Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 55
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic AutoCheck report for December
 | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |  |
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging
Most of the articles in the category are there because they contain a link to the United States Air Force portal, which no longer exists. I assume that the solution is to remove the United States Air Force portal tag from each of them? Just checking before I do it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Taking silence as consent, I removed the USAF portal tag from one and it resolved the issue. I shall wait 24 hours to see if anyone complains, including here, and then work through the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this on, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- We made need a larger effort though, in a routine pass through WP:AN and WP:ANI I spotted this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space. If it goes through (and honestly it seems like it will) then all portals save but for a precious and actually useful few will be torpedoed, which will in turn require cleanup across a larger space. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've personally brought at least two dozen military portals to MfD – including Portal:Napoleonic Wars, Portal:Military of Greece, Portal:Military of ancient Rome, Portal:Military history of France, Portal:Military history of Africa, Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire, Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict, Portal:Royal Navy,Portal:Terrorism, Portal:Royal Air Force, Portal:British Army, Portal:Canadian Armed Forces, Portal:Royal Australian Navy, Portal:NATO, Portal:United Nations, Portal:United States Marine Corps, Portal:September 11 attacks, Portal:Ancient warfare, Portal:United States Air Force, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:United States Merchant Marine, Portal:United States Coast Guard, Portal:Military of the United States and Portal:United States Army. User:BrownHairedGirl has an AutoWikiBrowser set up that replaces the dead portal with a broader portal like Portal:War, but some zombie backlinks slip through. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- To me, there are two requirements for the retention of a portal: active maintenance and sufficient views. If a portal lacks either (or both) it probably shouldn't exist. We just need a way of cleaning up afterwards, which it looks like BHG has in hand (with the exception of the zombies). Any way of tweaking the AWB to make sure it is more thorough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I know, BHG's script is only replacing portal links in the article itself, not links in our project banner (which is what's throwing up these errors). Given that the way the portals are linked from the banner is completely different from how they're linked within the article, I suspect that significant changes would be required to the script to work in this scenario.
- On the other hand, if we simply want to eliminate all of the errors en masse, we could just tweak the banner template to automatically hide links to deleted portals rather than flagging them as an error condition. Is that something we want to do at this point? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Kirill could you just do that? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I've updated the template code so that it will ignore references to portals that no longer exist. Note that it will still flag an error if the main portal page exists, but the referenced subpage doesn't.
- As always, please let me know if you see anything broken as a result of the template change. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Kirill could you just do that? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- To me, there are two requirements for the retention of a portal: active maintenance and sufficient views. If a portal lacks either (or both) it probably shouldn't exist. We just need a way of cleaning up afterwards, which it looks like BHG has in hand (with the exception of the zombies). Any way of tweaking the AWB to make sure it is more thorough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've personally brought at least two dozen military portals to MfD – including Portal:Napoleonic Wars, Portal:Military of Greece, Portal:Military of ancient Rome, Portal:Military history of France, Portal:Military history of Africa, Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire, Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict, Portal:Royal Navy,Portal:Terrorism, Portal:Royal Air Force, Portal:British Army, Portal:Canadian Armed Forces, Portal:Royal Australian Navy, Portal:NATO, Portal:United Nations, Portal:United States Marine Corps, Portal:September 11 attacks, Portal:Ancient warfare, Portal:United States Air Force, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:United States Merchant Marine, Portal:United States Coast Guard, Portal:Military of the United States and Portal:United States Army. User:BrownHairedGirl has an AutoWikiBrowser set up that replaces the dead portal with a broader portal like Portal:War, but some zombie backlinks slip through. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- We made need a larger effort though, in a routine pass through WP:AN and WP:ANI I spotted this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space. If it goes through (and honestly it seems like it will) then all portals save but for a precious and actually useful few will be torpedoed, which will in turn require cleanup across a larger space. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this on, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Full B-Class checklist
Yesterday I was thinking about the September drive who just ended and I saw there were still 23,395 articles who need a full B-Class checklist. Those are a lot of articles and I do not think the drive took a lot of them out. They're mostly forgotten in the project. So my idea is to make it like the assessment department, a little contest with the people who (are interested and) want to work with these topics. And like the contest department, the top three get a reward to work hours and hours into those checklists, they'd get it at the start of the next month. At the start of the month, we can check the articles (whether they are really from them) they worked on or maybe (if possible) the bot can do that? My idea is to try to decrease the 23,395 articles who are getting more and more articles every day so I think it's safe to make it a contest of. Any ideas are welcome? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that is a good idea. The devil is in the detail, but I like the concept. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if we could roll it into the quarterly reviewing tally? Perhaps turn the whole thing into a monthly reviewing contest along the same lines as the article writing contest - different reviews would be worth different amounts of points. Or we could still run the quarterly bot report separately to catch people who do reviews but aren't interested in entering the contest (there's still value in recognizing their contributions, I think). Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've been keeping half an eye on this category since it was set up in October 2017. A while ago I started clearing through from the start of the alphabet (someone else, not sure who, had started from the back and got up to V), but I haven't slogged through for some time. The numbers are actually slowly decreasing: it was 25,200 in February 2018. Over the course of September's drive the backlog actually reduced from 23,713 to 23,399 despite all the new articles tagged (although the April 2018 drive had no real effect on the number). I would support a concerted effort to reduce this backlog, which also should help us to meet our long term target of achieving 15% of all articles rated B-Class or better - Dumelow (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Those stats are interesting. I'm wondering if a bot could at least add an empty B-Class checklist to all Milhist tagged articles that a. don't have one, and b. aren't already FA, A or GA. I realise that would just move the work to the unassessed category, but it would massively reduce the amount of typing required in each assessment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the data to User:Dumelow/MILHIST B-class assessment stats and drawn up some graphs. I haven't been that diligent in collecting data so there's some big gaps (generally between periods when I was active in working on the missing checklist backlog) but it shows a few interesting trends:
- There's a few peaks and troughs but in general the missing B-class checklist backlog has been coming down
- The April 2018 drive did not reduce the missing b-class checklist backlog but the September 2019 one did
- Milhist drives significantly increase the number of B-class articles
- The drives also significantly increase the number of articles tagged such that the overall article quality (as measured by the percentage completion against our long-term 15% of all articles at B-class or better target) remains broadly unchanged
- In general the proportion of articles at B-class or better has been steadily increasing
- I'll see if I can keep this stats page up to date now I am a bit more active. I have probably diverged far enough from CPA-5's original point above now so I'll shut up. But I am more than happy to chip into any backlog reduction drive - Dumelow (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the data to User:Dumelow/MILHIST B-class assessment stats and drawn up some graphs. I haven't been that diligent in collecting data so there's some big gaps (generally between periods when I was active in working on the missing checklist backlog) but it shows a few interesting trends:
- Perhaps a permanently running event, awarded quarterly, ie similar to the current review awards; based on the first three elements of the annual contest and with a similar scale of awards, but no first, second, third places. I am assuming that we could use much of the infrastructure of the annual contest, and so it would be easy to set up. Of course, this may reduce participation in the annual contast, but I doubt that it would reduce the annual total of tagging and assessing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think a permanently running event or a monthly reviewing contest are both great ideas. I believe this can indeed reduce the number of articles. I do not think this is an issue. These are work points who can be solved to make the project smoother, this also would solve the long problem of forgetting this topic and how we should deal with this problem. I think we might stimulate some editors to take part in the new drive/contest. This would reduce the numbers a little bit faster than it is now. I think like Tom asked us this is my long term idea. Dumelow could you ping us when the stats' page is up to date? But are we doing this and what should it become? A monthly reviewing contest or a permanently running event? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- What I'm getting from this is there are two things we need to achieve. One is a (preferably automated, given we are talking about 25,000 articles) way to add empty B-Class checklists to all articles that don't already have them, and aren't already FA, A-Class or GA, and the second is a perhaps quarterly? contest for filling out the B-Class checklists (ie assessment below GA), which would just need a permanent drive-type page like the monthly contest page, perhaps with a transcluded worklist page. Am I reading this right? Hawkeye7, is there any way that Milhistbot could do the former job? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- From my point of view, yes, you are. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks Hawkeye. I think the only major variable will be whether a given banner already has the |class= field, in my experience, some do, some don't. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Bot proposal
From the look of it, each of them has a MILHIST banner with a |class= field filled in. They have been added manually by the New Page Patrollers. Some have blank (|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=) assessments. All have been assessed as Start, C or B. To get them out of the category, the bot will need to fill in the assessments. Blank ones will not do. Now, the Bot knows the answers to b1, b3 and b5. That leaves b2 and b4, to which it can apply some heuristics, or can infer from the human assessment. So here is my proposal:
- The Bot accepts the human-assigned class ratings
- The Bot fills in the assessments
- Where the Bot believes that the article deserves a B, it will flag it for human assessment
I realise that this goes beyond what you were thinking of, but 25,000 articles is too many for a drive. My feeling is that the overwhelming majority are Starts that are of little concern to us and could be swept up; I will generate some statistics on what the Bot's assessment of the situation is, and report back. We can start with assessment of a small number so we can inspect the results. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- If it's easy to set up the bot, let's do a couple of hundred and have a look at them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will do a sample run and report back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here is a sampler, with the Bot looking at the first five of 25,000, with the proposed changes. In each case, the B-class checklist was missing or empty, and all the Bot is programmed to do is add it. Note that 2016 Indian Line of Control strike would be flagged for human review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will do a sample run and report back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1: Talk:2015 Qamishli bombings
prediction = C
has infobox
{{MILHIST|class=start|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
2: Talk:2016 Butig clashes
prediction = C
has infobox
{{WikiProject Military history|class=start|Southeast-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
3: Talk:2016 Indian Line of Control strike
prediction = B
has infobox
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
4: Talk:2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul
prediction = Start
has infobox
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|class=start|South-Asian-task-force=y}}
5: Talk:2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike
prediction = C
has infobox
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern-task-force=y|Asian=yes|Post-Cold-War-task-force=yes|importance=Mid|class=start}}
Is this just adding an empty checklist, Hawkeye? It seems to be populating the checklist as well? I just looked at Talk:2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike and it currently has a class field (at the end) and a blank checklist?Just a minor point, could we put the blank checklist immediately after the class field in the same order as in the documentation for the template? Having the class and checklist in consecutive fields will make things a little easier for those doing the assessment, and there are some minor syntax quirks in the banner code which can play up if things aren't in the right order. One I know of is the |A-Class= field, it pops up into Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging if it isn't immediately behind the class field. I don't know that there are any with the positioning of the class and checklist fields, but better to just stick to the documentation. Thanks very much for your work on this so far, Hawkeye! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)- Now that I have actually read the proposal properly... I reckon this is a pretty good approach. I'm not sure that all pages will have a class field though, I was clearing out a category yesterday and there were several with just the bare {{WPMILHIST}} banner. I agree that where we really need to be doing some human checking is with B (and possibly C) class articles. I reckon the number of bot-assessed B-Class articles will be low, less than a hundred, so human checking all the Bs won't be at all onerous. I have a query about the bot logic. Is the bot just looking for a template at the end of each para for b1? If so, could it be picking up cn tags as citations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have come across articles which I would fail on B1 despite having each paragraph adequately referenced because they have extensive and entirely uncited infoboxes full of information not repeated in the article. Most 18th-century ships fall into this category. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Now that I have actually read the proposal properly... I reckon this is a pretty good approach. I'm not sure that all pages will have a class field though, I was clearing out a category yesterday and there were several with just the bare {{WPMILHIST}} banner. I agree that where we really need to be doing some human checking is with B (and possibly C) class articles. I reckon the number of bot-assessed B-Class articles will be low, less than a hundred, so human checking all the Bs won't be at all onerous. I have a query about the bot logic. Is the bot just looking for a template at the end of each para for b1? If so, could it be picking up cn tags as citations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how concerned we are or want to be about accuracy (and some of the following comments may be based on my misinterpretation of the criteria) but looking at the five sampled:
- 2015 Qamishli bombings: I am not sure why "b1=no", it looks fine to me. Surely b3 should be no; there is no attempt at a lead, the first section/paragraph goes straight into the event, and the second is labelled "Aftermath".
- 2016 Butig clashes: Looks good.
- 2016 Indian Line of Control strike: "b1=no"? There is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "De-escalation section", which was picked up by the bot and reflected in the code and would make the prediction C, not B.
- 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul: what is the b1 issue? And b2 seems borderline; I would have given it for B class, but wouldn't have argued if a human editor had tagged it as no.
- 2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike: Looks good.
Overall I am impressed. I wouldn't mind another sample, perhaps a little larger, spread across a wider range of task forces, to make sure that what we're looking at is representative.
- I agree, this is bloody good so far. Could we run one on a random letter of the alphabet, on say 25 or even 50 articles? That's only a fraction of what we are about to unleash it on, but will probably cover a good number of task forces to get a more representative sample and provide some additional quality assurance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
These are good questions:
- In the case of a bare {{WPMILHIST}} template, the Bot will fill in the class and checklist. It has no instructions regarding task forces. It could assess these too though.
- 2015 Qamishli bombings: The b1=no was because Bot was confused by the appearance of an infobox outside the lead. I will have to cater for this. The Bot cannot assess a lead based on its content. It looks like a lead, and was accepted as such.
- 2016 Indian Line of Control strike: The Bot assessed b1=no based on a "citation required" tag. It therefore corrected rendered it as C class. However, the Bot's mission is to swee p up the Start and C class articles, and flag the B class ones for further checking. It therefore will flag if one of the following is true:
- The human has tagged the article as B class;
- The Bot thinks that all five of the checklist items should be true;
- The Bot thinks the article looks pretty good, based on its own judgement. It this case, it has flagged an article for checking where it missed out only by one tag.
- 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul An error on my part; the Bot assessed b1 as yes and b2 as no, but I had them around the wrong way. Will correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- What a clever bot! A thought, no more, re "false leads": if there is no ToC, then b3=no. I suspect that this would work far more times than it wouldn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- We could also try piggy backing on other project's assessments, IE if the bot sees its B-class for on and not the other it could reasonably infer that the article should be B-class across the board. I'm not sure how many articles or lists that would impact, but I know I've seen that in assessments on article talk pages before. Also, it may be a good idea to figure out a way to exclude articles that are subject to current events issues or ARBCOM rulings or such just to be sure a human double checks what the bot thinks and to avoid instances in which the bot may inadvertently create a backlash of sorts for us by mis-guessing or preliminarily tagging something that's making waves or subject to Wiki-oversight as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TomStar81: I get through a lot of B class assessments - last month I did over 1,000 for the drive - and in my experience the grading of other projects is a very poor guide to how we would assess an article. I would guess that about 70-75% of the time where another project had assessed an article as C or B class, I assessed it as being lower. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: No surprise there, MILHIST tends to be the flagship project for assessment standards and a lot of other projects have copied what we have because it works so well. That being said, if this is SOCOM as it were then yeah, inviting the mall cops into the fold would be a very bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which would be the degradation of quality :) That being said, it is a pleasant fiction to assume that all projects have at or near the same level of assessment standards for moments like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TomStar81: I get through a lot of B class assessments - last month I did over 1,000 for the drive - and in my experience the grading of other projects is a very poor guide to how we would assess an article. I would guess that about 70-75% of the time where another project had assessed an article as C or B class, I assessed it as being lower. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- This looks like an excellent development that could significantly reduce time spent reviewing articles. My concerns would be that, as a bot, it is blind to poor quality sourcing or copyright violations and that people could be put off if they've assessed an article as c-class, for example, and the bot downgrades it to a start-class. Provided the bot doesn't give out B-class assessments (ie. it just flags them for human review) and cannot downgrade classifications given by a human (it could flag these for review though), I am all for it - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: My understanding is that this will only apply to articles which have no B class checklist at all, not even a blank one. I don't think that there is any question of the bot ever overriding a human judgement. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get my point across very well. There are articles in that category where a human has assessed the article as a C or B and edited the template mark-up accordingly but it doesn't show on the talk page because the checklist hasn't been completed. I could see people having an issue with the bot inserting "class=start" over the human-written "class=c" in the mark-up, even though the talk page currently shows it as start-class - Dumelow (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I was being a little slow there. Good point. Hopefully Hawkeye will set up the bot so that any such "downgrades" are flagged for human checking before they are actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The banner template will only show C-Class if b1 or b2 and all the rest are ticked yes. If someone has put |class=C but not filled out the checklist, it hasn't been properly assessed. So, given the bot will only be adding the checklist to articles that don't already have one, or filling it in where the checklist is there but blank, I don't think this is an issue. Is that right, Hawkeye? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- If someone puts |class=C (or, for that matter, B) but has not filled out the checklist, then it displays as a Start. I don't foresee a problem here; edits can cause the class assessment to change. It is very true that the Bot cannot assess articles as well as humans can, and can bee fooled; but we can't assess 25,000 articles, and it can. I will post a larger sample in a day or two; I have been looking at some corner cases. In all, though, the results have exceeded my expectations. Some things to consider:
- Should the Bot assess task forces as well?
