historical military art. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Bill KibbyEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Bill Kibby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bill Kibby is the next in my project to get all South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. With Diver Derrick already a FA, Kibby is the only other WWII VC recipient from SA. Another posthumous award, Kibby received the VC for his actions during the Second Battle of El Alamein. There is no stand-alone biography of Kibby, so the article is not terribly long, and has been put together using the various books on Australian VCs plus his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, PM, looks good. I have a few minor comments/suggestions (apologies if I've missed anything - a bit under the weather right now):

  • there is one duplicate link in the lead, but in the context makes sense to me (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs (no action required)
  • perhaps link platoon, company and battalion
  • do we know why his family moved to Australia?
  • next year recovering and undergoing further training: perhaps, "next year recovering and undergoing further training while his battalion took part in the North African Campaign" (this will avoid the minor issue where you say the battalion was recommitted to the campaign, without having actually stated when they were initially committed
  • He was a quiet and sincere man, who loved gardening: Seems a bit choppy when read in combination with the previous sentence. Perhaps, "He was described as a quiet and sincere man, who loved gardening"
  • which displayed "a fondness for Palestine's countryside and a feeling for its people.": perhaps "according to biographer, Bill Gamage..."
  • "2/48th Battalion" --> "2/48th Infantry Battalion"
  • On 14 September, while the battalion was training...: perhaps state where
  • hoping to dislodge the Allies from the area, take Alexandria, and open the way to Cairo and the Suez Canal, beginning the First Battle of El Alamein: the last bit seems a bit run on
  • On 22 July, the 24th...: sugest link the 24th Brigade here
  • battalion was undertaking garrison duties in northern Syria after its involvement in the Siege of Tobruk
  • sources look reliable to me
  • perhaps mention that the citation was based on a note found in the pocket of Captain Robbins? (p. 158 of They Dared Mightily)
  • p. 135 of this source mentions that Mabel was presented with the award by Lord Gowrie in November 1943: [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries, those changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ykraps

I'll take a closer look later but here are few preliminary comments to be getting on with:
  • As it's a somewhat ambiguous term, perhaps link Middle East.
  • Probably a good idea to link draper too as this isn't a common term in this day and age
  • Instead of ...enjoyed spending time outdoors being active, why not, "...enjoyed outdoor activities"?
  • ...getting work at the Perfection Fibrous Plaster Works in Edwardstown, where he worked... sounds a bit clumsy with the repetition. What about, "securing a position at...."?
  • spending time outdoors being active. He was active ... Close repetition of active. What about, "He joined the scouting movement, as an assistant scoutmaster in the 2nd Glenelg Sea Scouts where he crewed the lifeboat". Or similar?

--Ykraps (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Few more...
  • Was he a full corporal between acting corporal and acting seargent?
  • After recovering, in August 1941 he joined the brigade training battalion... I assume this is referring to Kibby but as George was mentioned in the previous sentence, I don't think it's clear enough. Perhaps say, Kibby joined the brigade training battalion.
  • Are compass points not hyphenated in Australian English? ie north-west Egypt
  • Focused or focussed?
  • On 30–31 October, the platoon came under intense machine gun and mortar fire. Most of them were killed or wounded, and by 31 October the total fighting strength... Do we need 31 October twice? Can we say, On 30–31 October, the platoon came under intense machine gun and mortar fire. Most of them were killed or wounded, and by the time it had stopped, total fighting strength of the battalion was down to 213 men? Or something along those lines perhaps.
  • Isn't postscript all one word?
  • ...memorial trust was established and raised ₤1,001 Is that Australian pounds? Or link to whichever currency.

I think that's all. A nice article which I remember reading when I reviewed for DYK. It was one of those "I'll come back to that" moments which got overlooked so I was delighted to see it here.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Ykraps. I think I got all these. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I made a small change here [[2]] because one of the changes altered the sentence following it. If you want to rewrite that's fine by me. I'm adding my support anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ykraps! Your input is appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:William_Kibby_061364.JPG: as per the template in use, this requires information on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, does it? I was working on the basis of it being Commonwealth owned (via donation to the AWM) and taken more than 50 years ago, or a photograph with a known maker taken prior to 1 January 1955. Alternatively, it could be PD-AustraliaGov. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It does with the current tag - see the bold italic note at the bottom of the tag itself. If AustraliaGov applies then that information is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Roebuck (1774)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk)

HMS Roebuck (1774) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... The article achieved GA in April and I am hoping it will eventually make FA. A peer review was requested last month where, among other things, it was suggested I nominate for ACR.

Roebuck was a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. She served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When war broke out with the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

Any and all feedback is welcome but I am usually lambasted for my prose so that could be a good starting point. Thanks Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

