Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 12

• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Archive 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60

Declassing A-class

• What is the standard procedure for declassing an A-class article?
• And how long should a review stay open?

We currently have the case that Greco-Persian Wars was an A-class article. Yannismarou was not satisfied with it and made it Start-class on his own accord and at the same time initiated an A-class review. In this review there was no oppose voiced against A-class status, only comments what needs to be done. These issues raised where repairable within a few days. The review lasted for 6 days before Eurocopter closed it. In this time the voiced comments received no reply by Yannismarou.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a funny one. Yannismarou wanted endorsement of A-Class but did it by starting a new ACR. The article therefore entered the review as non-A-Class. As there was no consensus to promote within the appropriate period, Eurocopter failed it. Anyhow, as a result of the ACR, because of the way the template works, the article is now Start-class.

It would have been easier, I suppose, if this had been handled the same way as the Tent pegging demotion review, ie invite reviewers to keep or demote.

Perhaps we should have formalised arrangements for demotion/re-confirmation reviews?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Even GAs, hardly the best articles here, have a formal demotion process. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that that's a good idea. Can we use the current FA-review arrangements? - they seem appropriate to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they a bit elaborate? Pre-review, then review? Or did you have something else in mind? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just thinking of the FARC stage. Stating concerns with the article and then inviting a vote on whether to demote it seems the best option - the equivalent to a pre-review for A-class would be better handled on the article's talk page rather than through a formal process. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We could create a template which can be subst:ed onto a page saying something like: "This review is to confirm the articles status. Please comment on whether it should remain an A-Class article using Keep or Demote as opposed to the standard form." Then we keep it open for the same amount of time as the ACR. I think a simple process would be best, though I don't envisage having to use it that much. Woody (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot lists

Since SatyrBot appears to be back online, do we want to re-link Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/To do list full/Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/To do list short in the appropriate places? Or should we wait to see if it stays up? Kirill ^(prof) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait. No sense in getting revved up for the bot if it goes back down again. Thats my take. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A-class review close

Would it be ok if a coordinator closed this review [1]? It has been listed for seven days and has received three supports and no opposes. Once closed, I'd like to get it nominated for FA ASAP as I'll be busy late next week. Thanks in advance, Cla68 (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG peer review period

The trail peer review period is just about ready to close, should we wait until July to examine the pros and cons of the cross project peer review, or do we want start evaluating the process now? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a formal evaluation necessary? It seems to have gone pretty well (though I'd be interested in learning how VG see it). My feeling is that unless anyone has a strong and reasonable objection, we simply continue with it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted at our talk page and at VG's asking for feedback. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A formal evaluation isn;t nessicary, just input from both sides that this is something worth continueing. 'Consensus' needs to exist in order to maintain the cross posting. In all reality I highly doubt anyone will object to making this perment. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, already set in train. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see much activity from our side. In my opinion we should discuss this with the whole project. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, to be honest, but I'll look out for it. And yes, project discussion already set up. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Qualtiy control

Would it be possible to come up with a system of some sort to list articles rated at or above GA class that have not been reviewed in an official capacity (PR, GAR, FAR) for at least a year? In most cases the higher rated articles have at least one guy or girl who make a point to ensure the article remains current with the changing rating times, but coming up with a way to generate a list of the higher rated articles that haven;t been reviewed in an official capacity in at least a year would allow us to make sure that those articles still meet all all established criteria, and if they don't, would allow us the oppurtinity to get editers on such articles before they are delisted. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if (a) creating such a list would be feasible without expending a great deal of manual effort, or (b) having it would be genuinely useful. There's no good way to determine, a priori, whether the article has an active maintainer, or whether more informal quality reviews have taken place on, say, the talk page, or elsewhere; I don't think the lack of a FAR, in particular, is indicative of anything, given that most FAs do not go through that process unless they're sub-standard.