- Should it change the assessment for other projects? Currently the Bot adjusts the assessment of some other projects (Australia, Aviations, Ships etc) when it promotes articles to A-class.
- In what cases should a human be asked to verify an assessment? We don't want this to happen too often, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I reckon the bot could do some work adding task forces, particularly if there are other WikiProject banners in place, or a particular type of infobox. For example, if it had WikiProject Australia, it could add the ANZSP task force, or add the weaponry task force if the WikiProject Knives banner was present. No doubt there are many more with all the national WikiProjects and some other specialist WikiProjects. In the case of infoboxes: if it had Infobox aircraft begin, it could be added to the Aviation task force; if it had Infobox weapon it could be added to the weaponry task force; or if it had Infobox ship begin it could be added to the Maritime task force. Infobox military person would result in adding the Biography task force.
- I think we should only change the assessment for projects we have an agreement with, which is only Ships as far as I know? We should run it past any projects we are thinking of assessing via bot.
- I think all B-Class assessments by bot should be checked by a human eyeball. I suspect that this will be manageable, as the vast majority of the 25,000 will be Start and a drive would smash it pretty quickly.
- Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- If someone puts |class=C (or, for that matter, B) but has not filled out the checklist, then it displays as a Start. I don't foresee a problem here; edits can cause the class assessment to change. It is very true that the Bot cannot assess articles as well as humans can, and can bee fooled; but we can't assess 25,000 articles, and it can. I will post a larger sample in a day or two; I have been looking at some corner cases. In all, though, the results have exceeded my expectations. Some things to consider:
- The banner template will only show C-Class if b1 or b2 and all the rest are ticked yes. If someone has put |class=C but not filled out the checklist, it hasn't been properly assessed. So, given the bot will only be adding the checklist to articles that don't already have one, or filling it in where the checklist is there but blank, I don't think this is an issue. Is that right, Hawkeye? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I was being a little slow there. Good point. Hopefully Hawkeye will set up the bot so that any such "downgrades" are flagged for human checking before they are actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get my point across very well. There are articles in that category where a human has assessed the article as a C or B and edited the template mark-up accordingly but it doesn't show on the talk page because the checklist hasn't been completed. I could see people having an issue with the bot inserting "class=start" over the human-written "class=c" in the mark-up, even though the talk page currently shows it as start-class - Dumelow (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: My understanding is that this will only apply to articles which have no B class checklist at all, not even a blank one. I don't think that there is any question of the bot ever overriding a human judgement. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- We could also try piggy backing on other project's assessments, IE if the bot sees its B-class for on and not the other it could reasonably infer that the article should be B-class across the board. I'm not sure how many articles or lists that would impact, but I know I've seen that in assessments on article talk pages before. Also, it may be a good idea to figure out a way to exclude articles that are subject to current events issues or ARBCOM rulings or such just to be sure a human double checks what the bot thinks and to avoid instances in which the bot may inadvertently create a backlash of sorts for us by mis-guessing or preliminarily tagging something that's making waves or subject to Wiki-oversight as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- What a clever bot! A thought, no more, re "false leads": if there is no ToC, then b3=no. I suspect that this would work far more times than it wouldn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a run with 100 articles. Assessments are rarely downgraded; the usual direction is up. Note that none were actually changed. Just showing what the Bot would do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Microsoft (R) Build Engine version 16.0.42-preview+g804bde742b for Mono Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Build started 17/10/2019 9:45:47 AM. Project "/Users/ross/mono/AutoCheck.csproj" on node 1 (default targets). AutoCheck: /Library/Frameworks/Mono.framework/Versions/5.20.1/lib/mono/msbuild/15.0/bin/Roslyn/csc.exe /reference:Newtonsoft.Json.dll /reference:Wikimedia.dll /out:AutoCheck.exe AutoCheck.cs Done Building Project "/Users/ross/mono/AutoCheck.csproj" (default targets). Build succeeded. 0 Warning(s) 0 Error(s) Time Elapsed 00:00:00.89 1: Talk:17 August 2019 Kabul bombing Original: |
A couple of initial comments. A few more Bs than I was expecting, I'll have a look at them individually and see how accurate the bot is. Maybe someone else could do that as well, to get another opinion? Two syntax-related things. 1. Could the bot remove the importance field from the banner where it exists, as we don't do importance? 2. Could the bot place the checklist immediately after the class field? An observation that the bot seems to get a bit confused where the existing banner has the checklist with the comments, and adds a second checklist. I'll post more once I've looked at the Bs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a coordinator, but I've been watching this discussion with interest, as I have some concerns about the ability of a bot to accurately assess articles (though I also have concerns about humans to do it too, so go figure!) Taking five of these that were bot-assessed as C-class, I have some worries about how it assesses b1 (Referencing and citations):
- Abram Trigg: I can't see any justification for a b1=yes here. There is one inline reference in the whole article, leaving one complete section and another paragraph without one at all.
- Alexander Foote: There are six inline references in this article, but again whole paragraphs without, and an actual {{which}} tag, and yet the bot says b1=yes.
- 2019 Balakot airstrike: Conversely, this one appears pretty solidly referenced, but the bot doesn't think so?
- Action of 17 November 1865: No complaints, this seems reasonable.
- Aleda E. Lutz: Again, not complaints for this one.
- Maybe I just struck it unlucky, but three out of five with quite obvious problems suggests to me that the bot needs further calibration for judging against b1? Harrias talk 23:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, Harrias. I have had a look at five B-Class ones and three of five seemed fine, but two were definitely off. One (2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute) had multiple tags (POV and Third-party), which should be taken into account by the bot. Generally, if the article has been tagged with issues then it is probably no higher than Start, IMHO. Could this be integrated into the bot? The other (2018 Tunisian protests) had an outdated tag as well as an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so shouldn't have been b1=y, and the tag indicates problems, so Start is probably where I would have landed on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Adding (re: Harrias' comments) that 2019 Balakot airstrike has an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so C seems good, although it is awfully close to B assuming the sources are reliable. Action of 17 November 1865 also has an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so it should be b1=n and therefore Start, not C. Same for Aleda E. Lutz. I agree that the bot needs some tweaking re: b1. I am also wondering how it is assessing b4, Hawkeye7, as there are some glaring grammar issues in a couple I have looked at? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Having glanced at a few, I also agree that the bot's handling of b1 could do with a tweak; there are a lot of overtly false positives. So far as I can see, its treatment of b3 seems a little crude, so long as there is a single section header of some sort in there it awards b3=y. Can I repeat my earlier suggestion that if there is no ToC the bot defaults to b3=n. (Or even b3=?) That said, I remain impressed; if the false b1=y issue could be resolved, I think that we would have an assessment tool probably superior to the average assessment in the recent drive. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Adding (re: Harrias' comments) that 2019 Balakot airstrike has an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so C seems good, although it is awfully close to B assuming the sources are reliable. Action of 17 November 1865 also has an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so it should be b1=n and therefore Start, not C. Same for Aleda E. Lutz. I agree that the bot needs some tweaking re: b1. I am also wondering how it is assessing b4, Hawkeye7, as there are some glaring grammar issues in a couple I have looked at? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, Harrias. I have had a look at five B-Class ones and three of five seemed fine, but two were definitely off. One (2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute) had multiple tags (POV and Third-party), which should be taken into account by the bot. Generally, if the article has been tagged with issues then it is probably no higher than Start, IMHO. Could this be integrated into the bot? The other (2018 Tunisian protests) had an outdated tag as well as an uncited sentence at the end of a para, so shouldn't have been b1=y, and the tag indicates problems, so Start is probably where I would have landed on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
- The Bot cannot see the table of contents; it is automatically generated if an article has at least four headings. It can assess this, because it can count the headers. However, I often write B-class articles with fewer than four headings, eg. Allen F. Donovan.
- The Bot was not confused by comments in the checklist, but by the old, alternative form; I will correct this.
- The Bot is able to remove the importance tag. I had it doing this, but disabled it while I verified whether the Aviation and Ships projects have such tags (the don't).
- The Bot cannot spot grammatical errors, however glaring (but if you have some that it might look for, I can consider them.) It uses a rule of thumb to guess.
- I've never paid attention to {{which}} as it places articles into Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases, and does not refer to referencing (b1); although perhaps it should be coverage and accuiracy (b2)?
- The same goes for POV and neutrality; they are not part of our B-class assessment.
- By default, the Bot places the assessment parameters where the human put them, failing which it adds them to the end. But I can have it place them immediately after the class parameter.
- B1 definitely needs some more tweaking, although this is showing promise, with the Bot sometimes spotting ones missed the humans.
- Another run, with some tweaks for b1 and other changes:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
1: Talk:17 August 2019 Kabul bombing Original: |
Thanks Hawkeye. I disagree regarding tags like POV not being part of our B-Class assessment. Neutrality is a core content policy, so is included in all assessments. A POV tag is an indication that there is something wrong with b1 and/or b2, ie it may not be suitably referenced and cited (despite having citations for all paras), and may not reasonably cover the topic (because it is skewed to one POV). Likewise, the grammar tag should result in b4=n. I'll take a look at a sample of the above in a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I only looked at the putative Bs, but they all seemed ok. Interested in other editors views. We probably should engage with Ships and Aviation about this now if we are planning to re-assess against their checklists. I am happy to do that if other are in agreement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we should do that. It is no problem for me to switch it on or off. Changes in the latest version include:
- The class parameter is now placed first in the temnplate, followed by the assessment parameters.
- Importance parameters are removed
- The B1 assessment has been improved.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- The bot isn't very accurate on B4. For example, A. W. Bhombal was checked as B4=yes even though it is written in poor quality English. Kges1901 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we should do that. It is no problem for me to switch it on or off. Changes in the latest version include:
- I don't think it is feasible to exclude b4 from the bot's work, as it would be self-defeating in terms of the human workload. Do we just accept that it isn't going to be very good at assessing grammar and run human eyeballs over all the bot-assessed Bs in order to mitigate any significant downside? Personally I'm not too concerned if we have a few Cs that should be Start, but I think we need human quality assurance on Bs.
- B4 is one of the easier criteria IMO as it only requires competency in the English language, so having a category to check bot assesses Bs would work. Kges1901 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Having done a lot of B class assessments, I have found extremely few that fail the broadly drawn b4 criterion. The bot will pick up a good proportion of these, so the number of false-positive b4s, even from 23,000 assessments, should be small. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I saw the bot reassess an article on my watchlist as B-class, but German corvette Hiddensee pretty clearly is not - don't know what if anything to do about it, but I figured I'd at least point out a problematic assessment. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no pretense that the Bot can do the job as you can. The article was fully referenced, so it passed b1. b2 is rather more interesting. The Bot compared it with similar B-class articles and assessed it as being similar. The detailed infobox probably made it think that the article was pretty comprehensive. Feel free to change any assessments you feel are problematic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- We need a system for reviewing B-Class bot assessments, I've also seen several that clearly aren't right. I'm not fussed about lower-class assessments, but the Bs need to be flagged for a human eyeball to check. Could they be put into a category? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if Peacemaker67's suggestion for a centralised discussion venue regarding the bot assessments has been started somewhere yet? I have some feedback, but am not sure where it should be directed. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Bot run complete
It looks like the bot run has now completed, the backlog has reduced to zero. I've updated the graphs above so you can see the dramatic effect the bot had on the backlog and our number of B-class articles in a short amount of time, good stuff. Further to previous discussions and Paul_012's comment above is there now a list of new B-class articles that need a human to look over and confirm? - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Hawkeye7, what is the cat for the Milhistbot B-Class article assessments? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the MilHistBot likes the following articles which it graded B:
Anatolie Popa- Anushtakin al-Dizbari
- Arikara scouts
- Arthur Foss
- Banu Kalb
- Battle of Renfrew
- Costache Aristia
- Destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo
Godred Crovan- Norwich Castle
- Otto Ohlendorf
- Porcupine (Cheyenne)
- Radu Rosetti
- Roman dictator
- SS Yorktown (1894)
- Sheng Shicai
- Spiro Crne
- Süddeutsche Monatshefte
- The run has been cut back to once per day. Currently, it processes zero to three new articles each day. At rate of 1.5 articles per day, that comes to about 45 per month. Based on 7.6% of them being graded B, we can expect 3 or 4 B-class articles per month. I think I will have it do a monthly run, and update a page. What do you think of the eighteen articles above? I think the Bot found some diamonds among the rubbish. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year awards
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: In approximately six weeks we will open the nominations for the Military historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards. Not withstanding opposition to the term "historian" we still have a problem with these nominations in that the nominations are disproportionately tilted towards our content contributors at the expense of others who do tagging and assessing, photography and FP related work, news related work, coordination, etc. To that end I wanted to reach out and see if it would be possible to get people thinking about this ahead of the nomination period so we could make an honest attempt at diversifying the field this year. I know MilHistBot tallies reviews, surely we can find a veteran and a newcomer versed in article reviewing from that list, but the other areas would need manual nominations and the best people to do that would be those who contribute to the project. If we could encourage people to start thinking about it now perhaps the field and the nominees would widen a little this year, which would be good for us and the project. What you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- A good reminder, Tom. I think, in terms of gnoming, those that made significant inroads during the recent drive might be nominated? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. We need buglers, too: Op-Ed writers and such. I suppose we can look at those who have helped with featured pictures, free souring, etc. Wherever we can find them. If the coordinators can collectively find at least one editors in each field for nomination it should help show that this is for everyone including content contributors, not just exclusively content contributors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- As a suggestion, it might be a good idea to introduce an award for military history wiki gnome of the year (preferably with a better name - 'grunt of the year' perhaps?) to recognise editors who focus on these sorts of contributions. Tom makes an excellent point by observing that they're often under-recognised across Wikipedia despite the importance of their contributions. There's a risk of over-complicating the awards though, but this would probably be a worthwhile experiment. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- "Grunt of the Year"! :-) 'Military History Project Logistician of the Year' perhaps? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I was thinking of "Quite 'Nuff Sayer" (for contribution to the Bugle), "Keeper of the Flame" (for tagging and assessing), "Photographer Maximus" (for images), and "Defender of the Realm" (for taking on ArbCom). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Walled Gardener" for the latter? :) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I was thinking of "Quite 'Nuff Sayer" (for contribution to the Bugle), "Keeper of the Flame" (for tagging and assessing), "Photographer Maximus" (for images), and "Defender of the Realm" (for taking on ArbCom). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- "Grunt of the Year"! :-) 'Military History Project Logistician of the Year' perhaps? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- As a suggestion, it might be a good idea to introduce an award for military history wiki gnome of the year (preferably with a better name - 'grunt of the year' perhaps?) to recognise editors who focus on these sorts of contributions. Tom makes an excellent point by observing that they're often under-recognised across Wikipedia despite the importance of their contributions. There's a risk of over-complicating the awards though, but this would probably be a worthwhile experiment. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. We need buglers, too: Op-Ed writers and such. I suppose we can look at those who have helped with featured pictures, free souring, etc. Wherever we can find them. If the coordinators can collectively find at least one editors in each field for nomination it should help show that this is for everyone including content contributors, not just exclusively content contributors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
New Academy page?