Great to see this here. I reviewed at GAN, and it is in good shape, but I have some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "Designed in 1769 by Sir Thomas Slade to operate in the shallower..."
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link flagship
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the American Revolutionary War ended, in October 1883..."
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC) (I assume you meant 1783)
  • link hospital ship and troopship
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in 1792, she served in this capacity..."
    Because of the close repeating of the "After the American Revolutionary War ended.." sentence, I've reworded your suggestion a little. See what you think [[3]]--Ykraps (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link ship commissioning for Recommissioned
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "on 30 August, during the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland, part of the War of the Second Coalition." This is particularly needed as the Batavian Navy naturally makes one think of Batavia
    Again, I've slightly changed your suggestion but I've incorporated the links you require.[[4]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "When the War of the Third Coalition broke out in May 1803,..."
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link ship breaking for broken up
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Body
  • I'm not sure about the initial caps on "The" in "The Admiralty"
    I've checked some books and the preference seems to be uncapitalised 'the'. So I've gone with that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • for Launched link ceremonial ship launching, unless this wasn't done in those times
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the sentence beginning "This design was eventually phased out..." needs work. Perhaps "This design was eventually phased out for those ships of the Roebuck class completed after HMS Dolphin. The remaining ships of the class had a traditional frigate-style stern."?
    Again I've altered your suggestion slightly because, as I understand it, the double row of windows still featured on a few of the ships built after Dolphin. They only started phasing them out at that point.--Ykraps (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link 18-pounder?
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • are there links for the 9-pounder and 12-pounder guns?
    There's an article for the 12-pounder, which I've added, but not the 9-pounder.--Ykraps (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • is there any explanation for the increased crew in 1883?
    Not that's given in RS but increasing the size of the guns from 9-12 pounders would have necessitated an increase in crew of two per gun.--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link Ship grounding for ran aground
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • for prize link Prize (law)
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "the rebel vessel"→"the American vessel" for NPOV
    Okay, I've never considered the term POV but as there isn't a need to distinguish it from a loyalist vessel, done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • is Defence likely to be notable?
    Despite not having its own article, I think so. It is mentioned prominently in Winfield and turns up in multiple reliable sources such as [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Roebuck with the 32-gun"→"Roebuck, with the 32-gun"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the link to the Battle of Brandywine Creek to make it clearer what the link is to. At present the link seems to be to a location called Brandywine Creek rather than a battle
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Howe led Roebuck and a squadron of small vessels"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "where the Americans had sunk obstructions to prevent its navigation, and erected redoubts overlooking the river" if that is what is meant?
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link Gunboat
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • given he's already been introduced as the captain, suggest "Roebuck's commander, Hamond, offered"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • was it called Billingsport at this point, or Billing's Point?
    The source (Lossing) says it was called Billing's Point at the time, which appears to contradict the article somewhat.--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest explaining who "his brother William" was in terms of the ARW
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • say where Sandy Hook is
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "arrived in Narragansett Bay, and began attacking British positions on Conanicut and Goat Island the next day."
    I've changed that particular sentence so many times, I think I've now come full circle. :) Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • for completeness, "This took until April the following year."
    Are you talking about the British evacuation of that area, because that happened in October didn't it?--Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link blockade
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The 74-gun and 64-gun ships-of-the-line"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • there is a space between [Note 2] [22]
    Removed--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "and on 7 May, they instead landed seamen"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The town soon after capitulated on 11 May"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "(the captured and renamed USS Boston)"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link Continental Army
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • rank for John Orde
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "following renewed hostilities with France in the War of the First Coalition"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "part of a force sent to repossess it" were they successful?
    Yes. The island capitulated on 24 May to a force led by Sir Ralph Abercromby. I think I've clarified this. See what you think.[[10]]--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • perhaps mention that the Batavian Republic was in the Netherlands, not in the NEI
    I'm struggling with this because the Batavian Republic comprised Netherlands, Belgium and parts of North Germany. I thought about saying, 'previously the Seven United Netherlands' or something similar but I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Do you have a suggestion?--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    How about "In January 1795, the Batavian Republic had become the Dutch Republic following French intervention. As this new state was allied with France, Britain found herself at war with it." Assuming the facts are correct, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I've added a bit here [[11]]. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • per the lead comments, perhaps state that the Vlieter incident was during the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • drop the comma from "The Dutch fleet within, surrendered without a shot being fired on either side"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link 46th (South Devonshire) Regiment of Foot and 54th (West Norfolk) Regiment of Foot
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • link ship breaking for broken up
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the thorough review. I've made most of the changes you've suggested but haven't been able to address your points about why the attacks in Narragansett Bay ended in April 1779, and how to differentiate between the Batavian Republic and Batavia in the Dutch East Indies. Do you have suggestions as to how I can better comply? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Those changes look good. Supporting. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USS_Confederacy.jpg: why is this believed to be in the public domain?
    I'm assuming because it is a reproduction of the painting taken with a Nikon D90 by Kenneth G. Takada for the USN and they appear to have released it into the public domain. It is free to download here [[12]].--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Vlieter_1799.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    So far I haven't been able to determine. It appears to be one of 150,000 fotos released by Nederlands Instituut voor Militaire Historie (NIMH) in 2004. I'll keep looking.--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    I take it you don't accept this is an unknown piece of work but I haven't been able to find anything on it, and it only appears online in Wikipedia articles. I thought at first it was a Langendyk from 1799 but I've spent a great deal of time looking through collections of his to no avail. So where does that leave us? Can I use it or not?--Ykraps (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Are you saying I can't use these images?--Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm saying we need more information to determine whether we can use these images. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    As there doesn't appear to be any further information, I have removed the images from the article. If there is doubt over the copyright status, should they not also be proposed for deletion over at commons?--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: I have found another version of one of the files with different licence and date. Is File:US Navy 090925-N-9671T-002 A Revolutionary War painting depicting the Continental Navy frigate Confederacy is displayed at the Navy Art Gallery at the Washington Navy Yard.jpg acceptable?--Ykraps (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For that file, the current tagging reflects the photograph - what is the copyright status of the original painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I understand that Freedom of panorama in US copyright law doesn't extend to works of art as it does in the UK but the painting (and therefore presumably, the copyright) is owned by USN and if they choose to put a faithful reproduction of it into the public domain, how is that not acceptable? Just asking out of interest, I don't have an overwhelming desire to use it. As regards the date, it was published in this book [[13]] in 1974.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking the time to do this review, by the way. It is appreciated.--Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, this article looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • in the References, the hyphenation of the ISBN for the Ball work is inconsistent with the others
    Done. I have always reproduced exactly the format used in the book because I didn't know whether it was significant or not. Now I know it doesn't make a difference, I will look out for it in future.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • are there any other categories that the article could be added to? Currently, it really only sits in one. For instance, compare the categories on French battleship Gaulois
    Yeh, I've never really got to grips with categories; there doesn't appear to be any intuitive search function and the categories one would expect to find, don't exist. Still, I've managed to find a few more by copying from similar articles. Is there enough now, do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ball pp.1 - 3 --> should have a spaced endash
    Done. I assume this is the same for all page ranges so I have replaced the hyphens for all citations.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Apologies, I have just re-read my comment. It should be an unspaced endash - which is what I thought I'd written, but obviously didn't. I have fixed this for you as my penance. Again, sorry for the bad advice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    No worries, and thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • [54][2]: suggest ordering these numerically
    Done, Again, didn't know that was a thing. I will look out for it in future. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Pretty sure you got the all. It's only a minor thing; it wouldn't hold up promotion, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • [58][57][1]: same as above
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • [29][1]: same as above
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • there are a few other examples of the above in the body of the text to correct
    Done, I think. Let me know if I've missed any.--Ykraps (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Roebuck-class ships --> italics for Roebuck
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hamond's exceptional familiarity --> probably best not to use "exceptional" as it might be fall afoul of MOS:PUFF
    This came up at PR too. I was only trying to convey that Hammond had a greater knowledge than most; they were all familiar with the waters. Still, I've removed 'exceptional' until I can find a better phrase.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yuri GagarinEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Coffeeandcrumbs (talk)

Yuri Gagarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criterion for the class. The article has undergone a GA review which can be found at Talk:Yuri Gagarin/GA1. I have since expanded lead and continued to copy-edit the article. As most people know, Gagarin was the first human in space and a very important figure in world history. The article is viewed by over 1,000,000 readers each year and is likely to have a large spike in viewers around July 21. (It is indefinitely semi-protected.) I would like to have it seriously scrutinized by editors with experience in MILHIST. This article is written in a generic Commonwealth English which is not my native lect. I welcome criticism where my North American English has crept in. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by ChetsfordEdit

This is wonderful, Gagarin deserves an FA article so it's great to see you working towards it. I found it to be well-written, comprehensive, and an enjoyable read. I have a few comments that can be addressed or disregarded at leisure as none impede my enthusiastic support.