More generally, I think it's a better use of our time to just deal with deficient articles as we spot them, rather than coming up with a complicated process to try and guess which articles might be deficient. Kirill ^(prof) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A large fraction of FAs are not actually of featured quality, and would not pass a contemporary FAC as is, because of rising standards and the fact that most people stop working on FAs once they pass, and if it passed in 2006 or before, chances are the person did just enough to pass FA, which wouldn't be enough to pass now. And even then, of those articles that would not pass a modern FAC, only a small minority of articles get sent to FAR anyway, there are a large chunk of FAs with no sources, very bad prose etc. Unlike FAC, people aren't going to nominate their own articles for demotion, no matter how bad it is, apart from two instances of self-FAR that I can remember, so that leaves the regular FA people to FAR things, and since these are a minority, there's always a backlog of substandard FAs because of the rule of only FARing one at a time and expecting the nominator to fix the substandard article. The other thing is that Wikipedia mostly works on consensus to change, so an article at FAC is expected to please the vast majority and do the last 10% of polish to pass, and most need 85%+ approval, whereas with at FARC, if there is 50% of the work done and maybe 50-60% of the people want to keep it, then it's kept, even though 60% support and people dragging their heels not wanting to do a thorough fix at FAC would never get their articles passed. The other bad thing with FAR is that with about 50%-60% needed for a keep, it's pretty easy for the author and their co-wikiproject people to vote keep regardless of quality and force a stalemate and prevent a delisting, although it's much harder to do this on FAC. MILHIST doesn't engage in that of course, but I can think of heaps of projects where the personnel only vote on FAC/FAR of their genre, and all they always give 100% support to their articles without probing for improvements, regardless of missing sources and whatnot, and get angry when their unsourced articles get FARed. If we were like them, and I'm glad we're not, we could pass about 20 FAs per month and veto all FARs by having all eight coords voting support/keep on everything, and then shamelessly brag about how our *marvellous* leadership has led to astronomical levels of growth....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory, I think it probably isn't that hard for Kirill, because all of the FAs and GAs have ArticleHistory templates, so surely a bot can be programmed to see if any of the dates are 2007 or later. If not, they are more than 18 months old. For the A-class review, we have our own log so we just have to read it off. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much enthusiasm there is for yet another change of process. T&A08 is going much more slowly than its counterpart last year (though this year we have two competing drives, one of which - India's - is a clone of ours). For the time being, we probably need to focus on pressing core issues, such as ensuring that T&A08 hits its targets, and that PRs and ACRs are adequately reviewed, for instance. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class and FAs

See WT:ASSESS#Suggestion—Split community and Wikiproject assessments for yet another proposal which would have significant impact on our assessment process if adopted (wholly or in part). At this point, I'm not sure whether some aspect of it might be beneficial; but it'd certainly introduce all sorts of complications into the relevant review processes and so forth. Kirill ^(prof) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this keenly. We live in interesting and fast-changing times :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. The obvious downside of this change to me would be that the automatic categorisation of articles as FA military history articles would no longer work. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity

The semester is coming to an end. I think that's a possible reason for the reduced talkpage activity. If we don't get enough opinions in time we might reintroduce the topics after exams are over. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This may just be me, but there seem to be an unusually large number of proposals floating around across Wikipedia at present, so some people may be voted out. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's not just you that thinks that. They are nearly all linked to interminable discussions and nearly all about the minutiae of process. After a bit, complete indifference sets in ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, then wait until this float is over because it makes no sense to decide anything with such a low participation. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry in advance for my inactivity until 20 July, as I left on holiday last Friday. However, if there is anything important to discuss/decide, please leave me a notice on my talk page, as I might pop-in sometimes (like today). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Info banner on talk page

I'd like to update the banner on the talk page to make it slightly less prohibitive. As the original effort was a joint effort, I've brought it here first.

Existing

Please help reduce traffic on this very busy page by only raising matters on it that affect the project as a whole. For matters affecting an existing task force, please use that task force's talk page instead. Skip to Table of Contents • List and scope of Task Forces • Add new section

New

Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead. Skip to Table of Contents • List and scope of Task Forces • Add new section

Any objections? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well Nick Dowling (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal selected articles

The MILHIST template supports a parameter by which we can add articles selected on certain portal pages, but I was curious if we have any governing policy on whether or not articles appearing on non-military related portals get included in our parameters. For example, the portal for the national register of historic places uses USS Missouri as a slected article, while the Illinois and Wisconsin protals both use there namesake states battleship as selected articles. Do those get included with our parameter, or no? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including non-military portals. The reason these articles are being featured is that they're good quality articles on a military-thing which is also related to the topic of the portal. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I wanted to make sure that was the case before charging out to check the various project portals associated with the Iowa class battleships and adding the newer partal mentions. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LoC removal

Do you think a link the former League of Copyediters member list (Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members) would be worth keeping on the logistics page? The project may be dead, but these editers may still be available for copyedit assistance. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On my immediate list of things to do is a mailing to all ex-LOCE editors inviting them to (a) help with prose critiques on ACR and FAC and (b) help with copy-editing. I was hoping to do this this morning. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now mailed most of the list, which has generated more interest than I was expecting. I've also knocked a little gizmo – * {{WPMILHIST Copy-editing alerts}} – which transcludes Milhist ACRs and FACs onto talk pages. To achieve the sub-lists, I've added ACR and FAC pages to announcements. I've done it in rather a hurry so perhaps so a template enthusiast/expert could make it look a bit more Milhist-ish and alert me to (or fix?) any problems I've strewn around. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of make an independent transclution template for the mainpage, but that is a brilliant idea. As to the LoC response: I kind of figured they would be interested in the logistics department's copyedit facility. Its hard to break with old habbits, and I am glad that we can give the old LoC editersa place to come and work. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to use a mode switch off the main template (similarly to how we produce the PR list) rather than a subpage; this allows us to only maintain the single list, without the need for people to know about the finer details of the transclusion mechanism. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good! I thought this might be possible (I tried doing it with the span first) and it's a lot less mucking around. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a review alerts box too and added it appropriately. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Special Projects: Top Ten Team

Buckshot has told me that he hasn't sufficient spare time to "carry the baton" for this. Is anyone free to take over from him? His idea was to get editors to rope in academics to help but that might be a bit ambitious. The role, I think, is to keep jollying everyone along and keeping track of progress. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was just his idea concerning WWII. Honestly, I don't think it needs a coordinator to do this. Let special projects figure out themselves. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I agree with you entirely, WT. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Four things

The next elections

Because of the summer break, holidays, internet access from college etc, it makes sense to run the Milhist elections in September rather than August. Does anyone object to this? If the consensus here is to delay by one month, I'll put the proposal to the wikiproject. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That may effect the spring elections though: If we bump back the fall elections to September, then it stands to reason (based ont eh six month term) that the next election would be in march, and then we may have to deal with the issue of Spring Break. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Except the Spring break is a moveable feast and much shorter as a shutdown. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, but bear in mind that we have members from both hemispheres so it's not summer everywhere (it's freezing here in Canberra today!). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I remembered to change it to "holiday season" for the newsletter but forgot to here. It's freezing in London too (despite it being high summer). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will matter much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) As there's no outright opposition, I'll put this to the project, noting various observations. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

B-Class criteria

The new B-Class criteria is closely based on ours but has a new sixth point, about accessibility. What do we think about adding this (preferably automatically, ie "B6=y") to existing B-Class articles and adding it to the checklist for new ones? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should add B6. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstain. Haven't looked into this one yet, need a day or two to decided if I think its a good idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the propsal I think this would be useful, so I move to support it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree - that's a very relevant criteria for our articles given the proliferation of military-jargon. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How would we actually implement this? Given the way the template logic works, we'd need to add the parameter before the code to handle it was actually active (since otherwise all the B-Class articles would be downgraded for failing a criterion). Can we get a bot to go through the current B-Class articles and add this? Kirill ^(prof) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We could wait a few months and have a big BCAD drive assessing this new criterion. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That might be reasonable in the long run; but, in the short term, we need to reconcile introducing a new criterion with automatically downgrading articles that don't have all the criteria explicitly passed. The only ways I can see of doing this is either automatically passing all current articles or turning off the auto-grading code, and I'm rather loath to do the latter. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think accessibility is rather over-rated on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that a speific drive is a good idea. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think so complicated. Add the new criterion to the list, but add it to the assessment when the BCAD drive is finished. Thinking about it, I wonder whether we shouldn't just copy the new criteria completely. Our issue 4 about the grammar is expanded to refer also to style. We might introduce that. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm not persuaded a specific B6 drive is either necessary or desirable. If I understand the logistics correctly, the critical path is:

1. Add B6=y to all existing B-Class articles (via bot)
2. Then add B6 to the template
3. Then ask editors to apply B6 to all new assessments.

I'm in favour of adopting the new wording verbatim for all six too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a potential issue with the new wording for B3 ("all appropriate sections of content"): we currently require that the article be include sections, not that the section structure be perfect. I suspect that this is too subjective a matter to be used for such a criterion.

(On a more technical matter, will switching to the new B4 wording require us to rename all of the relevant attention-needed categories, which currently refer specifically to "grammar"?) Kirill ^(prof) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Is this masses of work or will the template update the categories over the fullness of time?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The categories will repopulate automatically, but the new ones would need to be created by hand.

To be quite honest, I'm unconvinced that there's any need for us to move quickly to adjust to these new criteria. They're not yet in use by any project, for one, and there's no telling if there will be further modifications made as they begin to be adopted—and that's assuming that they do get adopted, which isn't a given at this point. Our own criteria seem to be working quite well at the moment; I suggest that we stick with them for the time being, and make changes if and when the newer criteria actually enter into stable and widespread use. There's no need for us to play the role of the guinea pig for them, in my view. Kirill ^(prof) 12:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger's suggestion has one flaw. We did not check whether criteria 6 is fulfilled. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a flaw as expediency. It's not really big enough for a proper drive even if I were convinced that the project had the stomach for another drive right now. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 08

This was considerably less successful in volume terms that T&A07. Perhaps the lesson is that major drives should only take part in Autumn/Winter. If we do run another drive this year, it should probably be limited to adding TFs to the 8,000 articles not currently associated with one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just downsize the T&A drive that isn't in autumn.Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What about running the T&A drives in phase of say 30 days? In this manner we can stagger the input from each of the "teams" and keep interest in the process running across the entirity of the drive. Just a thought, but it may be worth looking into. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was held during the exam period for students worldwide and that can't of helped. That said, it should be expected that the returns to each drive will drop over time. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. except this one did about a sixth of the last one. I think we'll have to re-invent the wheel for the next one, and come up with something new and different. The formula has been widely copied and is probably getting a bit tired. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter facelift

This seems rather a wasted opportunity and perhaps we should devote some time to improving its content, say along the lines of the Hurricane Herald. (Military history Monthly, anyone?) Maybe we should select articles from the contest dept as A-Class of the month, B-Class of the month etc. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Name-wise: Milhist Monthly? Military history monthly? The Bugle? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Military history monthly seems the best in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Would it be possible to subdivide a task force into workgroups or something of that nature? The Tank task force idea got me thinking about this, and it seems that a few other task forces may benifit to some extent from internal subdivision (like having a european and pacific work group within the WWII task force, for example). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth coming up with some new model here, as opposed to simply creating smaller task forces as needed. We've already used the latter method (with the ACW and ARW task forces, among others), and I suspect that trying to create a multi-layer hierarchy is just going to complicate the infrastructure without providing any real benefits. Kirill ^(prof) 04:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That might be doable within a task force. Each task force could subdivide itself and organize things in an appropriate way. If there is need we could set up some kind of formalized structure for this, but we should test the feedback first. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really against splitting task forces. Among other things, it reduces the scope for editors developing associated interests. The broader the better, I think. Others mileage may vary. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see this in my minds eye it would not be a formal process, just an informal gathering of editers with similar interests. I am absolutley not in favor of any official subdivisions of the task forces, on that point I agree that the broader the better. By creating informal work groups the idea would be to help engergize the task forces by creating informal satelite groups that answer to the task force members. In this manner I think some of the larger task forces may see some benifit (like maritime, with its various warships, WWII with its various theatres, and so forth). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that most task forces are pretty inactive, I don't see any harm in allowing groups of editors to create dedicated groups if they want to, as long as the scope isn't unsustainably small or dedicated to a particular POV. These should be rolled back into the 'parent' task force if they become inactive. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that the beauty of it: since they exist informally they will roll right back into the task force if the concept dies. This can actually give us some leverage when it comes to creating new task forces, too: if there isn;t enough umf behind an idea to officially establish a task force we could recommend they start a work group within a certain task force as an alternative. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the support, should we establish some kind of procedures for this? Like a formalized structure were such informal subgroups are listed at a taskforce page? It might also be a good idea to eliminate inactive members from the task force lists. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

C-class and our assessment page

After looking over the section I added an additional C-class note in the category area and inserted the C-class box into the assessment scale with the message that we are not using it. In the case of the assessment scale, I feel that the C-class box's presence here may help deter furth efforts by our editers to add the C-class parameters. Would anyone care to wiegh in the changes insofar as they have been made? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suspect that having C-Class listed but not used will be more confusing than anything else. If it's retained, though, I'd suggest replacing all the text regarding it with a simple, brief note about it not being in use.

(On a more technical note, the class was not adopted following a project-wide discussion, not merely one among the coordinators.) Kirill ^(prof) 09:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class reviews need closing

A few of them. I've already commented or voted in most of them, so I can't close them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow. We are now getting better reviews but thwey are taking longer so we probably need to review the ACR timescale. Perhaps it should be extended to two weeks? Or work more like FAC? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators for military land vehicles

Presumably the new task force needs to be assigned coordinators, as the others have been? Does anyone want to grab it right off the bat? Kirill ^(prof) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in. I'll take a share of the new task force. With the 1st armored heading my way (Fort Bliss) I may even end up contributing to it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Organizing the GA review

Jacky is currently posting lots of messages about GA reviews on the main talk page. I honor the initiative, but we should organize this, possibly along the lines of FA review. Suggestions? Wandalstouring (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as far as I know, GA reviews don't have their own subpages, so we can't really transclude them to the review department as we do for FARs. The best we can do is to simply add links to them into the announcement template, I think. Kirill ^(prof) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they do now, I haven't been in GA for a few months, but it's there, providing all of them use it, eg Talk:Tsar_Bomba/GA1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, neat. I'm not sure that's transcludable, since the heading is generic rather than the article name (so trying to transclude them would just make the page unreadable); but at least we can link to the subpages themselves from an announcement list. Kirill ^(prof) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We would have to add a new heading to the template since these are technically Good Article Reassessments, not brand-new GA noms. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's create a GA reassessment page where each good article review within our scope can be listed and provide a link there from the template. We should list only a link instead of all the articles on the template. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not that many of them going on at one time; I think that creating a whole separate page would be more overhead than simply listing the links directly in the announcement template. Kirill ^(prof) 11:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we would have to do the same for GA candidates and these are almost ten at a time. I disagree, keep it short and simple. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We usually have more than ten peer reviews up, for example; and if we're serious about bringing more attention to the GA stuff, then we should make the list as prominent as we reasonably can, rather than requiring a clickthrough to another page (which most members won't follow). Kirill ^(prof) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry everyone

...but summer school has just shifted from high gear to overdrive, and I have this sense that if I do not get all hands on the school deck now I may not have a deck to return to next semester. I'll be back in force in about two weeks, maybe on occasionally if I get my school work done; otherwise I am as of this edit on a school realted wikibreak. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries Tom - good luck! Nick Dowling (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with school. Kyriakos (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Handling AfD notifications

Over the last six or so months I've been keeping an eye on the articles which are nominated for deletion to tag any military-related AfD discussions and add them to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Some projects routinely add AfD notifications to the project talk page or add them to the project task list (see, for instance, the massive task list at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board). Do you guys think that we should follow that practice? - I'd be reluctant to post notifications on talk pages as most articles which are nominated for deletion are pretty hopeless, but it may be appropriate to add a field to our announcements template. Thoughts? Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't clutter it too much. There is going to be a field for GA review. Maybe we add this on the right side under articles needing attention, but keep it as short as possible, a link to a list might be better than listing every AfD there. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wandal. Maybe just add a link to the page. Kyriakos (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with this one

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Requesting assistance with possible spammer. I've put my two cents in, but others who are more familar with the problem may be in a better position to reply and moniter the problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, guys, I've been a bit thin on the ground for the last few days. The builders are in and they've been inflicting collateral damage on my logistical infrastructure :) Anyhow, I'm now more or less reinstalled back in my study so hopefully there's light at the end of the tunnel though things won't get fully back to normal for another couple of weeks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a notice about mrg3105 appropriate?