I've been toying with this idea for while now but I wanted to float it here first: I have in my head it would be a good idea to create a coordinator-specific academy page to track certain site wide rulings and issues that impact the project just so those who end up coordinators can look through them and familiarize themselves with the relevant information. This theoretical page would list ARBCOM, Editing Restriction and LTA editors in a non linked capacity along with a simple summary of the findings to allow coordinators to get a quick feel for what is expected by ruling in the relevant editing zone. Any thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Tom, I for one think this would be useful. My overview of bigger WP issues outside of MILHIST is pretty limited so having some sort of academy page will be helpful. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Zawed: I've started the page, its at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Site-wide rulings that effect the Military history WikiProject. Its a work in progress but I wanted to get some feedback before I move forward on both the use of the tables and the notes. Is it easy enough to understand whats being conveyed? If not I'll think this over and restart in another manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Crampton's Gap article
Sirs:
Viewing the above cited Wikipedia page I find it largely erroneous and have begun drafting entirely new text for it. I would be interested in being connected with one of your Military History Coordinators (American Civil War) with a view toward rebuilding this article entire. My credentials are readily available on the Amazon author's page for Timothy J. Reese. I am the acknowledged expert on the subject in both tactical and strategic context. However, I am unfamiliar with and disinclined to learn Wikipedia control procedures.
I should add that my research/publications also impact Wiki articles on the Lost Order, Battle of South Mountain, Battle of Antietam, Maryland Campaign, and perhaps others.
Your assistance in this regard would be welcome.
Tim ReeseRhys1862 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC) email: artofwars@Centurylink.net
Hi all, my score on the contest is wrong. It includes the 31 points from October, but not my 42 points from September. I haven't checked if this is the case for others. Harrias talk 07:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Quite right, not sure how I missed your entry into the contest the month earlier. I'm pretty sure I've got the rest right, but I'm always open to repechages if anyone reckons they've been ripped off. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Various queries. (Updated as they occur to me.)
ACRs for closure
The instructions state "Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews." This never seems to be observed. It would be helpful if it were either removed or coordinators were reminded of its existence.
- It is an old instruction, from the days well before I joined the project (2011). In the early days of the project, ACRs could be pretty cursory, nothing like today. One look at the ACR for Cold War gives you an indication of what was required way back when. In those days, two pretty cursory supports seem to have been acceptable. I suggest we dispense with it, and instead remind coords to check the review page carefully to ensure there are no outstanding points and the image and source reviews have been addressed. To me, the key here is the outcome, not an arbitrary process. If a nom has three supports, and image and source reviews, it is GTG. It is pretty rare for a fourth reviewer to drop in, as we each only have limited time and a fourth reviewer would be better off looking at a different nom in most cases. Probably one in thirty or more reviews gets a fourth reviewer, and there is the law of diminishing returns at play here as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have boldly had a go at this. It turned out not to be simple, so I would appreciate a check. I resisted the temptation to over-complicate things and detail what to do with fails or a lack of consensus, and these rarely happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Need project tag fixed
Articles which show here, those from Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging (remind me, how do I link to a category?), are almost always those which have had an A class tag ("A-Class=current") added to the project banner at the top of the article's talk page following the ACR instructions ("this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field"). If one moves "A-Class=current" to immediately before the class-field the article no longer shows up as needing "fixing". (I have no idea why.) As here: [1].
Could the instructions could be altered accordingly? And/or the script altered to accept either/any location of "A-Class=current"?
My thanks to Harrias for prompting me on this.
- This has always been an issue. I thought it was because the |A-Class=current field wasn't immediately behind the |class= field, which is why I added that to the instructions some years ago. But really we want the |A-Class=current field to work (and not be placed into Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging) regardless of where it is placed in the banner. This goes back to the time of Kirill Lokshin I think. Kirill, is this something about the banner syntax that could be easily tweaked? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, Gog the Mild, the position of the field actually has nothing to do with it. The banner is looking for the review subpage (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sourton Down) and adding the attention needed category if an A-Class review has been flagged (i.e. A-Class is set to any of current, pass, or fail) but the subpage doesn't exist (or vice versa); this is used to catch cases where an article is moved but the review subpage isn't, or where a review link is inadvertently removed, and so forth.
- When a new A-Class review is started, saving the edit to the article's talk page before saving the edit creating the review subpage will immediately flag an error, because the subpage does not yet exist when the check is run. Unfortunately, once the subpage is created, the template will not "re-check" it until the next time the talk page is saved. This can be done by actually editing the talk page (such as to move the parameter around, as you've done), or simply by opening the page in edit mode and saving it without making any changes (i.e. a "null edit"); either of those will clear the error regardless of where the tag is located in the banner code. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. We can amend the instructions to try and persuade nominators to get the order right, and correcting those that get past will certainly be easier with null edits. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)- Thanks Kirill. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Gog, if you would like to make a change to the instructions page to reflect this far better explanation of how it works, I'll be happy to check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 14 November 2019 (UC)
- Was that a trick request? There is, of course, no way to make an edit to the talk page to "save" the review page before the review page has been opened - for which you need to have "A-Class=current" in the banner. I tried to set up a work-around. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- G'day, I believe there is a way. I preview the edit on the article talk page before saving, which allows me to click the "currently undergoing" link to create that page before saving the talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Was that a trick request? There is, of course, no way to make an edit to the talk page to "save" the review page before the review page has been opened - for which you need to have "A-Class=current" in the banner. I tried to set up a work-around. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Gog, if you would like to make a change to the instructions page to reflect this far better explanation of how it works, I'll be happy to check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 14 November 2019 (UC)
Assessment grades for other projects
If I assess an article as meeting all or some of the B class criteria and alter the MilHist banner accordingly, should I also update any other project banners to match. I seem to remember seeing guidance that I should, and also that I shouldn't, but can't find either at the moment. (Which suggests that instructions one way or the other should be more prominently posted.)
A follow up query: if I assess an article as, say, start class for MilHist, but another project's banner already has it as, say, C class, should I alter their grade? (This may or may not be the same query as the first one.)
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the only WikiProject we have a definite agreement with is Ships. For them, our B-Class assessment can be copied to theirs (and vice versa). I have heard mention of historical agreements with Aviation and Biography, but I haven't ever actually seen anything to confirm it, some of the older hands may know though. Frankly, I am a member of Yugoslavia, and I just copy our assessment to their banner and I have rarely had any pushback. So many WikiProjects (other than ours) are moribund, but I wouldn't downgrade another project's assessment without at least mentioning it to them, as they may have different criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Until recently I routinely changed other project's tags - but only if it was an upgrade. I must have altered (well) over a couple of thousand tags for other projects' banners (for a lot of different projects), and no one has raised a peep. I stopped when the drive started, realising that I was probably exceeding my remit, but the informal system seems to be that we can freely upgrade other projects' grades, but not downgrade them. Can I suggest that we contact all other projects, telling them that we intend to formalise that and see if we get any kick back? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- In theory, being able to upgrade other projects assessments is a good idea, but from a practical sense (all groups being tribal), no doubt there will be some projects that will baulk at giving another project a say over their internal processes. There are a lot of projects out there, and few are anywhere near as active as Milhist. But I'm open to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I would be very cautious with sending out any messaging that might be interpreted as us claiming some sort of special position/authority/etc. in the project ecosystem. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Kirill, I agree it isn't a good look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I expected something like that to happen - the voice of sensibleness - when I posted my option. Kirill is probably right. At least I now know why I struggled to find definitive guidance. Personally I shall revert to upgrading other projects' banners as I come across them; and report here if anyone ever complains. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think that would be best. We already have a reputation of being too big for our boots etc...
Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Us? Never!
- So are we going to continue to fudge in terms of "official" guidance on "How to assess", and say nothing either way? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think that would be best. Personally I'll assess articles that also fall under other projects for all projects if I'm familiar with their criteria as some of those have slightly different criteria. But that's me as an individual, not as a member of MilHist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think that would be best. Personally I'll assess articles that also fall under other projects for all projects if I'm familiar with their criteria as some of those have slightly different criteria. But that's me as an individual, not as a member of MilHist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- So are we going to continue to fudge in terms of "official" guidance on "How to assess", and say nothing either way? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Us? Never!
- I think that would be best. We already have a reputation of being too big for our boots etc...
- I expected something like that to happen - the voice of sensibleness - when I posted my option. Kirill is probably right. At least I now know why I struggled to find definitive guidance. Personally I shall revert to upgrading other projects' banners as I come across them; and report here if anyone ever complains. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Kirill, I agree it isn't a good look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I would be very cautious with sending out any messaging that might be interpreted as us claiming some sort of special position/authority/etc. in the project ecosystem. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- In theory, being able to upgrade other projects assessments is a good idea, but from a practical sense (all groups being tribal), no doubt there will be some projects that will baulk at giving another project a say over their internal processes. There are a lot of projects out there, and few are anywhere near as active as Milhist. But I'm open to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Until recently I routinely changed other project's tags - but only if it was an upgrade. I must have altered (well) over a couple of thousand tags for other projects' banners (for a lot of different projects), and no one has raised a peep. I stopped when the drive started, realising that I was probably exceeding my remit, but the informal system seems to be that we can freely upgrade other projects' grades, but not downgrade them. Can I suggest that we contact all other projects, telling them that we intend to formalise that and see if we get any kick back? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Scope of the National Militaries task force
I am a little confused here - I confuse easily. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force#Scope it states "This task force includes the core articles which cover currently operational national armed forces (e.g. the United States Armed Forces) and their individual service branches (e.g. the Russian Navy)"; which seems clear enough. But under the task force's Article Statistics formations down to regiment and brigade level are included.
So are there, a lot of, articles incorrectly tagged as within the scope of this task force? Or should we tweak the wording of its scope to make it clear that all currently operational formations and units should be included? Or something in between?
I ask because I have just tagged a dozen currently operational Italian regiments, and this led me to check the wording.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- My reading of it has always been that any article that relates to a current military ship, base, unit, formation, squadron etc goes in this taskforce.
- That has been my understanding, in spite of rather than because of the wording. Would it be appropriate for me to tweak the wording of the scope to clarify this? I rather like the wording of the anonymous contributor above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Early Modern/Napoleonic task force overlap
For my clarification:
- Early Modern scope: "roughly corresponds to the period from c. 1500 to c. 1800."
- Napoleonic: "corresponding to the period from c. 1792 to c. 1815."
So, for example, all of the many warships which served during 1792-1800 should be tagged for both - yes? Or should the Early Modern scope be tweaked to end 'c. 1791'? I don't care which, but I do like clarity.
Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- My reading is that Early Modern can be anything in that time period, but Napoleonic only relates to articles that touch on the Napoleonic Wars. So in the example you give, if a Korean warship served in 1780–1795 but had nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars it would only be in Early Modern, but if it was a British warship that saw service 1792–1800 including service in the Napoleonic Wars then it would go in that one too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- That makes sense. A follow up question: Would a Korean warship which served during 1805-1810 be tagged as Napoleonic? What about a US warship? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I note that this article was nominated for both a GAN and an ACR, 15 minutes apart. Is that permissible? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing forbidding it that I know of, and the two processes are run by different groups; it is odd, as A-Class reviews are usually done after the GAN is passed, but certainly permissible. Presumably done to cut down on the time of sequential nominations, I think it likely that the article will pass both, so I have no objection to it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't verboten, but seems a bit silly tbh. They have different focii, because A-Class is mainly about content, and GAN is mostly about style. In my view it is better to go through GAN first, get the style stuff sorted, than do them at the same time and have ACR reviewers picking up on things the GAN is also picking up on. Which would just irritate me if I was reviewing. Once the GAN is done, then put it through ACR. Personally, I wouldn't look at reviewing a ACR on an article that hadn't passed GAN first, but maybe that's just me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just a comment here but it is also requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't verboten, but seems a bit silly tbh. They have different focii, because A-Class is mainly about content, and GAN is mostly about style. In my view it is better to go through GAN first, get the style stuff sorted, than do them at the same time and have ACR reviewers picking up on things the GAN is also picking up on. Which would just irritate me if I was reviewing. Once the GAN is done, then put it through ACR. Personally, I wouldn't look at reviewing a ACR on an article that hadn't passed GAN first, but maybe that's just me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Photo of USS Devilfish
I ask if the periscope photograph of the sinking of the USS Devilfish has documentation of authenticity? Is the photo stamped on the back, US Navy Photograph with the description, as Official photographs released by the US Navy are?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepy6210 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Bot assessments
After the big cleanup last month, the Bot has continued to patrol for unassessed articles on a daily basis. My proposal is that it report back here with the ones rated B class. So far the following have been assessed as B class this month (which I realise is not over yet):
- Battle of Gayaza Hills:
An over-long lead, but otherwise GANable IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC) - Benjamin Herndon
- Perth Road drill hall, Birnam: A single, four short sentence paragraph? Some would stub it, but IMO B2=n. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- William Sterling King
- 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq: The referencing does not IMO meet WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. So C class. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Burmese–Siamese War (1584–1593): Sadly most of the cites are not in the bibliography, so cannot be verified. So B1=n, but the bot cannot be expected to have seen that. C class. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- A monthly run can report back here. The above is expected to be a good indicator of the volume. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea. Let me know if you would prefer them to be commented on in some way other than how I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Good articles
There's a Good Article nomination on the Battle of Fredericksburg that has been waiting for review since June. It's well outside my area of expertise, but if there's someone who is knowledgeable about the American Rebellion and could pick it up, that would be great. It is discouraging to the editors when articles are left unreviewed for months on end. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ha. I had been thinking the same, but having only an outline knowledge of the conflict and only general books on it didn't want to embarrass myself by taking it on. Thanks for flagging it up, Hawkeye. I have just taken on three meaty SE Asia GANs, so would rather pass in favour of Hawkeye's generous offer. Unless, as they say, there is someone more at home with the American Civil War available. If pushed, I will do it: I do know my sunken lane from the carry/seize confusion. Or am I thinking of Antietam? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Military historian of the year awards
"The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees."
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Should these have now moved onto the voting stage, per the quote above? Harrias talk 16:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Harrias: It should. MY fault. Peacemaker ;eft me with the responsibility when they went on their Wiki-break, and I forgot. It sounds feeble, but I am partway through, having been reminded when I noticed that PM was back. But thanks for the nudge - a good job that someone is paying attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
American Civil War Terminology
Hello—I'm hoping someone can help me understand a military source. Someone's military record says "major, November 25, 1862, to rank November 1, 1862, vice Gardiner, resigned;...." I believe this means the soldier was promoted to major November 25, 1862, retroactive to November 1, 1862, and replaced (Major) Gardiner who resigned. Do I understand this correctly? I'm looking at William P. Bacon of the 5th NY Cavalry here.
- You got that right. The "retroactive" part is his date of rank; so he´d be senior to a Major promoted on, and ranking from, November 2. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019 writers' competition
I have done the requisite, if someone would care to check. If they could also verify one last claimed article and award the writer's barnstar for second place, we should be good to go for the new year. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for December
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Albert Cambriels- Talk:Radivoj of Bosnia
- Talk:Teraupo'o
- Talk:DRDO Floating Test Range
- Talk:Wadai War
- Talk:Pierce-Arrow armoured AA lorry
- Talk:Origin of the Huns
- Talk:Sukhoi P-1
- Talk:Sukhoi P-1
- Talk:Mazdali ibn Tilankan
- Talk:Benjamin Herndon
- Talk:Perth Road drill hall, Birnam
- Talk:William Sterling King
- Talk:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
Talk:Burmese–Siamese War (1584–1593)
MilHistBot (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
March Madness?
G'day all, if we are going to run a drive in March, now is the time to start organising. I was thinking of including the checking of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments so we can get through them quickly. But otherwise a standard tag and assess drive. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. What do we need to do? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Gog. All we need to do is create a drive page, similar to March Madness 2017 or Backlog Banzai, and tweak it to include the checking of the Milhistbot B-Class assessments (with a suitable number of points per assessment check to make it attractive), let the other coords know so they can check it, then advertise it in the Bugle followed by a mass message a few days before it starts (I can do the mass message). Do you want to have a crack at it? I'm happy to check it for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I have started. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have the draft Drive page up, here, and the draft worklists page here. I would be grateful if someone could check them. I need to add that points can be gained for checking bot-classified B classes from Hawkeye's sandbox and then deleting them. I was thinking of 3 points for each of those. Comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- We seem to be accumulating something of a backlog of ACR reviews; so I would also like to add them, at 25 points each. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Great stuff, Gog. I think the Milhistbot B-Class reviews should be more than a standard B-Class review in order to encourage reduction of the list. Say 8 points? I agree about A-Class reviews, but given they are often narrower than a GA review, I reckon they should be 8 points as well. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- But there are virtually no "ordinary" articles left which require assessing. People will have to turn to the bot-assessed ones. And skimming one of these, deciding that the bot was correct, and deleting it, is, IMO, a lot easier than reviewing a random article from scratch.
- If writing a full ACR review only gains the same points as deleting a bot-assessed article I don't see that providing much incentive to change behaviour, which I understood was the objective. I can see the argument for it scoring fewer points than a GAN assessment, but wouldn't want it to go below 15; I would suggest 20. Frankly, I would rather have every ACR assessed and that board cleared, than the bot-assessed list, which has been with us for decades and will shrink anyway over time.
- I will write up my ideas on the draft page and you, or anyone else, can come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I could live with 15 for an ACR. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: could other coords chime in about how many points we should award for these categories of work, checking Milhistbot assessments and ACRs? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Great stuff, Gog. I think the Milhistbot B-Class reviews should be more than a standard B-Class review in order to encourage reduction of the list. Say 8 points? I agree about A-Class reviews, but given they are often narrower than a GA review, I reckon they should be 8 points as well. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I have started. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Gog. All we need to do is create a drive page, similar to March Madness 2017 or Backlog Banzai, and tweak it to include the checking of the Milhistbot B-Class assessments (with a suitable number of points per assessment check to make it attractive), let the other coords know so they can check it, then advertise it in the Bugle followed by a mass message a few days before it starts (I can do the mass message). Do you want to have a crack at it? I'm happy to check it for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added both categories: ACR reviews at 15 points; checking the bot's B classes at 5 points. I have also boldly increased the points for a GAN assessment to 15. All very draft; thoughts, suggestions, corrections and edits welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking about reviews, why shan't we add peer review, FAC and FL reviews too? Also another thing just curious to the people who are here awhile. I saw in the Wikipedia:Good articles's drive last year, they have a rule that short GAN reviews wouldn't be count. Because some people wouldn't have a look at minor issues which are important in GANs. My question here is should we apply this rule too? And I'm wondering, why don't we add DYKs too? Because I think with all the new GAs (and the old ones who haven't a DYK) could immediately become DYKs which would rise the DYK Statistics? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: If there is no further input over the next day or so, eg:
- Suggested further additions
- Objecting to any of the current content of the draft
- Supporting any, or all, of CPA-5's suggestions above
- then I will be inclined to post the March Madness page as it is, get it into the Bugle before it goes to press and advertise it on the talk page. So, "speak now ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy with it "as is". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Any thoughts re GOCE's offer below. Surely we must have 50 articles which could do with an expert copy edit? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your work on this, Gog! I'm always keen for a bit of collaboration, but it is hard to identify articles of different classes beyond our usual rating of b4 which basically means Stub or Start. Why don't we target b4=n via a focus on a particular taskforce? For example, Category:Indian military history articles needing attention to grammar has 95 articles at present. I'm sure we could come up with a score for a copyedit that results in b4=y via a re-assessment at MHAR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reidgreg, does that make sense to you? Does it sound agreeable to you?
- Ack, sorry! I either missed the ping or was just watching the sub-section below. That sounds like a good way to get a variety of quality assessments, and most of our editors should be up to B-class copy edits. Above B-class, it might be better to have a contributing editor send them to our requests page (WP:GOCER, maximum two requests per editor). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reidgreg, does that make sense to you? Does it sound agreeable to you?
- Thanks for all your work on this, Gog! I'm always keen for a bit of collaboration, but it is hard to identify articles of different classes beyond our usual rating of b4 which basically means Stub or Start. Why don't we target b4=n via a focus on a particular taskforce? For example, Category:Indian military history articles needing attention to grammar has 95 articles at present. I'm sure we could come up with a score for a copyedit that results in b4=y via a re-assessment at MHAR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Any thoughts re GOCE's offer below. Surely we must have 50 articles which could do with an expert copy edit? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy with it "as is". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: If there is no further input over the next day or so, eg:
Anything else we need to do before the Madness gets under weigh? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- How about a reminder of the imminent beginning on the project talk (since the original postings about it have been archived)? More participants wouldn´t be wrong. Wasn´t there to be a mass message sent to the project members? Also, a message on the talk of WikiProject History might draw some cross-project interest. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Collaboration with GOCE
A few months ago there was some discussion (#March Madness 2020 above) about a joint drive between MILHIST and the Guild of Copy Editors. It may be too late for that, but I think the GOCE would be receptive to having a MILHIST-theme to our regular March copy editing drive, if a list of articles requiring copy edit can be provided. Maybe 50–100 articles (or more) of various assessment qualities would be great. Let me know. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello MILHIST coordinators from the Guild of Copyeditors' lead coordinator! The GOCE is planning to work on a list of about 65 Indian MILHIST articles next week. Our week-long Blitz page is live. There is discussion here if you would like to keep an eye on what we are doing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Jonesey95, we will keep an eye on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon
Our event coincides with this one. Would it be possible to introduce a points incentive for de-stubbing articles in March Madness? I was intending on improving some of the articles in Category:Stub-Class British military history articles - Dumelow (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject History needs people
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
- If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.
- and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!
- For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!
- Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.
we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
As discussed on the project talk page, this A class article, promoted in 2008, has a lot of missing cites; and very few of those it has are from sources more recent than 400. That's the year 400. I propose a speedy demotion to C class. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a bad look for the project to have an article like this be seen as A-Class with our current standards. We should be looking at the older A-Class articles across the board on a regular basis to make sure they are up to scratch. Zawed (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unless there is an objection(s), I will list the article at the A-Class review page for a reassessment tomorrow. Zawed (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like someone has already downgraded the assessment rating, so doesn't look like we need to do anything further. Zawed (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Zawed, Gog the Mild, and Peacemaker67: G'day, I don't have a say in the matter, but can I please encourage you to follow the precedent that previously required a formal re-appraisal for A-class articles. For instance, please see archives such as:
- The guidance for this is at WP:MHR, which outlines the re-appraisal process; if you are changing consensus, then I think the co-ord body will need to put this to the project as a whole and then update the instructions at WP:MHR once a consensus for the change has been established. I'm sorry if this sounds overly bureaucratic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- As it should be possible to save many A-class articles which no-longer meet the criteria, running demotion proposals through a review process is a good idea IMO, and not bureaucratic at all. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It should go through a proper A-Class reassessment process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, it should go through a formal review. I've added it to the A-Class assessment page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, we have indeed had some success with improving former A-class articles through this process. For instance, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2016/Kept. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, it should go through a formal review. I've added it to the A-Class assessment page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It should go through a proper A-Class reassessment process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- As it should be possible to save many A-class articles which no-longer meet the criteria, running demotion proposals through a review process is a good idea IMO, and not bureaucratic at all. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like someone has already downgraded the assessment rating, so doesn't look like we need to do anything further. Zawed (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Unless there is an objection(s), I will list the article at the A-Class review page for a reassessment tomorrow. Zawed (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Reassessments
I found some FAs and As which miss one or more citations. This means they don't meet the criteria, should they have a reassessment too?
- Need a citation.
Acra (fortress)No cites needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Brougham Castle- fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Citadel of SaigonFixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron IsmayGog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque- Hawkeye has fixed this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Battle of AlbueraGog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Need more than one citation.
York Castle(in the notes) - I've tagged these two. Perhaps Hchc2009 can help with citing those notes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- NB: Peacemaker67 , I'm largely retired from the Wikipedia now, so I'm afraid not. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- As we only seem to need citations for notes 1 and 7, possibly Richard Nevell may be able to help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: yes, I think I can take care of those two tags. Might be a few days, but as soon as I'm done I'll cross it off here. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken care of the tags on York Castle. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- As we only seem to need citations for notes 1 and 7, possibly Richard Nevell may be able to help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ahmose I
Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état- this has been fixed by Indy. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Battle of Greece- this has been fixed by Hawkeye. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)- Battle of Radzymin (1920) (in the notes)
Italian War of 1542–1546Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
These are the ones I just had a little review into, there are probably more of these kinds of article. Most of them are more than 10 years or almost 10 years old. Can we make a list of articles who we think don't meet the FA or A criteria? CPA-5 (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- In some cases, these are just cases of an editor adding uncited material. They are otherwise of FA/A standard. For example, I reviewed Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque at GA and ACR (both in 2014), and doubt it will take much to pare back the uncited additions by reverting to a previous version (or citing the uncited material). As the ACR nominator, I am sure Hawkeye7 can make those changes very quickly, and starting a re-assessment would be a huge over-reaction to a few minor issues. I haven't taken a look at the rest, but it would be worth pinging the editors that nominated them at FA or ACR as a start point, assuming of course that they are still editing... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- G'day, I had a look at a few of these. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of the necessary citations. I have tagged the spots I thought they were required, though, and where possible pinged a few editors who I thought might be able to help. At least this way, the issue is flagged on the article so someone may be able to assist. I didn't look at all of the articles, though. Probably best to only use re-assessment as a last resort, IMO, as some (if not most) of these probably are salvageable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds legit, was just curious how we can fix this problem. Because these were just a couple of examples and yes maybe it's not so big deal to start a re-assessment. However, by the criteria, it's important to follow the rules, and I know there are a lot of those articles who have this kind of problem and most of them are almost or are over 10 years old is there a way to at least fix this problem with that old articles? Maybe our almost and over 10 years old articles need an update? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- G'day, I had a look at a few of these. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of the necessary citations. I have tagged the spots I thought they were required, though, and where possible pinged a few editors who I thought might be able to help. At least this way, the issue is flagged on the article so someone may be able to assist. I didn't look at all of the articles, though. Probably best to only use re-assessment as a last resort, IMO, as some (if not most) of these probably are salvageable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for January
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Qapik AttagutsiakTalk:2011 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attackTalk:Duty to escapeTalk:Aspy EngineerTalk:Andong TunnelTalk:Malcolm Perry (American football)Talk:Kabul ambulance bombingTalk:Wolfgang JilkeTalk:2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in IraqTalk:Herbertshire Castle
MilHistBot (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
New article
Hello, I am a new member of the British military history task force; I have alot of information on an article that needs to be made, how should I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalderUK (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- G'day CalderUK, welcome to the project! I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing a good stub, which is a good start point for a new article. Once you've done that, and have created the article, I suggest you post it at WP:MHAR and ask for feedback. An experienced member of the project will take a look at it, re-assess it as necessary and suggest improvements. Feel free to post back here if you have any questions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The article on the dinosaur Argentinosaurus has turned up on our open tasks page. I assume this is an error. If so what can we do to remove it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have manually removed it by editing Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. Kges1901 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Manually editing the announcements page is pointless, as the Bot will just put it back again. I have corrected the error. See User talk:MilHistBot#Odd inclusion on the MILHIST Announcements template Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have manually removed it by editing Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. Kges1901 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
A-Class review supports
Did I miss something? Why are we allowing promotions based on two supports due to age? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- The instructions for closing A-Class reviews were changed back in November 2019 as a result of this discussion. Looks like it may have been a slight misunderstanding of what was actually intended by the comment that two supports were sufficient back in the day. TBH, I can't say I noticed the change and still routinely check for three supports plus image/source reviews before closing off a review. I feel for the review system to be robust, we should still require three supports. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see consensus for the use of two supports, and agree that we should still require three supports. Can @WP:MILHIST coordinators: please chime in here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- While I know it can be frustrating to wait for a third review (especially in the slow period we had at the end of 2019), I agree with Zawed that three supports is preferable to make sure we're putting out good content. Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- When I "tidied up" in November, I attempted to clarify what (I thought) was already there. I was surprised to find the "only two supports needed after a month" rule, and have never seen it implemented. It would seem best to formalise current practice - three supports needed, no matter how long it takes.
- While we are here, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, in "A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators" it states "Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days". I assume that this needs changing to the current practice of leaving A class nominations open indefinitely? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I guess so, but I'm not happy about it. Fourteen of the seventeen articles at ACR have been there longer than 28 days, and three of them have been there longer than 84 days. Two of those three would be eligible for closure under the two supports rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- A lack of three reviews can mean a lot of things, from the fact that the article is completely ticketyboo to reluctance to review due to the extent of issues with it. I don't think allowing articles to be promoted with two supports just because they were nominated a long time ago is a good practice in an environment where we are looking to at least maintain A-class standards, if not improve them. One reason for some articles to be waiting at ACR for a while is that some editors nominate three or sometimes more at the same time, and I personally won't review a third one until one of the others has been promoted. I'm sure I'm not alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm indifferent to how long an article has been awaiting promotion; I'm not willing to compromise on three supports. The last thing we should be doing is promoting articles that aren't fully up to snuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't matter an ARC needs two, three or four supports to be promoted. I believe there is a possibility to promote an ARC with only two supports. Most people try to make their content to FA which makes it easier to have a third and even a fourth reviewer to prepare it to a FAC. We all agree that in some periods like the end and the summers of the year we have fewer reviewers than normally, a two-supports policy could help to reduce and keep them on track. But that means they could have less great content than with a three-supports policy. What does matter creating great content and it takes a little bit longer or keeping on track but they have less great content? To me the first one is the importance of them and some will agree with me. Now we all agree, the last supporter can take much longer than normal or in general no one is interested in reviewing a kind of specific type of nominations. I personally would stick with the three-supports policy because at FACs some of them need even at least four supports and if we reduce our supports than they would take longer to promote in FAC and they also struggle with finding reviewers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm indifferent to how long an article has been awaiting promotion; I'm not willing to compromise on three supports. The last thing we should be doing is promoting articles that aren't fully up to snuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- A lack of three reviews can mean a lot of things, from the fact that the article is completely ticketyboo to reluctance to review due to the extent of issues with it. I don't think allowing articles to be promoted with two supports just because they were nominated a long time ago is a good practice in an environment where we are looking to at least maintain A-class standards, if not improve them. One reason for some articles to be waiting at ACR for a while is that some editors nominate three or sometimes more at the same time, and I personally won't review a third one until one of the others has been promoted. I'm sure I'm not alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I guess so, but I'm not happy about it. Fourteen of the seventeen articles at ACR have been there longer than 28 days, and three of them have been there longer than 84 days. Two of those three would be eligible for closure under the two supports rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- While I know it can be frustrating to wait for a third review (especially in the slow period we had at the end of 2019), I agree with Zawed that three supports is preferable to make sure we're putting out good content. Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see consensus for the use of two supports, and agree that we should still require three supports. Can @WP:MILHIST coordinators: please chime in here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that we stick with three supports. I'll adjust the instructions accordingly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for February
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Procopius (magister militum)- Talk:Larrakeyah Barracks Headquarters Building
Talk:2018 Mubi suicide bombingsTalk:Abraham Davenport
Talk:SS Northwestern (1889) Start- Talk:SS Northwestern (1889)
- Talk:Silas Papare B
Talk:Battle of Leuwiliang
Talk:World War I memorials in Queensland- Talk:William Killigrew (1606–1695)
Talk:Filomeno da Paixão de Jesus
MilHistBot (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawing an ACR
Hi all. My ACR Battle of the Aegates has been up for six weeks and has only attracted one support and a source review. I am aware that others have been waiting much longer, so I am not complaining. I am also extremely grateful to the two editors who have gone through it with a fine tooth comb: their efforts have, IMO, made it FAC-worthy. Which brings me to the point. There is a potential FAC slot open for it, so I would like to withdraw it from ACR. Would I be correct in assuming that all I need to do is delete "current" after A-Class=, or would that break the system? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- G'day, Gog, you probably need to change it to "A-Class=fail", which will trigger the bot to close it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. However, there is no need to do so. WP:FAC: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. There is no rule against having it at A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is there not? I hadn't realised that. Well, I am supposed to say that I value ACR for the way it polishes my nominations, which I do; and which this article has benefited greatly from. But I also like accumulating actual A class passes, which is rather childish of me. So I am going to leave it in the pot for a while and see what happens; I feel that I am contributing enough quid for my quo. Thank you Hawkeye. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have closed the ACR after receiving advice from Ian Rose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is there not? I hadn't realised that. Well, I am supposed to say that I value ACR for the way it polishes my nominations, which I do; and which this article has benefited greatly from. But I also like accumulating actual A class passes, which is rather childish of me. So I am going to leave it in the pot for a while and see what happens; I feel that I am contributing enough quid for my quo. Thank you Hawkeye. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. However, there is no need to do so. WP:FAC: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. There is no rule against having it at A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
WWII Allied Code names: suggestion for new article
Reading books on WWII history I keep coming across code names. These may represent military operations or people, or perhaps other things too. It seems to me it could be useful to have a list of them with a brief explanation of each and a link to appropriate Wikipedia articles if there is one. Code names can be at many levels and we could attempt to collect at all levels. For example
OVERLORD, the invasion of Normandy by Allied forces during World War II
JACQUELINE, SOE agent in occupied France
SASSAFRAS, operation to infiltrate SOE agent JACQUELINE (q.v.) into France
If this is a good idea I could contribute entries but am not suitably qualified to set the thing up. The list if successful would grow quite big, so some means would be needed to split it, perhaps by initial letter. Within that entries would be alphabetical. I think that the list should not be split by topic or importance/level as that would inevitably involve arbitrary decisions. It would be also be useful to have some standardisation of format. One question on standardisation would be the extent to which links should be given in the brief explanation. I would suggest their omission (as in my examples) unless the code name itself has no link.
No doubt there are also code names from other than WWII; also Axis code names. If these are to be collected a separate articles could be used. Exbrum (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Exbrum, you are possibly thinking of something like List of World War II military operations or List of military operations? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- We also have Category:Code names Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It is interesting that when I searched for "code names" I did not find any of these pages, perhaps because they focus on "operations". I was thinking of something more comprehensive, not just a list of the well known operations. So it would include in addition exercises, for example FABIUS, a large scale rehearsal for the Normandy landings, plans, for example COLLECT, deception plan in the lead up to Operation Crusader, and people, for example JACQUELINE, as already mentioned. I can see a problem over the inclusion of non-Allied entries: the list may become unmanageable.
Also I am not sure that splitting the list by geographical area adds much value to the user as the boundaries may be crossed. When does France become Mediterranean? A similar comment applies to other subdivisions, for example the separate listing of SOE operations. If you don't know in advance that SASSAFRAS was for the benefit of an SOE operation you probably won't look on the SOE page; and in any case it involved an RAF flight to Gibraltar, so does that make it RAF or SOE? Then a boat trip to southern France, so is it Atlantic or Mediterranean? Users are likely to search by name, not area or military unit. They may not even know if the code name represents an operation, an exercise, a plan or a person; and it may be difficult to differentiate between these anyway. A split between Allied and Axis might be manageable to the user.
Is there anything in this? It is just that I am reading a book at the moment, The Deceivers by Thaddeus Holt and it is a treasure trove of code names. Exbrum (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I should perhaps have added that I would not see the existence of an article on the code name (or even a mention of the code name in an article) being a prerequisite for inclusion on the list. COLLECT is an example of this, as it is not mentioned in the CRUSADER article. A by-product of their inclusion might be that they will stimulate someone to write a new article (or edit an existing one which failed to mention it).
P.P.S. Why don't we use all capitals for code names, a common practice in books as it makes it clear that the word is not being used in its normal sense (e.g. SASSAFRAS the military operation not Sassafras the tree). Exbrum (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Originally we did use small caps for codenames. The decision was taken to replace them with title case, as was done elsewhere that small caps were used. The discussions can be found in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74#A small capital idea., Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 147#Query on the use of small caps and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 122#Small caps for codenames. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I detect a lack of enthusiasm so let the matter drop. Exbrum (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
|
This is a new article (started in September) that is basically just a translation of the short Fria kriget article from the Swedish Wikipedia. The article needs help to improve, but in what direction? I'm even unsure about its name. While Google Translate has Fria kriget as "Free war", I'm not sure this is correct. Should "War" not be capitalized? Is it better identified as "warfare" rather than "war"? Should "Free" be better translated as "independent", "detached", "irregular", or even "guerrilla"? I recognize it's a defined subject in Swedish, but is it recognized in English enough to merit its own article? --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
|
AutoCheck report for March
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Hope Bay incident- Talk:Richborough Castle Halt railway station
- Talk:Adelaide River War Cemetery
- Talk:Mary Welsh
- Talk:Mary Welsh
- Talk:Kathleen Pelham Burn
- Talk:Kathleen Pelham Burn
- Talk:Corps Franc de la Montagne Noire
- Talk:William Tennent III
Talk:Van D. Bell
MilHistBot (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
All checked. Only one down graded. The bot seems to be improving. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The article improvement competition - query on the scoring
I have a query. I was checking Catlemur's claim for points for Vanuatu Labor Corps's promotion to GA. They created the article in 2018, nominated it in 2020 having made no edits to it since, made a few tweaks during the GAN process, and added a single sentence subsequent to it. In other words, they haven't "made a meaningful change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating" during April (IMO).
Having done something similar myself in the past I can entirely understand how this happens. It seems to me that Catlemur deserves the points, but the letter of the rules seems to say that they are not entitled to them. Comments, refutation or advice would be welcome.Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This can happen when an article is already above B-Class at the time of its creation, which I would argue this article was. I think in the spirit of acknowledging the editor most responsible for its current quality, Catlemur should get credit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, taking an article through a review process successfully is clearly a contribution to the improvement of an article as the nom needs to nominate it for GA and be prepared to address the reviewer's comments, even if often there are cases when the reviewer does not have substantial comments. Otherwise, many GA reviews where the nominator did not have significant issues with the article wouldn't count for the contest, and that is not what has been determined in the past. Kges1901 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fine. Thanks. As I indicated, that is also my view. I shall approve the claim. Given my, um, cough, troubled history in claiming points for the competition I was reluctant to make a unilateral decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, taking an article through a review process successfully is clearly a contribution to the improvement of an article as the nom needs to nominate it for GA and be prepared to address the reviewer's comments, even if often there are cases when the reviewer does not have substantial comments. Otherwise, many GA reviews where the nominator did not have significant issues with the article wouldn't count for the contest, and that is not what has been determined in the past. Kges1901 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
April writing contest
All done I think. If someone could check my work and take care of the second place award then it's a wrap. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for doing this, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr. William Longshaw
My cousin was Dr. William Longshaw. He was a surgeon in the civil war. I was reading his wikipedia. Can you tell me who wrote the piece on my cousin?
William Longshaw was born in Manchester England, not Manchester Virginia.
I am the one that submitted his picture.
I have tried twice to change his birthplace, but to no avail. His father was not a doctor. They refer to William's father as a doctor.
Thank you, Mrs. Lorraine Longshaw Harrietha Trenton, Ontario Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longshaw (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Longshaw, hello and thanks for bringing this up. It appears that there is some disagreement on his birth place. The given source says Manchester, Virginia, but DANFS says Manchester, England. If you can find a reliable source that clearly states one way or another, that would make finding the correct location much easier. As far as authorship goes, there is not one 'author' of an article, but the primary author of content is BusterD. Cheers Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have posted on this user's talk page and started a thread on the subject's talk page about this material before I made any substantive changes. I appreciate DANFS pointed out to me; I clearly did see this when I started off (DANFS being pretty much the only reliable source on the page when I arrived) but forgot the birth place located in that source. I'll discuss this more fully on the subject talk page. BusterD (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be grateful if someone could make a ruling and/or give some guidance on my A class nomination of First Punic War. It has four supports, but one oppose. (It also has an image review and a source review.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
1,250 FA target almost met
I'm not a co-ord but just to make you aware of some good news, we've met or almost met the 1,250 featured article target (at the time of writing Category:FA-Class military history articles has 1,248 articles, the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics shows 1,250). We should give some consideration to the next target. The last time this happened (when we passed 1,000 in October 2017) the consensus was that we'd move up in 250 article steps, so 1,500? The good news is that we estimated last time it would take 5 years to reach the new target and we've done it in 19 months. It's been a long time since I sent anything to FAC, but many congratulations to all those who have worked hard to do so! - Dumelow (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Should that be 31 months? Impressive anyway. Averaging eight FACs a month! Could we leave the target as "met" for a month or two before resetting, so we get the chance to bask in the satisfaction of a job well done? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, thought we were still in 2019 for a moment there! No objections to leaving the target as achieved for a bit. Also worth a Bugle write up and possibly a mention in the Signpost? - Dumelow (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dumelow, good idea, well volunteered. Let me know if you would like some eyes on your draft. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dumelow, good idea, well volunteered. Let me know if you would like some eyes on your draft.
- Yep, thought we were still in 2019 for a moment there! No objections to leaving the target as achieved for a bit. Also worth a Bugle write up and possibly a mention in the Signpost? - Dumelow (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Do we know what the 1,250th article was? We should highlight it. There was some discussion at FAC about how this project has a high proportion of featured articles. It seems that this is a result of the high priority we accord to the review process, something that was in place before I arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- If there are currently exactly 1,250 MilHist FAs, the most recent of them to be promoted was French battleship Bouvet, nominated by Parsecboy. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we're there yet. The category says "approximately 1,248" but the table I linked above says 1,250. I'm not sure where the discrepancy comes from. I've also just noticed Yongtai Fortress is in tha FA category but is definitely not one - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Groan. Yongtai Fortress seems to have acquired an FA star during its last edit on 10 March. Is there some way of checking the other 1,249 without doing it by hand? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- To further complicate matters the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA lists only 1,211. As an example Andrew Jackson is in the category but not on the showcase - Dumelow (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Groan. Yongtai Fortress seems to have acquired an FA star during its last edit on 10 March. Is there some way of checking the other 1,249 without doing it by hand? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we're there yet. The category says "approximately 1,248" but the table I linked above says 1,250. I'm not sure where the discrepancy comes from. I've also just noticed Yongtai Fortress is in tha FA category but is definitely not one - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- If there are currently exactly 1,250 MilHist FAs, the most recent of them to be promoted was French battleship Bouvet, nominated by Parsecboy. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's the ones the Bot couldn't find in the Showcase. Some may have been renamed; others may have been classified MilHist after they were promoted.
1678 Kediri campaignÆthelwulf, King of WessexAndrew JacksonAntiochus X EusebesAntiochus XII DionysusBalfour DeclarationBattle of GroixBattle of Warsaw (1705)Borodino-class battlecruiserBuckton CastleCapon ChapelCleopatraCrécy campaignDeath of CleopatraDroxford railway stationFelice BeatoFrank McNamara (RAAF officer)Gevninge helmet fragmentGreek battleship SalamisGuilden Morden boarGuy BurgessJohn Mowbray, 3rd Duke of NorfolkLancashire Fusiliers War MemorialLesley J. McNairLiterary HallMaurice Wilder-NeliganMuhammad I of GranadaNorth-Eastern Area CommandOperation PBHistoryPatrick HenryPhilip I PhiladelphusPioneer HelmetRichard NixonRogožarski IK-3Romney Literary SocietyRussian occupations of BeirutShorwell helmetSiegfried Lederer's escape from AuschwitzSt Donat's CastleStanley Holloway
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Given the project's FA stats run off the showcase, I think we just have to update the showcase with the above and it should then have the right number? Am I reading this right? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- All done. The showcase now has 1,248 articles listed, but the category only has 1,247. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Hawkeye, you are a dead-set legend. So, we are nearly there. I agree 1,500 is the next obvious target. This project is an FA-creating machine! Well done everyone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think I found the error. The Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346 was listed on the showcase under that name and also Crécy campaign to which it redirects. Hawkeye7 could you check I didn't break anything when I removed it from the showcase? I updated the count manually but don't know if I should have? - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- All done. The showcase now has 1,248 articles listed, but the category only has 1,247. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Given the project's FA stats run off the showcase, I think we just have to update the showcase with the above and it should then have the right number? Am I reading this right? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine. All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,248. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,249 Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,250. Silesian Wars by Bryan Rutherford. A worthy representative of our collective 30 months of effort. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whoa! Well, if it is a suitable representative, that's because it was such a team effort! I continue to be deeply impressed by the organization, attitude and camaraderie of this project at every interaction; the only other branch of WP where I've seen anything like it is the Physics project. Would that we had this sort of dedicated and diligent crew working on our coverage of chemistry and maths! ;-_- Thank you, all of you coordinators, for your encouragement and guidance to me and other newbies making our first contributions to your area of expertise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,250. Silesian Wars by Bryan Rutherford. A worthy representative of our collective 30 months of effort. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,249 Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1,248. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine. All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just to note that we've momentarily dropped back down to 1,249 after the 31 May delisting of Katyn Massacre, in case anyone was wondering why the stats are off - Dumelow (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- So two articles will get to be the 1,250th! Or possibly three, depending on what happens to Boshin War and its timing. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence was just delisted, so we are back to 1,248. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- And we are back to 1,250 with James P. Hagerstrom. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Due to the miscount, I'm not sure we are actually "back" to 1,250, I think Hagerstrom just is the 1,250th. I've increased the target to 1,500 and added a mention to the July Bugle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- And we are back to 1,250 with James P. Hagerstrom. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence was just delisted, so we are back to 1,248. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- So two articles will get to be the 1,250th! Or possibly three, depending on what happens to Boshin War and its timing. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for April
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:British Tar (1804 ship)Talk:Blechhammer concentration campTalk:HMS Utile (1799)downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Vukov KlanacTalk:Anglo-Spanish War (1779–1783), changed assessment. This is a redirect - Dumelow (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:James B. TerrillTalk:Benjamin P. LambertonTalk:Benjamin Franklin BryantTalk:Alfonso Ferrero La MarmoraTalk:59th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Leighton BatteryTalk:William Clegg (cricketer), reassessed as stub - Dumelow (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thaddeus S. Smith, reassessed as C (unreliable source, b1=n) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Herbert J. ValentineTalk:10th Field Squadron (United Kingdom)Talk:Black Guard (Brazil)Talk:Caroline (1804 ship)Talk:Walter Dicketts, does not meet criteria for citations and structure - Dumelow (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Theobald Dillon, 7th Viscount Dillon, downgraded to C. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Consolante (1775)No description, C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese netlayer Nagara Maru (1940)Talk:The German WarTalk:Golubić killings, downgraded to Start. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thornycroft J TypeTalk:Robert Wauchope (Royal Navy officer)- downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Deborah HurcombTalk:Pyotr AkhlyustinTalk:Damen Stan 2606 patrol vessel- downgraded to start. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Vladimir Aleksandrovich MuravyovTalk:Viktor Nikolayevich SokolovTalk:Vasily SavvinTalk:USS YP-73Talk:USS YP-72Talk:Theodosius IIITalk:The PortraitistTalk:SS Van Heemskerk (1909)No lede, downgraded to start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Japara (1930)Talk:SS Bantam (1930)Not reasonably complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sainte-Thérèse RaidTalk:HMS Mourne (K261)No structure, cites and not reasonably complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sack of Santiago de CompostelaStub class - Dumelow (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Robert Atkinson (businessman)Talk:Paul J. FontanaC, lacked detail Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:My Italian Secret: The Forgotten HeroesB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:MS Bantam (1939)No structure, not fully cited and not reasonably complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Maymun-DizStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:M21-1 Adjudication Procedures ManualC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Koolhoven F.K.46No structure, no cites, no description--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Karl-Heinz WeberI make it a C. Zawed (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Teviot (K222)Talk:HMS Itchen (K227)Talk:HMS Cuckmere (K299)Talk:HMS Chelmer (K221)Talk:HMS Cam (K264)Talk:Alexey AkhmanovTalk:Hiram "Doc" JonesTalk:Felix D. WilliamsonTalk:Cruiser Baseline- downgraded to Start Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of NahrawanTalk:Al-Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948Talk:75-foot patrol boat
MilHistBot (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here. The bot has trouble detecting the lede if there are other sections, usually various appendices, and if each paragraph has a cite. I can understand the first problem, but I'd expect that cites per paragraph should be easily detectable. The Koolhoven F.K.46 article doesn't have a single cite in the entire article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The lead is easily detected; the Bot's problem is detecting the last real section, especially if the author has included some creative naming. I think I can fix cases like Koolhoven F.K.46. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
ACR opposes
Is there a procedure for handling opposes at ACR? If so, could someone point me towards it? It would seem that any "criteria-based objection" is sufficient to prevent a promotion. Have I got that right? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm under the impression an oppose is not absolute barrier to promotion if there are sufficient supports, including image/source reviews. Perhaps it is a matter of prior to closing a review, pinging existing reviewers who have supported if a later reviewer opposes in case it has a bearing on their support vote? Zawed (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- What Zawed said. I've had articles promoted with a single oppose. It is about consensus between the reviewers, so if the other reviewers are asked about their views on the rationale for the oppose and they disagree, that should be enough, assuming there are at least three supports. If they are split on the validity of the oppose, then perhaps another review should be sought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, if a reviewer oppose an ARC and an outsider disagrees with that reviewer then it shouldn't be a big problem to promote it. Unless there are a lot of bugs or reasonable comments to address i.e. problems with lead, major problems with infobox and/or body or like Zawed told us issues with images and/or sources. Sometimes an oppose just get ignored in the FAC prosses because it isn't reasonable to give an oppose. CPA-5 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- What Zawed said. I've had articles promoted with a single oppose. It is about consensus between the reviewers, so if the other reviewers are asked about their views on the rationale for the oppose and they disagree, that should be enough, assuming there are at least three supports. If they are split on the validity of the oppose, then perhaps another review should be sought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for May
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:List of KGB defectorsMeets B -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lima CampaignTalk:Leigh StevensonTalk:Lazar BerenzonMeets B -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hitachi JimpuMeets B -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Haseb (rocket)Talk:French frigate Chimère (1758)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Alcmène (1774)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Charles L. BanksConcur this is a B. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Charles Dunbar (British Army officer)Talk:2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo massacresTalk:Early life of Winston ChurchillB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Aleksandar MašinB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kumaichi TeramotoStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Komala of the Toilers of KurdistanStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Karl TollB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kamin-2Stub -> one short section, not comprehensive, grammatical errors Eddie891 Talk Work 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Joseph M. MartinMeets B rating, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jojan Thomasdowngraded to stub by another editor. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Rowlstone Stevensonstub, missing cites Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Cardiff (Type 26 frigate)downgraded to Start class. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Claude MooreDown rated to C based on briefness / completeness question. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Yoshikazu NagahamaMeets B. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Addison Scottstub Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John A. Tyreestub Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine chaser Cha-13downgraded to Start class. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jack C. Titusstub Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Integrated Head Protection SystemBot assessed as start Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hrant MaloyanLooks B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Weston (L72)looks B class to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Wallace (1918)looks B class to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Umpire (1917)Talk:HMS Rowena (1916)Talk:HMS Romola (1916)Talk:HMS Rigorous (1916)Talk:HMS Restless (1916)Concur with these five--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Ranger (1895)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Racer (1810)no lede--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Morne Fortunee (1803)no lede--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Fort Fulton--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chuck Wilson (pilot)Nice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bertram Mitford (British Army officer)- downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Wattrelosfails b1 and b2 - Dumelow (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Lynx (1913)no lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Falmouth (L34)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Biter (1804)not complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Heroes of the Alamo MonumentB2= no - Dumelow (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Herluf TrolleLooks B class to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Harvey C. TschirgiLooks B class to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Grigoriy Pavlovich ChukhninTalk:Golubić killingsTalk:George Edwin Yatesassessed b1=no for no refs for birth/death dates - Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Georg ZeumerTalk:Geoffrey FranklynTalk:Gavin ParkerTalk:French ship Vaillant (1756)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Triton (1747)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Romulus (1781)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Roland (1771)Start, lacks detail (extremely thin). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Fier (1746)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Bien-Aimé (1769)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Enjouée (1766)Start, very thin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Aurore (1769)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French fluyt Salomon (1762)C, lacks detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French cruiser PascalPeacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French cruiser LinoisTalk:French cruiser IslyTalk:French cruiser GaliléeTalk:French cruiser DescartesTalk:French cruiser D'AssasTalk:French cruiser Chasseloup-LaubatTalk:French cruiser BugeaudTalk:French brig Vaillante (1793)Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:François Caron (French Navy officer)Start. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:F. J. MearsLooks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Eugène MittelhauserC class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Enrique SimpsonTalk:Edwin H. BrainardTalk:Edward Weston CarpenderTalk:Daya Shankar (admiral)Talk:Consider TiffanyTalk:Collin P. GreenTalk:Chuck Wilson (pilot)Very nice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chemical bombing of SardashtStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Charmante class frigateB2, B3 = no - Dumelow (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bryan SharrattTalk:Bernhard WaberTalk:Bedil tombakTalk:Battle of RakkestadTalk:Battle of BukgwanTalk:Azra BašićTalk:Ascent Flight TrainingStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Art TomassettiTalk:Archie DonahueTalk:Anthrax WeaponizationB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Andrey KorfTalk:Al-QaedaC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Violent non-state actors at seaStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thomas Carpenter IIITalk:Salisbury Beach Military ReservationTalk:Prince of Wales' American Regiment, reassessed as start (short on content and structure) - Dumelow (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Ballinderry (K255)downrated to C, not complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French gun vessel Bombarde (1800 ship)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Renommée (1767)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Oiseau (1770)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Melpomène (1890)Start, pretty sketchy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Amazone (1778)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Filipp StarikovTalk:Clausen Rolling Platformdownrated to start, not fully cited and no lede--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Badr-2000Talk:Anton Thumanndowngraded to C. Zawed (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Aleppo offensive (June–July 2016)Talk:Al-Najm al-ThaqibB2=no - Dumelow (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Æthelstan's invasion of ScotlandTalk:AbalgamashTalk:121st Rifle DivisionLooks B class to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:111th Military Intelligence Brigadedowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:105th Regiment of Foot (1794)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:57th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regimentdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:47th Massachusetts Infantry RegimentB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:2nd Company Massachusetts Sharpshootersdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:RononiaTalk:Liberation of Auschwitz concentration campLooks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jim Burrows (soldier)downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Bermuda (1805)Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Wade's Missouri Batteryprogressed beyond B class. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Susan Coylelooks OK to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Rosalvo Bobodowngraded to stub Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lew Byong-hyunTalk:Edgar A. WedgwoodLooks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018Downgraded to stub (two-sentence article) - Dumelow (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book)B-class (and beyond), already a GA Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sir Archibald Lyle, 2nd BaronetTalk:Konarak vessel incidentB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Alexey SkulachenkoLooks OK - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Yevgeny YuryevLooks OK - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Landis's Missouri Batteryretained/moved beyond B class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thomas FittonNo sections. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Nui DatIncomplete. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kuzma TrubnikovTalk:French ship Indien (1768)Incomplete. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:407th Rifle DivisionTalk:Drass (company)- seems incomplete, downgraded to C class. -Fnlayson (talk)Talk:17 July RevolutionTalk:Years of Lead (Italy)Lacks references. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Wallace H. GrahamLacks references and structure. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ismail I of GranadaTalk:French ship Ville de VarsovieTalk:French ship Union (1799)Talk:French ship Tyrannicide (1793)Talk:French ship Nestor (1793)Talk:French ship Intrépide (1800)Talk:French ship Guerrier (1753)
- These French ships were all Start, few had citations, none had a structure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Talk:French frigate Italienne (1806)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Artémise (1794)Start, only b4 and b5 are yes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Attack on Camp MassartB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Timothy O'Neill (camoufleur)Talk:Capitulation of DiksmuideLooks good - Dumelow (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Toropets (1609)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Walter Williams (centenarian)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Janina Oyrzanowska-PoplewskaTalk:HMS Ranger (1806)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Airborne Special Service Companydowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidentsis a redirect... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Onake Obavvamade start... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soedjono HoemardaniB class.Talk:Kenneth J. HoughtonB class.Talk:John C. GiraudoB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Joc-O-SotLooks OK - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Enoch CrosbyLooks OK - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Rapid (1883)downrated to C.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Pendennis (1679)Talk:HMS Exeter (1680)Talk:HMS Anne (1678)These three are OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMAS Watsondowngraded to C class. 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMAS Lae (L3035)downgraded to start class. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Herbert N. Houckconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Fyodor Zozulyaconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ironclad TurenneReally short lede, but otherwise OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Frederick Dobson Middletonconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Far Eastern Higher Combined Arms Command Schoolconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Dispatch (1795 ship)downgraded to C. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:2020 Afrin bombingdowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Canada (1786 ship)downgraded to C. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot... Must have been a productive month. Better get cracking on the ones from April that haven't been checked yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye, some of these are listed twice. What gives? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's a bug. I thought I had fixed it, but it is still there. I have removed the duplicates. I will investigate. There are more articles than usual because I told the Bot to clean up the unassessed article backlog as well. This will be completed this month, and the report will return to normal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye, some of these are listed twice. What gives? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The bot seems to be having real trouble with short articles. Five of the first ones I looked at (Lima Campaign, Leigh Stevenson, Haseb (rocket), Charles Dunbar (British Army officer) and 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo massacres) are all stubs - Dumelow (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I checked a group of French ship articles which were all classed as B but had no structure and were actually Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The presence of an Infobox will automatically upgrade the article to Start class. I have improved the Bot's recognition of the sections, and its assessment of whether an article is comprehensive enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Hawkeye, good call on the infobox and tweaking the section recognition. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if you have a spare minute occasionally, there are lot of these above that just need a check. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Hawkeye, good call on the infobox and tweaking the section recognition. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The presence of an Infobox will automatically upgrade the article to Start class. I have improved the Bot's recognition of the sections, and its assessment of whether an article is comprehensive enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I checked a group of French ship articles which were all classed as B but had no structure and were actually Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for June
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:SS Vorios HellasTalk:SS VaubanTalk:SS PodolskTalk:SS KhaldaTalk:SS Kazan- These five are Bs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:SS Hawaiian ShipperTalk:SS FortuneTalk:SS Empire Fusilier- These three are Bs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Abbasid expeditions to East AfricaStart, doesn't have a structure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jacopo DonduloB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Frederick S. Strongretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Allan Gilmour (soldier)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Second Battle of Oituzretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Statue of António Manoel de VilhenaB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Anglia (1944)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate DostoynyyConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate BodryyConfirmed as B. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet cruiser Vladivostok (1966)Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet cruiser Vitse-Admiral DrozdKeep it as B. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillonretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:German submarine U-2516C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)onfirmedTalk:11th Massachusetts Batteryprobably just meets coverage, IMO, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Zenneth A. Ponddowngraded by another editor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John W. Frederick Jr.I think this just squeezes in as a B. Zawed (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Grand Alliance (League of Augsburg)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Idrus Nasir DjajadiningratStart; B1 & B2 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battalion 3-16 (Honduras)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Perry familyC class. B1 = no. Has a "needs additional citations" box. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:People of Western Europe speechB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John W. Antonelliconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Randolph Lewisconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Benjamin B. TalleyLooks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:CSS J. A. CottonC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hitachi Ha-51B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Flore (1769)downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarinedowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Allan SutterB-class. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Operation Northern IraqStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Al-Watiya Air BaseStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Empire Fulmar (1945)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Richard RuckStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Statue of John Brown GordonB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:S. H. SarmaC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Russian ship of the line Rossiyaconfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ross T. McIntireC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-16confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Morosi|b2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 17:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Fort Defiance (Massachusetts)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ronald Penneylooks good Eddie891 Talk Work 17:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Robert G. Owens Jr.Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:RK 71confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Richard M. Krauseconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independenceconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Republic of Fiji Navydowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Tamar (P233)C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Edmund Wittenmyerconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Miguel Ydígoras Fuentesconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Laurel (1913)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Pierre de Milard- Downgraded to C by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Pavel Schillingconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Pattern 1831 sabre for General OfficersLooks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ord Tidburyconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Tobago (1918)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Speedy (1918)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:2014 Gaza Valley airstrikeconfirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Northrop N-1C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Sharpshooter (1917)retained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Operation McLainB Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Noor (satellite)C Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kiyoto FurutaB Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jūzō MoriB class but have concerns about notability which I have raised on talk page. Zawed (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:James F. Lawrence Jr.confirmed-- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Graham Millsreassessed as start class. Zawed (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Angolporeassessed as start class. Zawed (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:111th Cavalry Division (Soviet Union)retained -- given it was a very short-lived formation, coverage is probably sufficient for B class, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:3rd Missouri Light BatteryAlready GA--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:USAT J. W. McAndrewStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Peter Gillettreassessed as start class. Zawed (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Willoughby (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Endell Street Military Hospitalretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Leslie Lockhartreassessed as start class. Zawed (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Francis Marshall (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:USS YP-19confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Webb (paediatrician)confirmed. Zawed (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HSwMS Munin (31)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Sibylle (1777)B2=no. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Brooke Nihartconfirmed. Zawed (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:5th Massachusetts BatteryB3=n, no sections. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HSwMS Mode (29)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:1st Massachusetts BatteryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chandos Scudamore Scudamore StanhopeRedirects to a GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:MV Star of MaltaB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Murray J. Shubinconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Morten Haga Lundealready downgraded to stub. Zawed (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Misagh-3Had issues with sourcing and comprehensiveness - Dumelow (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Minister for the Navy (Denmark)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Milutin Moračaalready downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Military Sexual Trauma MovementB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Melville Rysdale Ten Broekeconfirmed. Zawed (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Scotstoundowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Henri de Paschal de Rochegudealready downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Charles-Louis Saulx de Rosnevetalready downgraded to a stub. Zawed (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bobby D. Lainconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Cartagena (1643)Is far from B. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Leonid Solarevićdowngraded. Zawed (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Karl Johann von Königsmarckdowngraded. Zawed (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Holden (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Md Saiful Alamdowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Martyrs' Cemetery, KobanîStart. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Martin P. HottelAlready reassed as start, which it is.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Mario DaubenfeldAlready reassed as start, which it is.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Manoj Pande (general)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Loren D. EvertonB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lord Howard's Batterydowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ken Dadziereassessed by another editor. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jask-2confirmed. Zawed (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ship Berryer (1770)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Edward O. McComasdowngraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Baptist Crozierreassessed by another editor. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Abdusamat Taymetovretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Republic XP-69confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese escort ship CD-186b2= no - Dumelow (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ivan Managarovretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Rocket (1916)retained. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Redgauntlet (1916)retained. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Gawad sa Kapayapaanb2, b4=no - Dumelow (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Đại Việt–Khmer War (1123–1150)Already downgraded by Gog but has forgot to strike this. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Combat of RoßlauConfirmed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:MS Sama (1936)downgraded. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineeringstub Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Alert (1779)c (not comprehensive) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French frigate Gentille (1778)c (not comprehensive) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Frederick Dudgeonstub Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Francis Plowden (British Army officer)stub Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bristol University Air Squadronstub Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Benjamin Burtondowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Lemberg (1704)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:David Wallace (surgeon)retained. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hugh Hibbert (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:French ironclad BouvinesAlready a GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Talk:Dutch ship Beschermer (1784)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Curiously, the bot seems to be putting articles that it didn't automatically assess as B here... For instance, Benjamin B. Talley was assessed as B by AustralianRupert, and the bot had previously marked it as C. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 could you take a look at that please mate? We only want Milhistbot-assessed Bs here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Updated. Should not occur in the July run (which will be much smaller). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks as always, Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Updated. Should not occur in the July run (which will be much smaller). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 could you take a look at that please mate? We only want Milhistbot-assessed Bs here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- The bot needs to learn to check criteria B2 properly. If there's only 3 sentences in an article under no circumstances is that B-class. Wizardman 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Wizardman, could you link to an example of this please? That way Hawkeye can tweak the bot to try to exclude that sort of article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, it may have been Charles-Louis Saulx de Rosnevet, which was in the list above but Wizardman had already downgraded it to a stub before I struck it off. Zawed (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I reviewed a few really short ones: Misagh-3 (the bot was probably thrown by the bullet points?), Japanese escort ship CD-186 and Gawad sa Kapayapaan - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mario Daubenfeld pretty obviously had b1, b2 and b3 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Hawkeye7, just checking you've seen this before I archive it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mario Daubenfeld pretty obviously had b1, b2 and b3 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I reviewed a few really short ones: Misagh-3 (the bot was probably thrown by the bullet points?), Japanese escort ship CD-186 and Gawad sa Kapayapaan - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, it may have been Charles-Louis Saulx de Rosnevet, which was in the list above but Wizardman had already downgraded it to a stub before I struck it off. Zawed (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Wizardman, could you link to an example of this please? That way Hawkeye can tweak the bot to try to exclude that sort of article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for July
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Underground constructionB2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 01:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:IRIS Nooh (902)B2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Rowland FraserFine, but not a MilHist article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:123rd Siege Battery, Royal Garrison Artilleryretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:INAS 312retained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:J. Sumner Rogersretained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Harry Lovejoy RogersIMO b class Eddie891 Talk Work 11:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:USS Weaseldowngraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Titus Quinctius Poenus CincinnatusB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Prospero (1837)B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jaysh al-SalamStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of GórznoBrief, but just a B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of CempoalaC, detail/coverage lacking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sky Sword IIB2 =no; there is material in the lead not in the body. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:F. J. TumbelakaConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Argus As 17Retained--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Polad HashimovConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Siege of Edessa (1146)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ronnie BrunswijkConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Yi Jeong-amC class, lead is too short. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:League of Supporters of Indonesian IndependenceB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine chaser Cha-232 (1944)B2=no--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese escort ship CD-75B2=no--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS RodopiConfirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Fred C. SheffeyConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Armond H. DeLalioConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:ROKS Maradodowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Régiment de DauphinéB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Aldaman GhezaB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS TirolB2=no--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese netlayer Shunsen Maru (1920)B2=no --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Yilan-class patrol vesselStart, pretty thin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kawasaki Ki-64B2=no, B3=no--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:John J. Ballentineb1=no. Hog Farm Bacon 11:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ikarus 231Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Focke-Wulf Project IStub--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Focke-Achgelis Fa 284downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Farman B.2downgraded to C. Zawed (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chiayi-class offshore patrol vesseldowngraded to C. Zawed (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:RAF WinthorpeB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Laurimba SaragihStart, for a variety of reasons. Hog Farm Bacon 04:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Boulton Paul P.112Start, pretty thin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia)- B1=no, there's stuff only in the lead that's uncited. Hog Farm Bacon 02:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:William Nairn ForbesB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Vincent R. Kramer- Meets the B-class criteria, IMO Hog Farm Bacon 02:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Tikka M65B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thomas Crottyconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Theodore Palaiologos (stratiote)B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thanh My massacreB5=no. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Terry Bullochconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Crusade of 1129B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Sarajevo (1878)B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that is much more manageable! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone who pitched in to check these! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Almost ready template
Hey everyone, I was thinking to put ARCs (and FACs) which are almost ready to go like this one (only one support, image or source review needed) into the "Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks" template with their own part. I was thinking this could give outiders more attention to review the last phase of the ARC or FAC and then it finally can be promoted. Or another idea is to make an own template like the "This project has been mentioned by a media organization" one and put it bellow that one as well on the "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history" page to give more attention. I was thinking to instead of making a section on the page or a request here to give more attention we can put it there and wait until someone got their attention. We could put older articles which get less attention like this one as well and separate them in two parts. The bot can update it once a day or so like it already does in the "Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks" if there are any updates. Any feedback is appreciated? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- For ACRs, generally I use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert template posted on the main Milhist talk page, which has seemed to work well. Perhaps it would be better and get more attention if a similar template was created and used for FACs needing a bit more attention? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: That's also a good idea but could we make an FAC template without FAC co-ordinators? I mean I don't maybe they'd like to hear the idea? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- It would only be for Milhist FACs, and only used on our project talk page to draw attention of project members to Milhist FACs needing additional reviewers, so I don't see the need to involve the FAC coords. What we do internally about encouraging FAC reviews for Milhist articles is entirely up to us, as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Query
Sorry, this is a repeat from the generic Wikipedia help area, figured out it should be here. I am editing an obscure battle page. I cannot find any outside references to it except for anonymous blogs. I also found a possible plagiarism example. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekarren (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- What article is it you are editing? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Lekarren. From the Help Desk post it appears you are looking for references for the Forgotten campaign of the Manuripi region and in paritcular the role played by Captain Echeverría. This newly created article needs some work on referencing, we can't use amateur websites to verify facts. I've had a quick Google, there's a useful bit of coverage on page 120 of Scheina, Robert L. (1987). Latin America: A Naval History, 1810-1987. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-295-6.: "Fighting also erupted between Bolivia and Perú as a consequence of the Argentine arbitration of 9 July 1909, when Bolivian Captain Lino Echeverría decided to maintain himself with sixteen men at the small fort of Avaroa on the Manuripi River. On 21 June 1910 the Bolivians repulsed an attack by twenty-five Peruvians and both sides suffered losses. The Peruvians landed 180 men of Infantry Regiment No. 5 with two machine guns from twenty canoes at the confluences of the Manuripi and Mejahuira rivers on 22 July.".
- There's also mentions of the subsequent settlement of the territorial dispute by a boundary commission in:
- Verzijl, J. H. W. (1973). International Law in Historical Perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 504. ISBN 978-90-286-0223-6.
- Hackworth, Green Haywood (1940). Digest of International Law. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 728.
- There's also mentions of the subsequent settlement of the territorial dispute by a boundary commission in:
- Other than that most sources are in Spanish. If you can read it then the following might be useful:
- Guzman, Augusto; Guzmán, Augusto (1990). Historia de Bolivia (in Spanish). Editorial "Los Amigos del Libro". p. 232. ISBN 978-84-8370-174-4.
- Arguedas, Julio Díaz (1971). Historia del Ejército de Bolivia, 1825-1932 (in Spanish). Editorial Don Bosco. p. 503.
- Gaceta academica (in Spanish). Academia Boliviana de Historia Militar. 1982. p. 43.
- Arguedas, Julio Díaz (1951). Síntesis biográfica, histórica y geográfica de los nombres de las calles, avenidas, plazas y parques de la cuidad de La Paz (in Spanish). Litografías é Imprentas Unidas. p. 37.
- Other than that most sources are in Spanish. If you can read it then the following might be useful:
- You can search within the books for "Echeverría" or "Manuripi 1910" to get snippets of text from Google, otherwise it'd be worth checking if any library near you has copies. Google Books has quite a few more mentions (in Spanish books) of the conflict and Captain Echeverría's role if you search there - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- thank you! I have access to library databases and can read basic Spanish, but hadn't found those references. I tried your above suggestions but had hit a dead end, clearly you are better skilled at this. I'll keep at it and thank you for being awesome. Now I will work on how to cite sources in proper formatting for Wikipedia, as I'm new to this. Lekarren (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Lekarren, no problem. Feel free to drop me a note here or at my talk page if you need a hand finding more references. As to formatting references: for Google Books Wikipedia has an automatic reference generator, just above the edit window there's a "Cite" button, if you click that a menu will appear, click "Templates" then "cite book", if you paste the Google Book URL into the "URL" box on the pop up then click the magnifying glass it'll autofill the other details; you can then just enter the page number and click insert and it'll add the citation. It's how I added the cites above. If you prefer you can copy and paste the blank template from template:cite book and fill them out by hand. Unfortunately there's a bit of a steep learning curve to most things on here but don't worry too much about it: WP:Be Bold and get stuck in, it's difficult to break anything and if you do you can always revert back to how the article was before. If you need a hand with anything a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history will usually find somebody that can help out - Dumelow (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- What a great community, thank you. Lekarren (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
USCGC Taney and the Attack on Pearl Harbor
Please consider weighing in on the dispute at Talk:USCGC_Taney_(WHEC-37)#Pearl_Harbor.--Mox La Push (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone who participated in the conversation.--Mox La Push (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Gambut, Libya1942
I have found a photo in my Dad's old photos, showing a group swimming in a little rocky sided pool, marked "Gambut, April 1942" on the back. Upon checking, I found it was an RAF base, but my Dad was in the Royal Engineers, 8th Army. I was wondering why he would have been here at that time. He was involved in the conflict at Tobruk. I would be grateful for any info. His name was Raphael Evans. Thanks in advance, Joan 90.173.202.242 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The King George's Own Bengal Sappers and Miners were there in April 1942 laying mines and carrying out general engineering works. The South African Engineer Corps were also there in 42 building roads and disposing of bombs. 2/8th Field Company Royal Australian Engineers were there at one point building an anti tank ditch. Other sources mention sappers of the Royal Engineers there at various times constructing/repairing the airfield, clearing mines and disposing of bombs - Dumelow (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
September Coordinator Election
| September | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
| 2024 | ||||||
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We're about 5 weeks out from the September coordintor elections, so with that in mind comes the three important questions:
- How many slots do we want to open for the community and should that number include or exclude the Lead Coordinator,
- What format do we want to use for the election,
- When do we want to start and finish the election?
Subject to the usual stipulations, last year we had 10 coordinators including the lead on the 14 day nom/14 day election format. If that is agreeable to the coordinator corps this year, then I would propose opening on September 3/4 for nominations with the elections opening September 18 and closing officially on October 1/2 (this year September is a weirdly configured). If we opt for the 10 day nom/10 day election then I would suggest opening on September 3 with the nom to close September 13, the run the election September 14-24.
Finally, we are always looking for new blood to balance the old hands. Does anyone have any recommendations on who we might reach out to within our community to encourage to run for a spot? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I reckon we keep the election, number of coords etc exactly the same as last year, open noms 00:01 on 1 September, open voting 00:01 on 15 September, close voting 23:59 on 28 September, gives us a day or so to tidy up and handover to the new tranche. I'm happy to create the pages, unless someone else wants to have a crack at it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Peacemaker's suggestion to keep the number of coordinators the same. Векочел (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me, too. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am also in agreement. (Although I have a preference for 10 days and 10 days.) What is the procedure for deciding the lead coordinator? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- PM's suggestion sounds great. The user receiving the most votes has become the lead coordinator in the past. Kges1901 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and if it is a tie, we have joint lead coords (we once had three). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- PM's suggestion sounds great. The user receiving the most votes has become the lead coordinator in the past. Kges1901 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am also in agreement. (Although I have a preference for 10 days and 10 days.) What is the procedure for deciding the lead coordinator? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me, too. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Peacemaker's suggestion to keep the number of coordinators the same. Векочел (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
So it seems we are in agreement that we will keep the number of the coordinator's slots and use the 14 day nom / 14 day election method. Consensus also favors Peacemakers proposal for the start and end dates for each phase. Is there anyone who wishes to add anything? If not then I reckon we can graduate to page creation this week, and it would be a good idea to start reaching out to anyone who shows promise to see if they could be encouraged to go for a spot since it worked pretty well last year. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a note of encouragement to the August Bugle and will create the pages over the next week or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: has this been done? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2020. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for August
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Soviet frigate RezkiyB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate DeyatelnyyB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-40b1 & b2 no, downgraded to start. Zawed (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-32b1=no, relies almost exclusively on a single source. Hog Farm Bacon 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:South Western Command (India)C, WP:SPS used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:August 2020 Afghanistan attacksC, very recent subject, coverage questionable given no overarching reliable secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Friant-class cruiserAwaiting completion of GAN--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:2020 Jolo bombingsB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:The Italian Charnel House, KobaridB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Louise Michel (ship)B2 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Insurgency in ChiriquíB2 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Magic (1915)B-Class. Hog Farm Bacon 18:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Dr. Samuel Mitchel Smith and Sons Memorial FountainB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Tanker WarFails B2 and B3; start class. Mostly just a list of damaged vessels with almost zero context on the conflict. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ridvan QazimiB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ernest CôtéB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:968th Division (Vietnam)C class, b2=n. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ljubinko ĐurkovićB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-46B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kaharuddin NasutionB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:2020 Malian coup d'étatFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Fiat A.82B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Anti-Serb riots in SarajevoFails B2, missing key context in places; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Li NongB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lucas Johannes MeyerI make this a B. Zawed (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bélier Class Armored RamFails B1, B2 and B3; start class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Siege of Carlisle (December 1745)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Totoposte WarsC. Lacks detail on the actual fighting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate PoryvistyyB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)- Talk:Richard Fagan (USMC)
Talk:Mongol incursions in the Holy Roman EmpireB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Casa Fuerte de AdejeB class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Allison T61Start, no lede--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Al-Quwaisat-class LSTC incomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate ZadornyyHeavy reliance on questionable source, fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sina-class fast attack craftUnsourced table, fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Siege of Safed (1266)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Samuel D. Parker (militia officer)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Robert H. Williams (USMC)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Robert D. Sharpdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Modern equipment of the Azerbaijani Air ForceC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:IRIS Gardouneh (P229)downgraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Langdon (priest)OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-2Heavy reliance on questionable source, fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Iranian vessel SusaC class, b2=n. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Iranian vessel PersepolisC class, b2=n. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Iranian vessel MozaffariC class, b2=n. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Gunjan SaxenaStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Deir ez-Zor Military CouncilB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Colden Rugglesretained. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Clifton Inglis StockwellFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Al-Bab Military CouncilB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Sali HermanC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Murce-class speedboatdowngraded to C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:MK13-class missile boatC class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Manuel Cassoladowngraded to start on account of B4. Zawed (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Luis García Ruizdowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Grant Dibdendowngraded to C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Coffy (person)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of the Colline Gate (82 BC)B class Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Alf MeyerhöfferOKSturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Talk:Riihimäki prison campdowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for September
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Teluk Bintuni-class landing ship tankC, b1=no Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Operation Bamenda CleanC, b2=no Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-50B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-49B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Linnet (1913)appears to meet the criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Franz Maierhoferdowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Palm Sunday Coupdowngraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-48B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-47B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-45B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Constantine I of KakhetiDowngraded to start. Zawed (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:William Brown (British Army officer)downgraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Stephen Peter LlewellynI created this one and it got assessed as B-Class at requests for assessment. Zawed (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Second Battle of Newtonia SiteB. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-40B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-39B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-38B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Gaius Sextius CalvinusB3 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bernát Csányi (soldier)B class. Zawed (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Avro Heritage Museumdowngraded to C. Zawed (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-35B class. Zawed (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Type 075 landing helicopter dockStart, b1 and 2=no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-371C class, no description--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-369As above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-366ditto--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-365C-class, some of the infobox stuff doesn't appear to be cited, and the entire prose body is sourced to a single source. Hog Farm Bacon 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Tashkent DeclarationB2 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-364downgraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-370b1=no. Hog Farm Bacon 05:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-368Construction characteristics appear to be uncited; excessive reliance on combinedfleet. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-45downgraded; the construction characteristics are not covered in the body and appear to be uncited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-44b1=no, relies almost entirely on a single source. Hog Farm Bacon 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Use of drugs in warfareB2=no, would benefit from more of a worldwide perspective. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Norvell G. WardFails B1, unsupported claims in the lead and infobox. C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Marie K. FormadOK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Elva BlackerB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Kathleen ByerlyOK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:François de BasC class; too reliant on a single source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of ChalchuapaFails B1 and B2; not comprehensive and overreliance on blog source. Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Patrol torpedo boat PT-492start. Hog Farm Bacon 21:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Patrol torpedo boat PT-490start-class. Hog Farm Bacon 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese landing ship No.140b1=no. Hog Farm Bacon 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS JunellaB class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hector de ZayasB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Colombia ThreeB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Claude A. LarkinB1=n, cites find a grave heavily. B2 is iffy but giving the benefit of the doubt. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Baburao ShedmakeWould benefit from a copyedit. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bahram Afzalib2=no, IMO. Hog Farm Bacon 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikeB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chief of Personnel (India)Fails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:John A. ButlerLGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Ready (1916)B class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Filippo da PistoiaLGTM, not perfect, but pretty good. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Vrije Groepen Amsterdamdowngraded Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:René Merino Monroydowngraded. Telesur is a deprecated source. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:MS Nordic FerryB class Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Minister of National Defense of El SalvadorList class, B1=no, B2=no. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-43No description, C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-42Fails B1, relies on single source of debatable reliability. C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Inger SkouB class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Soviet frigate RetivyyB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:John H. DudleyB class Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Hendijan-class vesselIncomplete, C class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese transport ship Unyo Maru No. 2Passed a GA review. Hog Farm Bacon 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:AlmanzorB class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMT BracklynIncomplete, C class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Talk:Andrew MasondoSome information in the infobox was not in the main article and wasn't sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for October
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Talk:Spanish TripoliB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:SMS V28B class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Portsmouth War MemorialYup Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John E. JamesDowngraded, at least B1=no (DOB is not cited). Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Military Memorial of Monte GrappaB1=no, unsourced statements in the article Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Melvin E. Biddlelgtm Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Mazloum AbdiB2=no, there's an expansion tag Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Mary A. MarshStart, needs a ce and more than one real source Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lu WanFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Percival (cricketer)lgtm, but is it really in the project scope? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Miller (equerry)good enough for B. I wouldn't take it further without some more work though Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Nave Andromeda incidentremarkably well done for something that just happened last week. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Armstrong Drexelseems neither comprehensive nor are all sources reliable. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-203B class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Guy II, Count of Saint-PolStart, no lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Grande Tema incidentConfirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:A. Arnim WhiteInclined to think B1=no, cites include Ancestry.com and a permanent dead link, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:'Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn QurayshConfirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Thomas M. ScottB, IMO Eddie891 Talk Work 17:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Stephen MeredithShort, but complete, IMO Eddie891 Talk Work 17:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Clan Macfadyen (1923)C. b2=n Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:SS Clan Macalister (1930)C. b2=n Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Rienzi Melville JohnstonDe-tagged, someone who served in the CSA for one year doesn't fit milhist's scope Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Post-conflict reception of war criminalsFails B2; C at best. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:New England Air Museumstart class. B1=no, b2=no Hog Farm Bacon 16:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Nahang-class submarineB-class, IMO. Hog Farm Bacon 16:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Lord Frederick Cavendish-BentinckConfirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John P. GillisFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John MansfieldLGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:John Huang XinruiFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-117Fails B1, overreliance on one source of dubious reliability. C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-116Fails B1, overreliance on one source of dubious reliability. C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-115Fails B1, overreliance on one source of dubious reliability. C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-114Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-111C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-110C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-109C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-108C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-33C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-5Not complete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-4Incomplete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-3Incomplete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-2Incomplete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-1Incomplete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine I-402Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-210C. One source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-209C. One source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-208C. One source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-207C class, as per reasoning above. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-205C class, as above. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-204C class, as above. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-203C class, as above. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-202single source, C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-201as above--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-111confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-109Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-108Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-107Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-106Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-105Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-104Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-103Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-102Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ha-101Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:James E. Chaneyfine. Would expand lede if taking further. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jacob Eugene Duryéeneeds a good CE. words like 'infamous' and 'withering' and 'stalwartly' take away from encyclopedicness.Talk:Ivan SivakovB class Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Italian prisoners of war in the First World WarFails B2, more context needed; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Wave (J385)Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS Redoubt (1916)Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Henry FladNope, overreliance on one old source, needs a ce too Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Harvey Smythshort but seems good Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Harry H. Vaughaninclined to think B2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Gulzar Uddin AhmedC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ghaznavi (missile)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Exercise Spring TrainC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Elida Rumseyconfirm as B-class. Zawed (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Confederate ObeliskInclined to think it meets B-class. Hog Farm Bacon 21:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Cheryl PearceConfirmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Charles Manigault MorrisConfirmed. Hog Farm Bacon 21:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chapel of St Nicholas, Fort RicasoliConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chapel of St Anne, Fort St ElmoConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)PROD'd, but Start, sources pretty ordinary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Brian Dawson (general)B. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bill CrossOK I guess. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bernard LaiboldtStart. Hog Farm Bacon 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bernard Gaines Farrar JrB2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 21:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of PilsudStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Autun (640s)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Augustin PřeučilOverreliance on one or two sources, fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Atıf KamçılFails B2 and B4; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Arthur Morris (bishop)Out of scope, removed project tag. Hog Farm Bacon 04:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Arthur du BoulayConfirmed --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Aristodemus of MiletusB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Anthony Lowther, Viscount LowtherHis WWI service doesn't appear to be significant enough to warrant it falling within our purview--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese landing ship No. 1GAN in progress--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Alexander BullerIncomplete, C. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Albemarle Bertie, 9th Earl of LindseyConfirmedTalk:Alan Cameron of Errachtdowngraded to Start class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Millie BaileyB class Eddie891 Talk Work 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jessie ScoutsReferencing is iffy, doesn't seem complete, and needs a ce. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of Charleston (1861)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Battle of AndersonB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Barrett M99C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Ardmore Air Force BaseFails B1, overreliance on personal webpage/blog; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:2020 bombardment of StepanakertC class, tagged as needing expansion (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:94th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal ArtilleryLGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Jakiw PalijBild is not a RS Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bah Ndawa bit on the short side, but seems good Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:William Cuming (Royal Navy officer)confirmed as B-Class. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Siege of AnsiB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Marine Air Command and Control SystemC. Only USMC sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Castillo de Santa Catalina (La Palma)Confirmed Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Russo-Persian WarsConfirmed Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:French cruiser DubourdieuC class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:HMS TB 23 (1907)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Yuan Zhen (Jin dynasty)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:William Jasper MonumentC-class, history seems incomplete to me. Hog Farm Bacon 19:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Wattle-class crane stores lighterDescription incomplete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:The Defenders of Fort Moultrieb2=no, no post-1877 history for a still-standing sculpture suggests that some stuff is probably missing. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Tempête-class ironcladNot reasonably complete, C--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Russian destroyer Sokol (1895)Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Propaganda and censorship in Italy during the First World WarB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-107B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-106B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-105B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-104B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-103B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-102B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Japanese submarine Ro-101B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Bournemouth Aviation MuseumStart-class. Hog Farm Bacon 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncairelooks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Talk:Josefina GuerreroC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Talk:Revolutionary Government Junta of El SalvadorC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: - Are you sure the bot is getting all of these? Maybe there's a coding screen I'm unaware of, but shouldn't Marais des Cygnes Massacre Site be on this list due to this bot edit? It's highly likely I'm wrong, or that it's late enough in the month it would be in next month's, though. Hog Farm Bacon 16:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- An error. One that took me most of the morning to find. On the bright side, this report has been greatly sped up, and now runs in seconds. The affected articles that were overlooked were:
Marais des Cygnes Massacre SiteGA now. Hog Farm Bacon 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Uprising of Sheikh UbeydullahB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Ulung SitepuC--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Tich McFarlaneLooks okay to me. Hog Farm Bacon 16:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)St. Barbara BastionStart-class. Hog Farm Bacon 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Qah missile strikeStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Peroz IB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Nguyễn Văn ManFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Louise Elisabeth ColdenhoffStart, poorly written and incomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Lord Grand Prior's RegimentB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Japanese submarine I-400Retained. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Ishikawajima T-2C class, sole sourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)HMS Wave (J385)Duplicate entry--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)HMS Redoubt (1916)Duplicate entry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Hiro H3H1Confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)December 2007 Turkish incursion into northern IraqFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Brian Dawson (general)Duplicate. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Historical policy of the Law and Justice partyStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Ezra Pound's radio broadcasts, 1941-1945B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Rejoice (Margaret Thatcher)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Russian destroyer Sokol (1895)Already reviewed this month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reviewers should be aware that Combinedfleet.com is a highly reliable source as it is run by a pair of published naval historians.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, at a quick glance I spot two duplicates - Battles of Autun and Charleston. There may be more. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for November
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
14th Indiana Infantry RegimentConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)19th Virginia CavalryNo lede, start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)1st Indiana Cavalry RegimentLooks like a data dump, no narrative, Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)2 Parachute BattalionFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)- I think this one should be disambiguated ie 2nd Parachute Battalion (South Africa). Thoughts? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, same with 1 Parachute Battalion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think this one should be disambiguated ie 2nd Parachute Battalion (South Africa). Thoughts? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
-
- Have moved both of these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
-
2008 Jerusalem BMW attackConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)2nd Raiding BrigadeFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)44th Siege Battery, Royal Garrison ArtilleryB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)6th Vermont Infantry RegimentStart. b1=no, b3=no Hog Farm Bacon 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)7 Squadron SAAFFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)A. M. B. H. G. AbeyrathnebandaConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)A. Wilson GreeneB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Aaron OgdenB class, but I don't think this article is in scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Aaron R. FisherFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Abaidullah KhanConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)AbaskironB class. A nice little article with only two sources. Just gets by, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Abdallah Nasur–– B class. Added Cold-War to the WP:MILHIST. Adamdaley (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Abdul Aziz MirzaStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Adam PayneConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)AhayaB, just. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Ahmad Hashim Abd al-IsawiC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Ahmad Shah (Taliban)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Alexander KellyConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Anarchist StruggleC --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)AnaxagorasConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Anglo-Spanish War (1779)Confirmed. !!!!Anthony AcevedoConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Audun HugleikssonShort but reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Augustin PřeučilB class.--Catlemur (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Baren Township riotFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Bassingbourn BarracksConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Battle of Salt RiverConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Blue Ridge-class command shipStart. Hog Farm Bacon 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)British Troops in EgyptFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Brooke Dolan IIConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Byzantine–Serbian War (1090–1095)No lead, C class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Carl Friedrich von Pückler-BurghaussStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Casaba-HowitzerConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Charles F. RandB-Class. Zawed (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Charles Grant (Royal Navy officer)Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Charles Octavius HeadSelf-published sources, b1=no. Hog Farm Bacon 06:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Charles Orlando BridgemanConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)China during World War IFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Christian ZimmermanI make this a start. Zawed (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Clarrie WallachDowngraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Clive SingleConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Conrad of KrosigkB--Catlemur (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Constantine XI PalaiologosB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)D. E. L. HaynesLooks okay to me, although I'd expect more work before a GAN. Hog Farm Bacon 22:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)David McBride (whistleblower)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Disappearance of Corrie McKeagueB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Disappearance of Simon ParkesB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Donat Henchy O'BrienConfirmed.--Catlemur (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Dora Dougherty StrotherConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Dou ChongC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Drenther CrusadeConfirmed.--Catlemur (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Ernst August KöstringDowngraded to a start. Zawed (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Exercise Northern StrikeStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)French ship Éveillé (1773)incomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)French ship Experiment (1779)incomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Georg RimplerConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)George Gibson (Commissary General)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)German submarine U-1012Redirected to class article as non-notable, somebody needs to take a good hard look at some of those below for the same action. Hog Farm Bacon 23:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)German submarine U-1026Reduced to a redirect per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)German submarine U-1029Reduced to a redirect per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)German submarine U-1030Reduced to a redirect per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)German submarines U-1027 and U-1028Reduced to a redirect per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)German submarines U-1031 and U-1032Reduced to a redirect per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Gun serial numberConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Hari Budha MagarFails B1 and B2, start class.--Catlemur (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Hearty (1885)Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Medina (1916)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Medway (1916)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)HMS MoresbyB. Hog Farm Bacon 00:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Surly (1806)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Surly (1855)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)HMS Surly (1856)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)HSwMS Magne (2)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)HSwMS Mode (1)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)In Praise of BloodConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)IRIS Shahid RoudakiFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)James A. Campbell (Medal of Honor)Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)James Brown (sailor)Fails Fails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)James Oglethorpe MonumentPassed GA review. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)John Augustus HulenConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)John P. S. GobinConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Joseph GeldersB class, but removed from MilHist as military service was incidental, and does not contribute to his notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Joseph KonyFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Louis II's campaign against Bari (866–871)B--Catlemur (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Ludwig BeckB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Mahbod (envoy)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Maratha invasions of BengalFails B1 and B2; start class.--Catlemur (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Matthew B. JuanConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Michail AnagnostakosFails B1 and B3.--Catlemur (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Michelle Curranpretty sparse, but confirming. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Mildred TrotterConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Muhsin al-FadhliConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)MV Walmer Castle (1936)Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Nguyễn Thành Trung (pilot)B class.-Indy beetle (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Nichols's Missouri Cavalry RegimentB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Nicolae Dabija (soldier)Fails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Ollie Josephine Prescott Baird BennettFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Operation Strike of MuharramFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Pak Kum-cholB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Percy GrovesFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Peter CundyFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Peter DrissellFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Philip WaggettFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Richard M. ClarkFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Robert Augustus SweeneyFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Roy SlemonFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Santiago J. EreviaFails B2, C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Shen Yi-mingConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Shenandoah 1862Confirmed, presently a GA nom. Zawed (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Siege of Salerno (871–872)B class.--Catlemur (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Siege of Tyre (586–573 BC)Start. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)SMS V6 (1913)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Stacy GarrityConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)SudrajatB, just. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Tadashi Kanekodowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Tahir HasanovFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)The South's Finestconfirmed Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Tobias WatkinsLooks fine to me. Hog Farm Bacon 05:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Vera ZakharovaConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Wang Zhaoyuan (general)B class. