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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

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

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

Demotion

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

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

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

Lockheed YF-22

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)

• The details in the Notes section require references

• Mullin (1992) is not used

• fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"

• Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
• I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.

• fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
• I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
• I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
• Fixed.
• Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
• Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
• Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.

Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg, File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg, File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg, File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg, File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg - USAF images - PD in the United States - okay

• File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg - DOD image - PD in the United States - okay

• File:F-22 RFI.jpg - USAF image - a source would be nice

• File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg, File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg, File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg, File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png, File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg - no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay

• File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png - Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While nuclear weapons were obviously not used in the 1982 Falklands War, there's an interesting nuclear aspect to the conflict. The Royal Navy warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the British stockpile of nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. The British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her.

I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and has since been considerably expanded and improved so I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Great work on this article. A fine piece of scholarship.

• Jumbled phrase: "for if the had war gone badly"
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Prior to the war Britain had ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco" Say when this was?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link kilos of TNT? Convert?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the British government issued a 'Negative Security Assurance'" Use double quotes per MOS:DOUBLE
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link Ministry of Defence, Permanent secretary (UK), Foreign Secretary
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "a 300-yard (270 m) radius" The metric should be used first, with the imperial source in parentheses. (MOS:METRIC)
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• " a RFA vessel wasn't" an RFA? And "wasn't" should be "was not" (MOS:CONTRACTION)
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The containers holding several active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged during transfers" The source says seven.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Clarified. Thanks a lot for this review Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• All sources are of good quality.

• fn 2 and 4: Imperial War Museums is italicised in the former, but not the latter
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• fn 34: This is on pp. 57-58 (My 2005 edition may be different?)
  • It would seem so - the material on nuclear weapons starts on page 59 in my version, which is the paperback edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• fn 39: Should be pp. 60-62, not 62
  • @Hawkeye7: Can I check which iteration of this footnote you're referring to here? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  • In my 2005 hardback edition of Freedman, 39a refers to pp. 59-60, the paragraph starting "It might have been possible"
    • Tweaked to pp. 61-62 (the material starts in the last couple of lines on page 61) Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39b describes the Cabinet meeting on 11 April, which is on p. 60, the sentence staring with "in the event and with enormous reluctance"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39c refers to training rounds, which are on pp. 57-58, the sentence starting with "Brilliant and Broadsword joined the Task Force"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39d is about the 28 May decision, which is on p. 60, the paragraph starting with "in the event and with enormous reluctance"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39e is about the risk of nuclear depth bombs exploding, which is on pp. 60-61, the paragraph starting with "While they were still at sea"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I note that fn 13 also refers to p. 60

  • I'm not sure what you mean here? Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot checks: fn 41, 49 - okay
  • Thanks for this Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Falklands, Campaign, (Distances to bases) 1982.jpg - US Army image - PD - okay
• File:Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.jpg - White House photograph - PD- okay
• File:WE177 training nuclear bomb at Explosion Museum.jpg - Wikipedia image - UK had freedom of panorama - okay
• File:HMS Hermes (R12) underway on 16 March 1982 (6350754).jpg, File:RFA Fort Austin (A386) underway c1982.JPEG, File:HMS Repulse (S23) in the Firth of Clyde c1979.jpg - US Navy image - PD- okay
• File:Avro 698 Vulcan B2, UK - Air Force AN1236893.jpg - GNU FDL - okay

All images are appropriately licensed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Nick-D, my comments:

• Consider breaking up the 2nd paragraph to expand the length to the 4 paragraphs part of FAC criteria? I reckon you would want to take this article to FAC.
  • That's a good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we mention in the lead that the weapons could have been put onboard ships and aircraft in order to counter potential Soviet involvement in the conflict?
  • Yep, added. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Link to International Institute for Strategic Studies as done for all other authors?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Provide a link or identifier for Mueller 1988? Iirc all issues of Int Sec are available on JSTOR.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• In Polmar 2007, add the full name for the journal, namely the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
  • It seems to be universally called just Proceedings in the literature. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A good read overall, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for this review! Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support for promotion to A class. You just need one more support now and can then go for FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hughes (soldier)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Tim Hughes (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 6,541 This article is about a decorated Australian Aboriginal soldier of the Second World War who went on to achieve success in the soldier-settlement scheme after the war and was appointed MBE for his inaugural chairmanship of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Not a lot of corporals with their own articles, but Hughes has his own entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Great article. Very little to say. Very impressive.