  • "The KGB's report declassified in March 2003 dismissed various conspiracy theories and instead indicated the actions of airbase personnel contributed to the crash." I think "declassified in March 2003" is a paranthetical expression and should be set out with commas.
  • "The bodies of Gagarin and Seryogin were cremated and their ashes were buried in the walls of the Kremlin." For efficiency, I think the second "were" could be omitted but it reads fine either way.
    • "buried" was a bad word choice anyway. I have removed "were" and went with "interred". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There's an unresolved template in the second paragraph of Medals and orders of merit.
  • I think German Democratic Republic should be wikilinked since not everyone nowadays will know it's East Germany.
  • I was surprised not to see anything about his stature, only because it seems like a lot has been made of it, but that's neither here nor there.
    • It was much ado in popular media but scholarly sources do not emphasize it. They point out that those considered for Vostok missions, including Valentina Tereshkova (GA review ongoing), were all short. This was because the Vostok capsule was tiny. Gagarin was chosen from among the 20+ candidates/6 trained cosmonauts for his other talents which I hope I made clear. I added a note about the height prerequisites and Gagarin's height. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Some people might raise an issue with reference 81 and ask if a different source could be found. However, per WP:RSP, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for its coverage on "general topics" of which this seems to be one, so I'd imagine it's fine.
    • Thank you for the review! I will work on the unresolved template and ref #81. The latter is attached to a more recent 2013 revelation not covered in my books. I have the latest biography on Gagarin coming to me via mail in couple of days and it should allow me to rewrite those few sentences. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Yuri_Gagarin_(1961)_-_Restoration.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is its status in the US?
    • First published in Helsinki, Finland in 1961. I am not sure how we determine status in the US. There is no evidence in searching newspapers.com that this photo was ever published in the U.S. immediately after its publication in Finland. Getty Images also brings up no results. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
      • If it was never published in the US its status will rely on restored or subsisting copyrights. My reading of that page is that it's non-free, but please review to see if I may have missed something. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I am nowhere near an expert but according to c:PD-Finland50: In 1961, the protection period was 25 years from the year of first publication according to the §16 of the law of protection of photographs of 1961. Material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law remains in public domain, and therefore all photographs (but not photographic works of art) released before 1966 are in the public domain. (emphasis added) It became PD in Finland in 1986. Does that not mean it is also in PD in U.S. as well. Does URAA not apply in this can as well since the photo was in PD in Finland before January 1, 1996. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Did it have a copyright notice at the time of its publication? In what publication/form was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
            • The photographer works for Alma Media which operate(d/s) several newspapers in Finland. I have to assume it was first published in a Finnish Newspaper. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:CCCP_air-force_Rank_polkovnik_infobox.svg is tagged as lacking source details and should include an explicit tag for the original design
  • File:Gagarin_Signature.svg: source link is dead. Same with File:RIAN_archive_615544_The_USSR_pilot-cosmonauts_Valentina_Tereshkova_and_Yuri_Gagarin.jpg, File:Gemini_4_Astronauts_Meet_Yuri_Gagarin.jpg
  • Gagarin-Poyekhali.ogg: source link is dead and what is the work's status in the US?
    • The recording can also be heard in this short film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=136&v=6ICqlD-2CX4. The short film's website says it is "a free film to download & share". Is that enough? Can I replace this film as the source? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
      • That film has an NC-ND license, which is non-free for our purposes. The recording may well be PD for some other reason but not based on that film. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Looking at the tag again, I believe the claim is that it id PD-ineligible because Gagarin only speaks a single word in the recording. The recording is 1.5 s long and Gagarin speaks a common Russian word that translates to "Let's go!". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Yuri_Gagarin_with_wife_in_1964.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Jânio_da_Silva_Quadros,_presidência_da_República,_condecora_o_major_Iuri_Alekseievitch_Gagarin,_em_Brasília.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

G'day, Coffeeandcrumbs, thanks for your efforts on this very important article. I have the following suggestions for improvements: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Soviet Air Forces is overlinked in the lead
  • in the body there are several examples of ovelink: Gararin, Smolensk Oblast; Lyubertsy; Orenburg; MiG-15; Alexei Leonov; Vladmir Komarov; Zhukovsky Air Force Engineering Academy; Baikonur Cosmodrome; Star City, Russia; Red Square;
  • who graduated from Orenburg Medical School --> "who had graduated from Orenburg Medical School"?
    •  Working. This is more complicated than it seems. I need to figure out when she graduated. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • in the citations, there is a page needed tag on citation # 107 that should b dealt with
  • is there a translation that could be provided for the title of the work in citation # 75?
  • same as above in the Sources for the title of the Pervushin work?
  • suggest moving the long quote out of citation # 21, and making it a Note
    • Done. There are some duplicate links here but I think they are useful to repeat in the Note. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 2 uses a different referencing format to the other notes, which should be consistent
  • in the Sources section, the full bibliographic entries don't require page numbers unless they are chapters inside larger works, or journal articles. The page numbers should be used in the citations, though. For instance compare Impey with Louis
  • in the Awards and honours section there is a "chronology citation needed" tag that should be dealt with. If citation # 15 meets this requirement, the tag could just be removed
  • "manoeuvered" --> "manoeuvred"
  • On 12 April 1961, 6:07 am --> "On 12 April 1961, at 6:07 am..."
  • Gagarin was qualified a Military Pilot 1st Class --> "Gagarin was recognised as a qualified a Military Pilot 1st Class..."
  • which revised it rules, and acknowledge that --> "which revised its rules, and acknowledged that..."?
  • the scale of which were second only to World War II Victory Parades --> "the World War II Victory Parades"?
  • eighth anniversary of the beginning of Cuban Revolution --> "the Cuban Revolution"
  • after the incident at the Black Sea resort, did Gargarin and his wife remain together? Is this stated in any reliable sources? If not, no worries
  • image caption: "A Russian MiG-15UTI, the same type as Gagarin was flying" --> "was flying when he was killed"?
  • a second, "unauthorized" Su-15 --> " a second, "unauthorized" aircraft"? (as the first aircraft in the area was Gargarin's MiG and not an Su-15?)
    • Fixed. I went with "the presence of a second aircraft, an "unauthorized" Su-15, flying in the area." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

1st Armoured Brigade (Australia)Edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is about a rather short lived formation of the Australian Army that was raised during World War II. Intended to serve in the Middle East, Japan's entry into the war meant that the brigade was never deployed there, instead being held back for defensive duties in the event of an invasion that never came. It was eventually broken up, although some former elements saw service in the Pacific with other formations. In the post war period, the brigade was re-raised briefly within the part-CMF, remaining on the order of battle until 1957 when it was broken up and its constituent units reallocated to other formations. The article is a collaboration between myself and Nick-D and we'd welcome any comments about how to improve it further. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this at GAN, so haven't got much to add. A few minor things:

Lead
  • link the states, for the general reader from outside Australia
  • suggest 1st Australian Armoured Division→ 1st Armoured Division
  • mention that some of its constituent units did see active service after being detached
  • suggest "serving as a Citizens Military Force unit"→"serving in the Citizens Military Force", as it wasn't a unit, it was a formation
  • perhaps explain in the lead that the reason large armoured formations weren't required was a focus on infantry-armour cooperation during jungle operations
Body
  • suggest This formation included six armoured regiments and two brigade headquarters within the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF)→This formation included two brigade headquarters commanding three armoured regiments each, drawn from the all-volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF)
  • link corps and Division (military)
  • there is a bit of repetition with explaining the six armoured regiments in an armoured division, perhaps this could be trimmed slightly?
  • link scout car and cruiser tank
  • link brigadier
  • for part-time forces link Australian Army Reserve
  • link Qld
  • for Greta, perhaps include the full link with state here, then drop NSW from Tamworth, as it is fair to assume we are still talking about the same state when they are in such close proximity in the text, drop NSW from Narrabri and Gunnedah
  • comma after "after the fall of Singapore"
  • suggest moving "The two officers swapped positions again in January 1943." to the appropriate point in the chronological narrative
  • suggest "The following month, one of the brigade's armoured regiments – the 2/6th" – was→"The following month, the 2/6th Armoured Regiment was"
  • link Territory of New Guinea for New Guinea
  • for Western Command, link 5th Military District (Australia)
  • comma after "amphibious capability"
  • link Puckapunyal
  • for Armoured Centre link Combined Arms Training Centre (Australia)