I was wondering whether a notice referring to the AN/I discussion about possible editing restrictions for User:mrg3105 on the main talk page is appropriate. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine I think because it doesn't apply to any consitutency more than any other, wrt to supporters and opposers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Duly done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead with this Roger. I was unaware of the practice of posting at WP:AN/I to request confirmation and oversight of blocks and will use it in future. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general principle, I think it's helpful to involve the community as much as possible at an early stage in any dealings with possible disruption. I don't see a lot of point in arguing with the intransigent. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of fellow coordinator and new suggestion

I am an involved party in the A-class review of Late Roman army since I did nominate it. For this reason, I can not extend the review and yesterday I was too tired after nine hours of hard physical labour to ask someone. However, I think Eurocopter closed and failed this review premature. There was a longer review from Dhatfield who discontinued because his changes caused a conflict with the main author over factual accuracy. The other reviewer Blungyen had some MoS issues to critize that could be fixed within days. All in all, I strongly recommend that will need for the demanded changes and in case this is beyond the time limit for extension of a review, it can be closed. If it isn't, we do extend it for the required time and then close it. I will renominate this article in a few days and hope for a in such cases we do not work according to the calendar, but read the review we are closing and judge on an extension. To run things a better, I suggest that in case of comments, but no outright oppose, we explicitly do ask the nominator how long he proper review. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My view is that, as a project, we fail in our responsibilities to editors when their work is insufficiently reviewed at ACR. Perhaps the time has come to revisit the timescales (again) at ACR and, as mentioned above, maybe use a FAC-type system instead. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the MHCOORDS mh-community are a bit too polite and I think people are deciding to look away instead of biting (opposing). But in any case, I should probably do a MOS run on the A-class articles because a lot of them aren't really up to scratch. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your disappointment, as i'm sure you worked a lot on that article. However, after four days, the reviewers made themselves clear that it still enough "work required" for this article to be promoted. Also, within four days it gained no support. So, why am I criticised? I don't know if our A-class review guidelines are currently good or bad, or if they should be changed or not, so all i've done is applying them in their current form. If we intend not to respect them anymore, we should simply remove them from the A-class review template and manage A-class reviews according to everyone's preferences. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We have introduced an extension system for such cases. I'm still working through the case in detail, but I have doubts that the major reviewer was very knowledgeable. I know it is difficult to decide if you aren't knowledgeable yourself, but use the current extension rule in case of doubt. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This review appears to have been closed in line with the usual practices for A-class reviews. That said, I'm all for increasing the length of time A-class reviews to at least the time made available for FACs. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Cold War

Considering the low-level activity and lack of manpower the Cold War WikiProject is currently facing with, as well as the inexistence of a Cold War task force within our project, I propose merging WikiProject Cold War into our project. If this merge will be done, the project would become our Cold War task force. Before i'll leave a message to its main contributors, as well as main talk page of the project, I would like to know if any of you has objections to this proposal. I think this merge would represent a great benefit for both projects, as a future Cold War task force would be properly maintained and fill a gap within our project. Thoughts? --Eurocopter (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That was proposed by Oberiko in September last year, but was rejected by one of the project's members on the grounds that the project covers more than just military aspects of the Cold War. That said, given that the project appears to have little activity, it's worth proposing this again. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We might also just leave them alone and have a link to our task force on their page. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that means we have to create our own Cold War task force, separately from them. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Review

Has the time come to revise the period of time ACR should remain open? Should we also amend the criteria to make specific reference to prose quality and MoS compliance? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes on both counts, given one of the above threads, I think it is time to expand it somewhat and loosen the terminology. If it needs to be kept open for a bit, then do so, if it is obvious that it won't be fixed in time, then close it. This does have its downside though, the closing coordinator may come under some criticism from an aggrieved nominator if it is closed "early." Woody (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on both counts. A-class articles are supposed to be of high quality so stepping up the criteria wouldn't be bad. Kyriakos (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support both those suggestions. While stressing prose is important, I don't think that we should be too strict about MoS compliance though - this is a frustrating area for most editors and typically delivers only a small pay-off for readers, and we want to encourage people to seek to have their articles rated A-class. I find the current anal attitude towards MoS on FAC to be a significant deterrent to attempting to develop articles to FA class and I don't think 'our' A-class should go down the same path. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the most obvious thing is people not even bothering to fill out refs properly and/or rubbish sources. As for the ref hyphening, that's pretty easy and I've been helping to do them anyway. And yes to liberalising the time slot. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. My usual complaints at ACR are longwindedness and internal consistency. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to have a crack at drafting the criteria? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger is very good at drafting such things. Let's give him try. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bagh! :) I'll draft something. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested wording

Given that the A-class criteria are meant to be similar to the FA-criteria (the current guidance is that "Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written; however, they may require some further copyediting.") how about basing the criteria on a toned-down version of the FA criteria, so they're something like:

An A-class exemplifies our best work and features high standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—
   • (a) well-written: its prose is clear;
   • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
   • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
   • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
2. It is in line with the style guidelines, and would not require substancial editing to be fully compliant. The article should include:
   • (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
   • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
3. Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Is this a good idea, or should we start from scratch? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, generally; but I would change the citation-related points to refer explicitly to our own guidelines on the topic (WP:MILMOS#CITE and so forth) rather than merely copying the WIAFA wording. Kirill ^(prof) 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. Kyriakos (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the text

As there is clear consensus on the content, I've given it a slightly different structure so that it follows the same order as B-Class. This should make it less alien and daunting for Milhist editors and reviewers alike. The idea is also to make it easier to pass/fail using an A1-A5 checklist. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Preamble

Military history A-Class articles should be close in quality to featured articles. Normally, they should only require a technical Manual of Style copyedit to meet the featured article criteria.

A1 The article is consistently referenced, with either footnotes or Harvard referencing.

• consistent citations: means consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

A2 The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic.

• comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
• factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
• neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• length: It does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

A3 The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including "lead" and "reference" sections.

• lead:—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).

A4 The article is written in clear, concise and articulate English.

• well-written: its prose is clear and in line with the style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully compliant.

A5 The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

As I mentioned above, I'd suggest something like the following instead:

A1 The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style.

A2 The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic.

• factually accurate: ; all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate

Given the effort we've gone through to develop high standards of citation and sourcing, it seems counterproductive to go for the lowest common denominator again. Kirill ^(prof) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, if we pull everything citation-related into A1 and trim the sub-bullets down a bit, we can condense the text considerably:

A1 The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

A2 The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.

A3 The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

A4 The article is written in clear, concise and articulate English; its prose is clear and in line with the style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully compliant.

A5 The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

I'm not sure to what extent this is an improvement, but it strikes me as a bit less haphazard than the mix of list items and bullets, and somewhat closer to the B-Class checklist structure. Kirill ^(prof) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff :) It's starting to look much more home-grown. (I've struck through a slight repetition in A). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirill's latest version looks good, more concise and easily checkable. It seems good to me though I think the repetition of prose is useful as it helps to reinforce the point that it really does need to be perfect. Woody (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this looks excellent. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fiddled a bit with the text. Does anyone have any objections or can this be posted forthwith? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks very good, we can go ahead with it. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) I've updated the quality scale with the new criteria; amended the review instructions; and will add it to /Announcements and the /Newsletter. Have I missed anything? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the timescales

Are we all agreed that the new ACRs will remain open until such time (1) as a clear consensus to promote or to fail exists or (2) as it becomes apparent that no consensus will be reached? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Woody (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Kyriakos (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Kirill ^(prof) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the instructions in line with the above. For ease of reference, the original and updated versions are shown below. The wording is far from perfect but I think it conveys the spirit of what we intend. Feel free to tweak it! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. We should probably update the instructions in the handbook here as well. Do we need to retain the second ("alert") notice form under this new system, incidentally? Kirill ^(prof) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the handbook. I think we probably do need to keep the second alert - at least for the time being - as some reminding may be necessary. Could I ask you to do an /announcement and mention this in the /newsletter please? (I have guests coming and they'll be here shortly.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New articles listing

Does anyone know how the bot which produces Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/New articles works? The list hasn't been updated since 28 July and the editor who looks after the bot is aparantly on holiday. Someone from the New Zealand wikiproject reported that it wasn't working for them on 1 August, but it seems that it's updating NZ articles again. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the run schedule is. (For that matter, I'm not even sure anyone uses the listing these days; there's so many articles picked up that it's somewhat impractical to go through them all.) Kirill ^(prof) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I check the listing most days to see if there's anything which needs to be added to the listing of new articles on Portal:Military of Australia. Is there another way to see what's new I'm not using? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be working again. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)