• No spelling errors detected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Tim Hughes MBE MM.jpg, File:Land clearing team at Keppock.jpg, - copyright expired - okay
• File:Tim Hughes MBE MM grave plaque.jpg - 3D artwork - Wikipedian generated CC 4.0 - okay
• File:Tim Hughes Stadium, Repat Health Precinct.jpg - Wikipedian generated CC 4.0 - okay

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Sources are reliable and reputable
• No issues with formatting.
• Spot checks: 3, 8, 32, 33 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

• Perhaps change the "Aborginal" in the first sentence of the lead to "Aboriginal Australian"? I know that the former mostly always implies the latter but a clarification would still help.
• "at the fifth grade": won't "till the fifth grade," be better?
• "suffered with": "suffered from"?
• Can we introduce in 1 or 2 words who Lowitja was in the lead and body, per NOFORCELINK?
• "made a modest success of farming": "had modest success at farming"?
• I reckon you would like to take this article to FAC. In that case, you should move around the lead a little so its length is 4 paragraphs instead of the current 3.
• Why have we linked to South Australia in the body but not in the lead?
• What was the reason for the first hospital stay in the Middle East?
• "was recovered": "had recovered"?
• Link to Wingfield?
• "made a reasonable success of his farm": "had reasonable success at ..."?
• Wouldn't the Tim Hughes stadium picture be better placed in the Post war section than in the footnotes?
• Since we are using the 1993 edition for Wilmot, consider using ISBN 13 instead of 10, as done for all the other sources?
• Consider adding images of the Battles of Tobruk, the Salient, Milne Bay and Buna Gona? For people who don't have many photograhps, I have seen photos od the events they were involved in being used on here.

A good read overall Matarisvan (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'd like to offer the following comments on this fine article:

• I'd suggest linking 2/10th Battalion in the lead
• the older sister of Lowitja O'Donoghue - I'd suggest noting who Lowitja O'Donoghue is
• Given that First Nations Australians were officially banned from joining the military in 1939, can anything be said about how Hughes was able to enlist and remain enlisted? Many other First Nations men who enlisted at this time were discharged not long afterwards.
• Can anything be said about Hughes experiences in the Army? Various sources note that when/once First Nations people were able to make it into the military they generally experienced far less discrimination than in civilian life.
• " In 1956 he requested and received exemption from the Aborigines Act, although he deeply resented what was referred to as a "dog licence" and expressed criticism about the way Aboriginal people were treated. " - I'd suggest explaining the background here
• " Hughes was only permitted expenses of 18 pounds a week" - was this standard for soldier-settlers, or did it apply to the First Nations ones only? Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Ernest J. King

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ernest J. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral, Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.

• Remove the double link to the Atlantic Fleet in the lead?

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Since we have so much material in the body, consider expanding the lead to 4 paragraphs?

  Any suggestions as to what other things could be mentioned? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "served in the cruiser": "on" instead of "in" would be better?

  Y Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "flagship or Rear Admiral": "of"?

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the second link to cruiser in the body?

  Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the second link to destroyer below the Mayo staff pic?

  Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know what exactly King disliked about Wilson?

  Y Different personalities. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rework the Swanson part of the sentence to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Something like "Claude A. Swanson, the new Secretary of the Navy" instead?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "as indeed did occur": sounds a little off, "as indeed occured" may be better?

  Y Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to G7e torpedo?

  Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• You will have to get rid of the disputed neutrality tag on the War in the Atlantic section.

  I hope it can be removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• We say he got his first Navy DSC for the salvage of S-51 in the lead and body. But we do not mention what the other two DSCs were for in either the lead or body, only in the Citations section do we have those details.

  Y Mentioned in connection with salvage of the S-4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• What I have noticed is that Dates of Rank and Awards sections are ok at A class level but not at FA level. Especially since you already mention, in chronological order, his promotions in the lead sections. Zawed might be best able to resolve this.

  I have other articles that went through FAC with Dates of Rank sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I was quite surprised to see you had used plain <ref> tags instead of sfns. I hope you will change to the latter before nominating for FAC?

  I would greatly prefer it. MOS:STYLERET: If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I could not understand this. Will you be changing to the sfns or not? Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone would oppose that, you should open a new section for this on the talk page. Matarisvan (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Location of publication is needed for Barlow 1998, Buell 1998, Heinrichs 1998, Stoler 2003

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• You could consider using the ISBN converter for converting ISBN numbers from 10 digits to 13 digits.

  WP:ISBN: if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it

• Remove the double link to John B. Hattendorf in Hattendorf 2023?

  I think this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so, perhaps we should get a second opinion? Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Year of publication needed for Hone & Utz.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to , as done for other journals?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Consider adding the category Recipients of the Order of Naval Merit (Brazil)?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:

• • Ref #30: Add Home of Heroes as the website?

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Add an archive link for ref #31? I can't access it, don't know if this holds for others as well. Also, consider running the Internet Archive bot through the page once.

    Y Added archive link. It was working a few weeks ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #68: Add Warfare History Network as the website?

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #89: Can the 3 weird letters after Order 8984 be removed? They seem to be transcription errors.

    Y No, it is a unicode/Latin-1251 conversion artefact. The moral is to never use ndashes and mdashes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Link to The Baltimore Sun, as done for other newspapers?

    Y linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #172: Clarify that the journal is the Proceedings of the Naval Institute?

    Y Added link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Why did King receive the Philippine Camapign Medal? Our texts do not mention his being involved in the Philippine-American Wars of the 1910s. We do mention his involvement in the Philippine Campaign in WWII. I think this is is a mixup?

    The Far East tour in the the cruiser USS Cincinnati. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Add King's name to the Notable recipients section on the Mexican Service Medal page?

    Y Added King and Leahy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ahendra (talk)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the most underrated Japanese politician and warlord during Sengoku period. There are many modern historians reassessments about him now to points out his importance for his role during the end of Muromachi period Ahendra (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Ahendra, my comments. Please excuse my lack of usage of diacritics:

• Translate Shuri-dayu and Chikuzen no Kami?
• Mention the date of Nagayoshi's birth in the body as done in the infobox?
• Was he the governor of the Iga ikki, Iga province or Iga city in Mie prefecture?
• Does Hongan-ji here refer to the Hongan-ji shrine, Hongan-ji Nagoya Betsuin or Honganji-ha?

I will add more comments soon, this is a large article so it will take time to read through, I hope that is alright. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

hello.

Shūri-dayū, (i believe its mistranslation from someone translation, it should be Shuri-no-daifu) is etymologically senior assistant minister of justice. a position from Archaic Japan Empire office. Chikuzen no Kami is literally "lord of Chikuzen" its kind like noble titles

gonna do that

Iga Province obviously, Iga ikki was not officially recognized by the central government.. in this case by Emperor and Shogunate

Hongan-ji during Nagayoshi reign was more like umbrella term for entire Jōdo Shinshū followers here. as the split between west Hongan-ji (Higashi Hongan-ji) and east Hongan-ji (Nishi Hongan-ji) as the sect were more institutionalized were occured later in Edo period. other than that. i have not much knowledge about them, except of their rebellion activities during Onin war until Sengoku period Ahendra (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Boot Monument

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Relativity (talk)

Boot Monument (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If you travel to Saratoga National Historic Park, you will probably come across this somewhat bizarre monument of a boot. Its honoree's name is never mentioned on it, and it would take some research to figure out that it's actually honoring Benedict Arnold. I am nominating this for A-class because I'd like to take this to FA and so I would need to see what further improvements need to be made to it to get it there. Thank you! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is all way outside my area of expertise. I presume that Benedict Arnold was rehabilitated long ago. Article looks more like a GA than an FA. Some comments:

• Can be have a consistent date format? Three different ones are used. (Recommend using dmy and adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)
  •  Done
• "Arnold's betrayal to the British" implies that someone betrayed him.
  • Changed to "Arnold betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army"
• Do we know what Arnold's actual, rank was? (Same for Clinton, Gates and Lincoln)
  • Yes, and  Done
• Is there any reason why the town of West Point was worth twenty thousand quid?
  • According to Nathaniel Philbrick's Valiant Ambition, the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?

    The short version would be fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• The lead says he "attempted to give crucial information about the fortification of West Point to the British" but the body says "offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point. Arnold met with British Major John André, who Arnold had solicited communication through, and André was later captured on his way back to New York with the plans for West Point being discovered"
  • Good catch, reworded in the lead to "He later attempted to help the British capture the fortification of West Point but was discovered and fled to the British army."
• "solicited communication through" sounds awkward to me.
  • Reworded to "Arnold met with British Major John André so he could pass on information on how to best attack West Point,". Let me know what you think.
• "College boys on a trip stole the toe and spur from the Boot Monument,[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer informed the battlefield official that the toe was stolen by "a graduate of a New York State educational institution."[23] The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Do we have dates for these events?
  • Unfortunately no. All of the newspapers used as citations are from around the same time but there is no actual specified date when this happened.
• "The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is four feet tall." Source required for the height. And add a conversion for those of us living in the twenty-first century instead of the eighteenth.
  • Added a conversion. And it does have a source already?

    I does now, so good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review and your time! I addressed most of your concerns, although I have one question about your fourth point. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Relativity, some comments:

• Provide a link or identifier for "The Shrine of the Memorial Museum"? If you received it via resource request, specify that in a hidden note?

• That source was there before I started extensively editing this article. I tried to find it, but couldn't. Since there's another source there, I've removed it.

• Here is a link for Leopold 1994: [1]. Consider adding?

•  Added, thanks for finding that. Hopefully, I've done it correctly.

• Link to Lawrence Journal-World, The Lewiston Daily Sun and Boca Raton News as done for the other newspapers? Also I guess Ration is a typo, should be Raton?

•  Done, and yes, that was a typo. I fixed that as well.

• Provide a link for Duffus 1930 and MacIvor 1954?

• For the MacIvor one, I found it off of the Wikipedia Library, and can't seem to find a way to add a link to it other than having a link go directly to the Wikipedia Library. Here's the permalink: [2]. I added an ISSN though for it. As for Duffus' source, I found the link, but there's an error page saying that there are technical difficulties with it showing up. I've added it for now, and I'll see if I can do anything else about that.

• Link to Social Forces, McFarland, The New England Quarterly, University Press of New England, NYU Press, Regnery Publishing, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Casemate Publishers? You've already linked to Random House so to be consistent you will have to link everywhere else. Otherwise you could consider removing the links for publishers altogether.

•  Done and added one for William Morrow and Company as well.

• Add a date for Brumwell? The website provides one.

•  Done

• What is your policy on linking to authors? I can understand if you do not wish to in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE. If you do wish to, however, consider linking to Alexis Coe, Gary Alan Fine, Donald W. Linebaugh, Richard M. Ketchum, James Kirby Martin, Dave Richard Palmer, Nathaniel Philbrick, Willard Sterne Randall?

•  Done Not a huge fan of the SEAOFBLUE, but I think that it's better this way.

• To be consistent, you will have to decide to include the locations of publication or not. For most sources you have them, but for some you don't.

•  Done

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Thanks so much for the review. I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've addressed both reviews above. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Relativity, you should consider changing the references from ref tags to sfn tags, because that will be required at FAC. Also you should add the Wikipedia Library link for MacIvor 1954 which you have. Matarisvan (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Both  Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Saving a place. Could you ping me once the review above has ended. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: First off, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Just so you're aware, I am going to be unable to be active on Wikipedia for about two months, give or take a week or two, so if you add any comments starting tomorrow, it is very unlikely that I will be able to address them. My apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope that the Scottish Highlands were nice! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right. If you are going to be off-Wiki for more than a couple of weeks it seems - donning my FAC coordinator hat - that this nomination is certain to be archived. It may be best to withdraw this nomination and renominate once you have the time to allocate to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thinking further, at ACR time is not that important. So I shall comment when I can and you respond when you can. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I might be able to come here occasionally to respond to any comments. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The Boot Monument Uncovered (a3ffc30d-9e26-44a7-8d69-87b8b8957f3b).JPG - National Park Service image - PD - okay
• File:Arnold-boot.jpg - inadequately licensed - needs c:Template:PD-US-statue/proposal as well

• I think that I did that correctly... ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link George Edwin Bissell in the body of the article

•  Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Henry Biard

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk)

Henry Biard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
  • I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    • just fyi, there is a copy in the National Library of Australia, and there is a possibility to order a digital copy for 19 australian dollars per 25 pages. Artem.G (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

      Cheers - probably a bit rich for my blood (it's 288 pages, and doing the maths on that made my wallet hurt), but I do periodically keep an eye out in case one turns up second-hand online for a reasonable amount. Could give it another go at WP:RX too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• " On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
  • I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
  • Bertram gives it as "it is believed" -- I don't suppose you know anything about RNAS flight training? I failed to find much background information; I assume this was simply what usually happened? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
  • Agreed and done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "but suggested that airflow over the wings may have interfered with the aircraft's elevators and tailplanes, causing aileron flutter." - link aileron
  • Linked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
  • Pegram messed that one up a bit: it's engine weight, not total weight, and it was 170lb. Fixed from another source. Good spot -- I'd missed that, but it was a bit silly! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Is it known when he married?
  • I'd assume it's in Wings, but I only managed to find indirect references to his being married: I couldn't even find the wife's name. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makes The Channel Islands and the Great War pass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
  • It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography, Wings, which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assume could be easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 at WP:MILHIST - Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry. Hog Farm _Talk 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Zawed might be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

        Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:

        • Starting off in "admin duties"
        • Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
        • Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
        • Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
        • A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
        • PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
        • Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
        • A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.

        Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Typo: "propellor"
• Convert horsepower to Watts?
• "the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the"s?
• I fixed two CS1 warnings
• Any details about his marriages? (I found his divorce)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has the date of his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn't definitively say that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got the service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
  • The source page gives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
• "Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Lazy oversight on the part of the Commons author. I've fixed it for them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi UndercoverClassicist, some comments:

• "a public school on Jersey": "in Jersey"? I believe "on" would be better if the subsequent text was "the island of Jersey".
  • Changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Central Flying School?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Guernsey in the body on first mention?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to the Italian language Wiki for Aero Club d'Italia?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Air Ministry?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• "was organised by the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force, Italo Balbo": consider changing to "was organised by Italo Balbo, the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force"? The former phrasing could be seen as WP:SEAOFBLUE, only a comma is separating the links to Balbo and the IAF.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Jonathan Glancey in the body and biblio?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• "in common with": consider changing to "like"?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Float (nautical) on first use, instead of later on?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to wingspan and strut?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Walter H. Longton?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Royal Aero Club?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to bank (banked turn)?
  • That's for land vehicles; the closest article we currently have is Aircraft flight dynamics, so linked there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to rate of climb?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a link available for Frimston 2006? If a future reviewer wishes to do a spot check, they will need it.
  • I don't; can't remember where I got that one, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Jeffrey Quill, Eric Brown (pilot)?
  • Both done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for these: very useful. All replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also @UndercoverClassicist, I found this link for Frimston 2006: [https://dokumen.tips/documents/aeroplane-magazine-apr-2006.html?page=24#google_vignette]. I added the volume, issue and series number, also the ISBN. However, the source is a little shady, you should decide if you want to include it or not. If not, you can always download the PDF, upload it to web.archive.org and link there. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for those details: agreed, that source is pretty much certainly straightforward copyright infringement, as the magazine is less than 20 years old and this is clearly not an authorised open-access release by the copyright holder. Downloading it and uploading it somewhere else would, therefore, also be copyright infringement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I had somehow forgotten about that due to the age of the subject matter. But now at least you won't have any issues with the spot checks. Also, I will do the source review here as WPMH requires one, the image review is already done. Matarisvan (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line

Sihanouk Trail

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Sihanouk Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. As User:buidhe pointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if Mztourist is still on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am and can take a look at it, though logistics isn't really my thing. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schierbecker, I might be able to rework this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old. Schierbecker (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I can. I have been working on the GA reassessment of the Galatian War article, you could check that one out to see if I might be able to rework this one or not. Matarisvan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delist This has been open since March and there have been no edits to the article since May. As the problems with the article remain outstanding and no work is underway to fix them, it should be delisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fort Corcoran

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Fort Corcoran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delist and Comment - I am not likely to be able to do more with the article than I did in the past few hours. It is not enough to avoid a delist. I have reduced the number of citation needed tags to three. My guess is that a source was used for the two comments about life at the fort for which there are no citations but it may be difficult to find it and thus determine whether it is reliable. I have removed the reference to the Historical Marker Database and replaced it with a citation to a JSTOR article which says the marker was placed by the Arlington Historical Society; I added at the "approximate" location. Although I think the Official Records are probably reliable enough for some of the routine facts for which they are cited, I think the use as a source for so many of the facts in the article is problematical and not appropriate for extensive use in an A class article. It is not reliable in the example(s) provided by HF. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: @Hog Farm and @Donner60, I've made some preliminary edits. I would like to try to restore this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? 20 days seem to be enough to me. I know this reassessment has been open for 3 months now but I might be able to get a rewrite done. Matarisvan (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Have at it. What's another few months? Sorry I can't help more with this project. Schierbecker (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)