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, thanks for taking another look at this. I think I've gotten all your points. These are my edits: [14]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
All good, nice work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "without seeing active service as a formed body, although some of its former units saw action later with other formations" A picky point - I am not sure what "as a formed body" adds.
  • "to enable the formation of a self-contained Australian corps along with the four infantry divisions that previously been formed" Suggest "along with" → 'consisting of'; and adding 'had' after "that".
  • "officer on the Western Front during World War I" Optional: add ', both' after "Front".
  • "The assigned regiments were" Suggest 'The regiments assigned to the brigade were'.
  • "although he was replaced by Brigadier Denzil Macarthur-Onslow in July" Optional: delete "although", use a semi colon.
    • Reworked -- the semi colon seemed a bit abrupt so I reworded it a bit further. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "used to form part of the 2/4th Armoured Regiment, and was assigned to the 2nd Armoured Brigade" "and" → 'which'.
  • "and become a direct command unit of III Corps." I am not sure that "direct command unit" communicates well to the lay reader; is there a clearer way of expressing it?
  • Nimmo's two periods of command are treated differently to Macarthur-Onslow's.

An excellent article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: G'day, Gog, thank you for taking a look. I think I've addressed all of your comments. These are my changes: [15]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • service in the Middle East, following Japan's Link both Middle East and pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • re-raised in the post war period Not sure or Australians use post war, post-war or even postwar?
    • Pretty sure we use all three (we are nothing if not flexible), but taking the first two books on my bookshelf (Grey's A Military History of Australia and Dennis' Oxford Companion) it seems they use "postwar" so I've changed it to that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah I know I'd almost say you Australians write a mix between American and British spellings. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • was no need for large scale armoured Do you Australians not use large-scale?
  • armoured brigade headquarters unnecessary You mean unnecessarily?
    • No, I think unnecessary works here. For instance, "it was rendered unnecessary", as opposed to "it became unnecessarily something". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • brigade were also effected by the change You mean affected?
    • Done. I can never get the difference between effect/affect right in my mind. 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the east coast, moving to Sydney Unlink Sydney because of common term.
    • Done
  • In the post war period Same as comment two of mine.

That's anything from me an excellent article I'd say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well I saw this nomination and I saw you nominated it. So, I thought "it's awhile when I saw an AR's nomination" plus you needed one reviewer so I wanted to help any nomination here. I decided to have a review on it. But your edits look great in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from YkrapsEdit

  • Suggest linking Middle East because it is somewhat ambiguous. In areas where the term Near East is still used, the Middle East is somewhere entirely different.
  • Do Australians not hyphenate co-operation?
    • We have in the past, and that was how I was taught, but I believe less so now. My Macquarie Australian Dictionary doesn't, so I went with "cooperation". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link cavalry.
  • It had initially been planned to raise a new 2nd AIF infantry battalion – the 2/34th – as a motorised unit, but instead... Initially, it had been planned that the brigade would deploy to the Middle East in early 1942 Just because I find the repetition clumsy, can we say for the second part, "In early 1942 the brigade was to be sent to the Middle East but...." Or something similar?
  • ...was formed from the brigade to deploy to Malaya around this time, but this deployment was also cancelled.... If we can just say, "...but this was also cancelled", we can avoid the repetition of 'deployment' here.
  • In January 1943, Nimmo resumed command of the brigade, taking over from Macarthur-Onslow. What about saying, "In January 1943, Nimmo resumed command, taking over from Macarthur-Onslow", to be slightly less wordy?
  • As the tide of war in the Pacific turned in favour of the Allies, the threat of invasion passed and the Australian government decided to reallocate some of the manpower that had been tied up in the armoured divisions to other formations that would be utilised for jungle warfare, or to civilian industry. Seems an awfully long sentence. Consider splitting in two. Also, If I’m understanding it correctly, I would say that the ‘to’ in ‘to civillian industry’, isn’t required
    • Yes, this is a fair point -- blame my liberal arts education ;-) Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The 1st Armoured Division was retained in Western Australia, though, and in June Brigadier Frank Wells assumed command of the brigade. I would say there ought to be a comma after June (although my comma usage isn’t perfect).
    • Adjusted to mention the date at the end I was was concerned about placing too many commas so close together. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ...was placed under the command of Macarthur-Onslow, who had previously commanded it during the war What about, "under the command of Macarthur-Onslow, who had held the post during the war"?
  • ...with small numbers of Centurion main battle tanks which were issued on a training scale. What’s a training scale?
    • Essentially such a small number that they are only used for training, rather than regular operations. Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The brigade ceased to exist in September 1957, following an Army reorganisation based on a reassessment of the role of armour which resulted in a focus upon infantry support in jungle conditions which rendered armoured brigade headquarters unnecessary. Might benefit from being split into two sentences.
  • At this time, some armoured headquarters staff were retained underneath the Brigadier, Royal Australian Armoured Corps cell that was established within both Southern and Eastern Commands to provide a cadre with which to form a brigade headquarters in an emergency, but this was about half of the 105 personnel that had previously undertaken the role, and was abolished in 1960. Another long sentence which might be easier to understand if it were two.

An interesting article. I hope my suggestions have helped.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ykraps: Yes, very helpful. Thank you. These are my changes: [17]. Please let me know if you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good. Adding my support.--Ykraps (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleshipEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another class of German battleships up for review, these were the last of the pre-Tirpitz era. In some ways, they set precedents for future German battleships, but in others, they were outdated. The ships had relatively uneventful careers, being rebuilt in the mid-1900s and then sent to the reserve as the new dreadnought battleships began to enter service. They were reactivated for duty early in World War I but they saw limited activity owing to their age and the threat of submarines. Withdrawn from service and disarmed by 1916, they were all discarded after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

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

  • suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III class consisted of five pre–World War I, pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Kaiserliche Marine, all of which were named for German emperors."
    • I had actually forgotten that I hadn't rewritten the lead when I redid the article earlier this year, so you might want to take another look at it now
  • suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III class saw the introduction of the traditional armament layout for German battleships prior to the advent of the dreadnought type of battleship in the early 1900s—four large-caliber guns, but of comparatively smaller caliber compared to contemporary battleships, in two gun turrets."
    • Reworked as above
  • link keel laying and ship commissioning in the lead
    • The spot for those is gone now
  • suggest "preceding Brandenburg design"→"preceding Brandenburg-class design"
    • Good catch
  • suggest "The limitations of the fleet's infrastructure, particularly the dry docks and other harbor facilities, along with the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal then under construction, constrained the size of the new ship. As a result, the weight of the center turret used on the Brandenburgs would have to be sacrificed if a heavier secondary armament was to be incorporated."
    • Works for me
  • suggest "Work continued on the ships' design"
    • Sounds good
  • In Agust 1894
    • Fixed
  • "the same old armor layout of the Brandenburgs, a remnant of the old, heavy armor plate" isn't clear to me. Is this just talking about the armor layout in terms of belts etc, or also the use of armour plate? Also the repetition of "old"
    • Reworked it to be clearer
  • the standard displacement isn't covered in the body
    • Good catch
  • "smaller, open bridges" they had open bridges?
    • Yup
  • the crew figures in the infobox don't match the body
    • Fixed
  • there is a bit of repetition regarding KFIII boilers, perhaps just leave it to the General characteristics... section instead of mentioning it earlier
    • I tweaked it a bit to reduce the repetition - see how that reads to you
  • the power conversions don't match between the body and infobox, rounding?
    • Fixed
  • "The ships' armament was nearly identical to the preceding Kaiser Friedrich III class" but this is the Kaiser Friedrich III class?
    • Ha, must've copied the section from the Wittelsbach article
  • I take it the 8.8 cm guns were all singly mounted?
    • Clarified
  • perhaps explicitly state the calibre of the machine cannons?
    • Good idea
  • the TT conversion doesn't match between body and infobox
    • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • I've cleaned up the infobox a little, but tell the reader that triple-expansion engines are steam engines, with the proper hyphen and a link in both places.
    • You'd think at some point I'd remember to do this on my own ;)
      • Well, if the intrawebs allowed physical contact... Not that I've ever done much the same thing ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Link knots and nautical miles in both places.
    • Done
  • What caliber are 1-pdr guns?
    • Fixed
  • Move the conversion for 250 mm to the Conning Tower entry, which needs to have "Tower" decapitalized.
    • Fixed
  • In the lede, link gun turret
    • Done
  • compared to contemporary battleships suggest "to their contemporaries" since we already know that we're discussing battleships
    • Good idea
  • Give a rough date when the ships began to be decommissioned in the lede
    • Done
      • What you did is fine, but I meant during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see - clarified
  • The center turret used on the Brandenburgs was discarded in favor of strengthening the secondary battery. The limitations of the fleet's infrastructure, particularly the dry docks and other harbor facilities, along with the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal then under construction, constrained the size of the new ship. As a result, the weight of the center turret used on the Brandenburgs would have to be sacrificed if a heavier secondary armament was to be incorporated. A certain amount of redundancy here.
    • See if how I've reworded suits you
      • No, you talk about discarding the center turret in order to accommodate the strengthened secondary armament twice. Once and the beginning and again at the end.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Right - I'm trying to unpack for the lay reader why the heavier secondary battery meant the third turret had to be ditched
          • I'd ditch the entire first sentence; the other two explain the situation perfectly, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
            • @Parsecboy: Don't forget about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
              • Ah, I had missed that comment between replying to CPA. Done now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
                • And the effective range of an excuse is.... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Link metric tons on first use,
    • Done
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • four of the new models Suggest "new types"
    • Done
  • Their metacentric height was between .917 to 1.18 m (3 ft 0.1 in to 3 ft 10.5 in) Suggest "metacentric heights were between". Add a leading 0 to the range and round to the nearest full inch
    • Done, though I suspect CPA is going to kill me for the resulting "0 in" ;)
  • that ran for 70 percent Suggest "that covered 70"
    • Good idea
  • I think that the difference between single-ended and double-ended boilers is unimportant for our readers. Link cylindrical boilers with Scotch marine boilers.
    • Probably a fair point
  • What was the designed speed of the ships? If not available note that 17.5 kn in the infobox is a trial speed
    • Will have to look at Groner later
  • Why is volt capitalized and it needs a hyphen
    • Good point
  • 51-kilogram (112 lb) remove the hyphen
    • Done
  • 3.7 cm (1.5 in) Maxim machine cannons I presume these are the 1 pdrs?
    • Indeed - should be clarified in the box now
  • Each main-battery turret had a 50 mm (2 in) thick roof and 250 mm thick sides. The 15 cm guns mounted in turrets were protected by 150 mm thick sides and 70 mm (2.8 in) thick gun shields. Some missing hyphens, I think.
    • The problem is that apparently hyphens don't go with abbreviated units, and "50 mm (2 in)-thick roof" looks odd to me.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Or maybe not. The rest looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't thank me yet! These guns fired 7.04 kg (15.5 lb) at a muzzle missing a noun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Ha, I guess I forgot this one before I went on holiday. :) I'll do this one at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • of fire over weight of shell Merge over weight here.
    • No, that's comparing two separate concepts there, not "overweight"
  • In the early 1890s, the German Navy attempted Link German Navy.
    • Done
  • layout of the Brandenburgs, despite the fact that the weight Remove "despite the fact that" with "although".
    • Done
  • In the "Design" section you have tonne/long ton and tonne/long/short tons system.
    • Think I've fixed this
  • settled on a 11,000-metric-ton (11,000-long-ton; 12,000-short-ton) Link long tons here.
    • Done
  • Link "full load" in both the infobox and the body.
    • Done
  • were between 0.917 to 1.18 m (3 ft 0 in to 3 ft 10 in) Remove the first "in".
    • That I can't do without forcing the second to be a decimal figure
  • muzzle velocity of 835 meters per second (2,740 ft/s) Unlink both m/s and ft/s.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of battleships of JapanEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

List of battleships of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another installment in the lists of warships, this one covers the battleships built by Japan. It caps the Japanese section of OMT, which is complete. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

The big giant has awakened here. ;)

  • Japan promulgated a ten-year naval build-up in early 1896 British build-up.
  • threatened Japan's interests in Korea Link Korea here and unlink the second one.
  • fleet of eight modern battleships, 20,000 long tons (20,321 t) Link long tons.
  • The launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 by the Royal Navy raised the stakes Link Royal Navy.
  • "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats". Also British per cent.
    • That's how it's rendered in the source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fuji hosted the American ambassador to Japan and some senior Who was the ambassador?
    • Detail reserved for the ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Russo–Japanese War in the lead.
  • First World War v. World War I.
  • Link Yellow Sea.
  • Link knots in every template in every section.
    • It's not a sortable table so the first link suffices
  • Link long tons in every template in every section.
    • As above
  • Unlink tonnes in every template in every section. Because of common term.
  • World War I/First World War/WWI (I don't care which name) is overlinked.
  • the Russian battleship Poltava (Russian: Полтава) Unlink the Russian language here. Because of common term.
  • Japan declared war on Imperial Germany Maybe link Imperial Germany here?
  • in 1907 that killed 34 men and wounded 8 others Maybe use eight instead of 8?
    • No, MOS requires consistency in number format when used for the same things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • they both participated in Japan's intervention in Siberia in 1918 Link Japan's intervention in Siberia here.
  • Aki was launched on 15 November 1906 Remove 1906 here.
  • No Kanji and Rōmaji in the Satsuma class?
    • Not in the ship articles and I have no idea what they are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The Fusō-class battleships (扶桑型戦艦 Fusō-gata senkan) Maybe add a semicolon between the Kanji and Rōmaji? Same in the Ise, Nagato, Tosa and Yamato-classes.
    • They're templated.
  • Also Japan used metric units at that time.
    • True, but I don't want to switch between Imperial and metric formats half-way through the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 65 "pp. 84-85, 90." --> pp. 84–85, 90.
  • Citation 65 and 66 are the same.
    • Sharp eyes!
  • Ref 147 "p. 70–71, 356." --> pp. 70–71, 356.
  • In the template of the Kii-class "29.75 knots (55.10 km/h; 34.24 mph" there is an unnecessary nought in the km/h.
  • In the template of the Fuji-class "18.25 knots (34 km/h; 21 mph)" unlink km/h and mph.

I think that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    • All done. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey Sturm the list looks good in my view. I just found a little issue in the 39th citation which state "p. 125-26." I guess it should be "pp. 125–126". Also, the 92nd citation has double p even it is only one page. That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Colorized_Shikishima_Shooting.jpg: as per the tag, what is the publication date of this image? Same with File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg, File:Colorize_Mikasa.jpg, File:Yamato_%26_Musashi.jpg
    • File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg is probably a commercial photo or postcard, based on the lettering.
    • I realize that this is a problem with the template, but the statement therein that "It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act." seems to override any need for the PD-1996|Japan tag when there's no known US publication prior to 1970. Earlier versions of this tag lacked the whole section about publication date and I'm not sure why it was added as nothing changed in Japanese copyright law. At any rate I'm going to simplify both our lives and tag most of these with the alien property custodian tag as I believe they were official photos of one sort or another and thus out of US copyright entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Асахи.jpg: is the 2005 source the first known publication? Same with File:Tango1908-1909.jpg, File:Hizen-battleship-1.jpg, File:Iwami_large.jpg, File:Katori_large.jpg, File:Kawachi_1913.jpg, File:Fuso_Trial_Heading_Left.jpg, File:Nagato1924.jpg
  • File:Model_of_battleship_Kaga_port_view_-_cleaned_up.jpg: is it the photo or the model itself believed to be created around 1925?
  • File:IJN_battleship_design_of_Project-13_class.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It matches the drawing in Jentschura, Jung and Mickel.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-DEdit

This article is in very good shape, but I think would benefit from changes to its first section:

  • The first para doesn't introduce the topic of the article - it dives straight into the historical narrative. Per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, I'd suggest an entirely new lead para.
    • @Nick-D: - in the interest of clarity, are my comments here and here in line with your thinking on the first three points? Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey BB I think Nick is out of town. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw him add the away note on his talk page - he'll see the ping when he gets back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest turning the very long lead into a titled section ("Historical context" or similar perhaps?), with sub-sections - it's hard to navigate the current large quantity of text
  • This material should, at least briefly, put the start of the IJN battleship force into the context of the extraordinary transition Japan made in the late 19th century as it rapidly industrialised and established a strong central government with modern military forces, and then aggressively expanded overseas.
  • "Japan "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" - what's meant by "national revenue" here? Government tax receipts? It seems a hard-to-credit figure if it's a proportion of GDP.
  • I'd suggest noting the modernisation of the battleship force prior to 1941
  • Given that the Kongō-class battlecruisers were reclassified as fast battleships after being rebuilt, I'd suggest including them in this article
    • Sturm added a section on them (though I don't know if he's done with it)
  • As the introduction notes the performance of Japan's battleships in the Russo-Japanese War, I'd suggest adding a similar para on their performance during World War II
  • "She was badly neglected during the post-World War II Occupation of Japan " - she was actually partially dismantled under the terms of the Japanese surrender agreements (for instance, to remove her guns), and then neglected
    • As you know, I've struggled to find any reliable sources covering the ship's post-WW2 history and another search today failed to find anything about how the disarmament was actually implemented.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there's too much detail on the post-Japanese history of Tango
    • Trimmed this down a bit - see if that works. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Due to the threat of American submarines and aircraft carriers" - weren't fuel shortages also part of the reason? Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes - and in fact, I was reading in Frank's Guadalcanal this past weekend about the Japanese having to siphon fuel out of Yamato (and IIRC, Mutsu) in Truk to fuel the cruisers and destroyers during the Guadalcanal campaign. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy:, Nick's comments have been here for a month, maybe you've missed them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sturm and I had talked some time ago - I thought he was working on a new intro and figured I wouldn't mess around with it in the mean time. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, been distracted by volunteering for a music festival, which, not entirely incidentally lacks an article. Been reading up on notability criteria for music-related topics and trying to familiarize myself with good practices there. Nate, if you want to address all of Nick's comments that don't relate to the intro that would be fine, and I'll try and finish rewriting the intro today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

Placeholder for now, will wait until the above are addressed before doing my review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey PM I think you can start your review now. Our two ship experts are discussing about the lead of the article and Nick is out town for a bit. While his comments are (for now) addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Umm, still reworking the lede in consultation with Parsec, struggling to cut out details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

149th Armor RegimentEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

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

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

Image review

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

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

  • generally, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, military units are titled at the final name, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names. Not sure whether that applies here. In this case, with so many names and three names for the unit on active service, I would have thought 149th Armored Regiment was the obvious title. Not sure about preemptively disambiguating the title with (United States), as the spelling of armor seems to be peculiar to the US.
  • state in the lead that the unit didn't see action in WWI.
  • also in the lead, "the unit converted from a cavalry into armor"
  • per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names should be bolded in the lead. To my eye, Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion and Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion are obvious contenders, given they relate to active service
  • how did Noble Eagle relate to Kosovo? I thought it was a domestic operation? The way the sentence is constructed indicates a link.
  • in the infobox, suggest Mexican Border War rather than just Border War, which is far too vague
  • link 40th Infantry Division (United States)
The link in lead is the first mention, in the sentence "The following year, Troop C was activated then reorganized and redesignated as Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion upon the United States' entry into World War I; as part of the 40th Division, the battalion deployed to France in 1918, and returned to the United States in 1919." I have included the link again, outside of the lead here, at its first mention in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Great, generally link once in the lead and again at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • the mention of the first soldier from Salinas to die seems overly detailed
  • "where it would spendspent" and "the machine gun battalion would bewas sent"
  • "mid-December 1918, the 40th Division"
  • link mobilization for demobilized
  • the "Renault light tanks" were almost certainly M1917 light tanks, which were a licence-built copy of the Renault FT
  • the bolding of Company C, 194th Tank Battalion in the body is not MOS-compliant. If this is an alternative name, it should be bolded in the lead
  • link Fort Lewis
  • suggest "assembled as an entire battalion"→"assembled as an entire unit" to avoid repetition
  • if Company B, 194th Tank Battalion went to Alaska, but Company C didn't, why does the infobox list the Aleutian Islands Campaign?
  • state that Fort Stotsenburg was in Angeles City
Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "armored-piercing"→"armor-piercing"
  • "The beginning of World War II" - WWII started in September 1939.
  • This is just factually wrong. WWII didn't begin in December 1941. I suggest something like "When the United States was drawn into World War II by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Company C was..." You can't place the beginning of WWII into a US context, it was a world war, and had already been going for two years. You also shouldn't WP:EASTEREGG a link like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I remind the review of WP:CIVIL. This is the first time that the reviewer has made the suggestion for the specific working. I attempted to civilly explain the modification below, only to be met with intensity. If this was such a significant error in modification why is it that the re-write wasn't done by the reviewer? If I am making changes specifically as instructed how does this not make me a WP:MEATPUPPET in the context of this review/assessment?
I have implemented the changes as instructed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I am being civil, but this was counter-factual, and you seemed to insist it was right, so I was pointing that out and being firm about the need to fix it. I believe that making changes yourself is a much better way of learning that having the reviewer do it. You are always free to ignore or reject a reviewer's comments, but this needs to be balanced against receiving support for the promotion of the article, depending on how important the point(s) raised might be. A Milhist A-Class review is a collective effort to improve the article as much as possible so it meets the A-Class criteria. Milhist A-Class is very close to Featured, so you can expect close questioning about any concerns raised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "United States Far East Air Force"
Modification implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • when he's introduced, he should be General Douglas MacArthur, after that he should just be MacArthur, per MOS:SURNAME
  • the sentence beginning "Assigned to the area east..." doesn't have a subject
  • suggest "The commanding general of the South Luzon Force, Brigadier General Albert M. Jones, heard from a motorcycle messenger from Company C on Christmas Day that the 1st Infantry Regiment had prematurely moved westward away from their position at Sampaloc. He then instructed them to engage the Japanese who had landed at Mauban."
  • suggest "He decided to conduct a reconnaissance himself using a halftrack from Company C, and they were engaged by a Japanese patrol north of the town of Piis. During the engagement the halftrack became immobilized in a ditch, however the crew was able to disperse the patrol allowing Jones and the crew to carry the halftrack's machine guns back to friendly lines." In general, once you have introduced someone, just use their surname after[[ that unless there are multiple people with the same surname.
  • suggest "For their actions, Jones recommended the crew members receive the Distinguished Service Cross; but by April 1946, when the recommendation was finally processed, the awards were downgraded to Silver Stars and only one of the five crew, Sergeant Leon Elliot, was still alive."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I have made most of the suggested changes above. See this group of diffs (which include a few edits by other users (AustralianRupert (talk · contribs), The Banner (talk · contribs), ). Due to the page move, some of the associated reviews of the article, including this one did not move over. therefore I have had to transclude it in the talk page.
Information about Martin Hopps was moved to the section "Popular media", as East of Eden is where the soldier is memorialized in literature.
The reason for the Aleutian Islands Campaign credit in the info box is due to a unit which was later amalgamated into the regiment which is the primary subject of the article, the national guard unit based out of Santa Cruz, California, had earned that streamer. This is explained by the national guard unit from Santa Cruz use to be Company F of the 159th Infantry (see this newspaper clipping), which participated in Battle of Attu (see page 1588, of this source.) In the 1990s that company was changed to the 149th.
Regarding the link to World War II, I modified to link to Pacific War. For the United States World War II began with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and as such the sentence is appropriate in the context of this article. But to make it even more specific, I changed the link. As the Pacific War is part of World War II, the sentence is still correct.
United Sates Far East Air Force is a successor unit of the Far East Air Force and was not designated such until later on in the war (as stated in its article), and redirects to that article.
I will get to the suggestions below later. Apologies that I can't get to this sooner, but I am getting to it as time allows for more editing of Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, have checked down to here, but my eyes are spinning, so I'll come back later. More points at the bottom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest either "The next day the 2nd Platoon" or "The next day the second platoon"
  • "a Filipino Major Rumbold" but then he is described as an American?
  • once Needham is introduced, he should just be Needham
  • "which had been prepared in anticipation of exactly the type of American action that was taking place due to the firefight the night before" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps "Due to the firefight the night before, a roadblock had been prepared by the Japanese, consisting of antitank guns, artillery, and several machine guns. The Americans advanced as a column, and the lead tank, commanded by Needham..." also link anti-tank warfare for anti-tank guns and also link artillery
  • (SSG) is unneeded, as the only other mention of him is later, when it should just be "Morello"
  • "before his tank was disabled itself"
  • "thiswhich allowed Morello to gather the wounded"
  • suggest "With the wounded"→"Having collected them" to avoid repeating "wounded"
  • no comma after "Filipino guides"
  • lower case h for hospital
  • "they werehe was able to reach"
  • "For this Morello was awarded the Silver Star (in 1983)"→"In 1983, Morello was awarded the Silver Star for his actions;"
  • "part of a covering force coveringfor the division's withdrawal"
  • "which would rejoined the rest of the South Luzon Force"
Copy edit made.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "At Calumpit there was anwere important bridges"
  • "ensuring the path to the units defending the bridges" what does this mean?
  • "Compancy C"
  • "While there, they observinged empty trucks"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The changes requested in this section can be seen with this diff. I attempted to clarify the path statement. Please let me know if that is still not clear.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Other than the couple of things above, this section is good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest converting 12,000 gallons
  • "combat occurred for thate 194th"
  • "destroyed the bridge over the San Fernando" do you mean the Pampanga?
  • "they found themselvesthe 1st Provisional Tank Group conductinged"
  • "There they the held"
  • were the Philippine Constabulary officers killed?
  • "which lead to significant Japanese losses in the Tanaka Detachment unit"
  • "Tank Group weere formed"
  • "That was the was the final defensive line"
  • "which wereas worked on"
Copy edit implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "which includinged the action which resultinged"
  • LTG in full, and who was he? ie commander of...
  • "to the Wwest"
  • "Initially, tTwo tanks were damaged by anti-tank mines during the initial attack"
  • "Yet after that initial setback" initial is being repeated and is unnecessary
  • suggest "beginning their withdrawal"→"pulling out" to avoid repeating withdraw/withdrawal
  • link mortar (weapon)
  • "the attack on the 7th April" or April 7, in general, go through and choose one method of applying dates, I suggest US style, ie April 7
  • "Major General Edward P. King" in general, use the first and surname when you introduce people
  • link Bataan Death March
  • I take it Zingheim was a Company C man?
  • drop the comma from "the soldiers of Company C, were"
  • the whole of the company were awarded the Bronze Star?
  • were these awards for their conduct during the fighting or for conduct during internment? Or both?
  • suggest combining the two sentences beginning "During a weekend drill..." as there is some repetition
  • " yearly annual"
  • say that Fort Ripley is in Minnesota
  • "As a result ofIn response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Operation Garden Plot was initiated, leading to the regiment returning to riot control duties in Los Angeles"
  • The reason I've suggested this formulation is the repetition of riots and riot, the use of riot control converts riot into an adjective and smooths the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "3rd bBrigade"
  • "this resulted in the regiment consisted"? Not sure what is meant here
  • "transitioneding from the"
  • "In following year in May 1998"
  • link for Watsonville?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I have made the changes requested above in this group of changes. The San Fernando River is separate from the Pampanga River (in some diffs I added potential references which could be used to create an article for it). The Constabulary Officers which were being utilized as human shields by the Japanese force behind them were killed. General Jonathan M, Wainwright IV was a Major General at the time when he is mentioned in this article, so I changed it to fit his rank (and command) at the time of mention. It is not stated why every soldier of Company C was awarded a Bronze Star Medal, but one can presume it was for actions during their combat experience and time in captivity; I also found another source stating that each solider of Company C also received a Purple Heart, I added the reference, and a quote stating exactly that.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
OK to here, but with a couple of tweaks above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • link Kosovo Force
  • say what Operation Noble Eagle is and link
  • how did the soldiers see action? as individual reinforcements to other armor units?
  • In Awards, each award needs a citation
  • all of the Lineage needs to be cited. If one or two sources do it, perhaps an introductory sentence with the citations should cover it
  • " SSG Morello's tank" as he has been introduced
  • "California National Guardsman who enjoys jazz" seems off-topic, as it doesn't seem to relate to this unit specifically
  • both the See also's are already linked in the article, so are unneeded.
The see also link isn't for 194th Tank Battalion, which is a redirect to the article which is being reviewed here. It is a link to 194th Armor Regiment (United States). It is a successor unit of 34th Tank Company of the Minnesota National Guard, which became A Company of the 194th Tank Battalion. (see this website, or this book, or this news article). So it makes sense to keep a link to them.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, how confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That'll do for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Here is the diffs with the changes requested in this final part. I separated the linking of Operation Noble Eagle with the separate activation for the Kosovo Force, and explained the Operation Noble Eagle activity. In addition I modified the citation style for the award and lineage section. As for the character portrayed by Arnaz, while he says that he is with the 192nd, he also says that he is a California National Guardsman. At the time there were only two California Army National Guard units that were OCONUS; the 251st Coastal Artillery which was on Oahu during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the other unit being Company C of 194th Tank Battalion. If it is the consensus of reviewers that it is not relevant to this article, it can be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67:Correction, Company C, 194th Tank Battalion was one of three California NG units that were OCONUS at the beginning of hostilities for the United States in World War II. I had previously mentioned the 251st, but I forgot to mention the 250th which was in Alaska; still Company C was the only California National Guard unit in the Philippines. Therefore the mention of the 192nd in the movie was surely a mistake, as the 192nd Tank Battalion was made up of units from Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky. Thus, the character of PVT Ramirez, portrayed by Desi Arnaz is surely a California National Guardsman (as is stated in various sources), and thus a member of the 194th, a predecessor unit to the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is close to OR, but at least a note to that effect is required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Note added.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm now going through all my points, and checking no others have cropped up.

Here is the diff with the spelling correction.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, have now checked the lot, a few outstanding points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Just let me know when you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: All requested modifications appear to have been conducted. If there are any additional changed needed please instruct me what those are.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm happy now. Just for future ACR noms, I suggest you request a WP:GUILD c/e before nominating, to eliminate the minor spelling/grammar/MOS issues, and you don't need to ping me in every edit summary. Well done on this, it is a great article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, RightCow, interesting article. Nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • unit served along the Mexico-United States border: suggest adding an endash instead of hyphen here
  • Following the September 11th attacks in 2001: suggest removing the ordinal suffix here for consistency with normal date format
  • "Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion": --> "Company B, 145th Machine Gun Battalion"?
  • "Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion": --> "Company C, 194th Tank Battalion"?
  • As prisoners of war, soldiers: --> suggest introducing the POW abbreviation here
  • In 1946, the unit was inactivated, then redesignated as the 199th Tank Battalion; then in 1949, as the 149th Tank Battalion; then in 1959, as the 149th Armor Regiment: this seems a bit run-on. Is there a smoother way of saying this?
  • period the battalion was past of... --> "part of"
  • near ammo dumps at night: "ammo dumps" seems a bit informal, probably best to say "ammunition dumps"
  • regarding their peacekeeping role with Kosovo Force: was this in a mounted or dismounted role? Do we have any details about where they operated and dates they were overseas? Any casualties?
  • Manilla is overlinked in the Clark Field section; malaria is overlinked in the Surrender and occupation section; and Bataan Death March is ovelinked in the Legacy section
  • the tank crew of the immobilized tank... --> "the crew of the immobilized tank"
  • Technician fifth grade Eugene Zingheim --> "Technician Fifth Grade Eugene Zingheim" as it is a title in this case?
  • After that they were was the last... --> "They were the last..."
  • ...a part of the 65th Fires Brigade (United States): pipe the link here to display "65th Fires Brigade"
  • in the citations sometimes you display authors with surnames first (for instance "Rovere, Richard") but other times you don't (for example "Gary S. Breschini) -- this should probably be consistent
  • near Nogales, Arizona.[8][6]: suggest reordering the refs here so they are in numerical order
  • note a should be attributed in the text of the note before the citation
  • "340th Support Battalion" or "340th Brigade Support Battalion
  • probably best to link guidon
  • do we know what vehicles the unit operated in the immediate post war period? Currently, there seems to be a gap between the end of the war and 1989 with regards to the vehicle listing AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I have made the changes that I could, please let me know if there are any that I missed.
Regarding the role that the Soldiers of the subject took in Kosovo Force (6A). I could not find any reliable sources which state what they did there, what specific dates they deployed or returned, whether they experienced any casualties, and whether they were mounted or dismounted. That said, I provided what reliable sources I could find about its time there.
Both "340th Support Battalion" & "340th Brigade Support Battalion" are used in reliable sources and official publications. For instance the lineage document utilized "Support Battalion", however a more recent army news article utilized "Brigade Support Battalion". If google hits mean anything "Brigade Support Battalion" is more common than "Support Battalion".
As for vehicles during the Cold War, I have not been able to find any reliable sources which state what vehicles are utilized. Unfortunately that leads to gaps in information, which I would like to fill, but don't have reliable sources to fill at this time. The California State Military Museum maintains a photo collection (149th) (199th) of the unit, which depicts M4 Shermans, M41 Walker Bulldogs, M48 Pattons. & M60 Pattons; if these images (without metadata) are reliable sources, perhaps they can be utilized to fill in that knowledge gap.
Guidance how to proceed would be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, your changes look good to me, so I've added my support. (I made a minor tweak, though, which I'd ask you to check you are happy with). Regarding using the images as references -- in this case, I'd probably say it wouldn't be sufficient. As the images don't have description pages, and are just links straight to the raw image, there is no real content to cite, just the page header and file names which don't really provide dates or other information to verify. Have you tried maybe searching newspapers via ProQuest or some other database? That might have some sort of local news story about vehicle change overs, or parades etc that might be useful? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day RightCowLeftCoast, can you click on the External links thingo in the toolbox above and fix the issues? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Damn this one is really long not only the article but the time to get A-class too. We need one more reviewer so I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • battalion deployed to France in 1918 Unlink France because of common term.
  • and returned to the United States in 1919 Same as above.
  • the battalion fought against Japanese forces Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • was deployed to the Philippines Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
  • using Golden Gate Park as its base of operations.[8][6] Reorder the ref in numerical order.
  • In June 1916, the unit was activated for We do not need a "1916" here.
  • Withdrawal in Southern Luzon, Philippines in December 1941 in the File:Withdrawal South Dec 1941.jpg add "the" before "Philippines".
  • himself using a halftrack from Company C Halftrack needs a hyphen between half and track.
  • During the engagement the halftrack became Same as above.
  • the Mexican border, World War I was being fought Link World War I here.
  • Beginning in mid-December 1918 No need to use 1918 here.
  • crew to carry the halftrack's machine it is "half-track's".
  • In the File:Manila declared open city.jpg image, "Picture taken of an open city sign in front" --> "Picture was taken of an open city sign in front".
  • as an advance force of the main line Merge main line here.
  • additional combat which lead to significant You mean leads?
  • never shipped to the Philippines causing Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
  • deploy overseas, during World War II Link WWII and unlink the second one in the body.
  • The page number in ref 33 should be "151–172".
  • the rest of the battalion on 12 December 1941 Remove the unnecessary 1941.
  • On 23 December 1941, with the advances Same as above.
  • Most US related articles use the month/day/year instead of day/month/year system.
  • into World War II by the Japanese Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • unit fighting a delaying action.[c][85] Switch the note and the ref here.
  • Don't forget that a pdf should have page numbers in the sources.
  • Some ISBNs have hyphens other don't maybe we should standardise the ISBNs here.
  • Standardise two-digit or four-digit numbers in the infobox. I think we can use two-digit because we have limited space here.
  • Philippines --> Philippines campaign in the infobox.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)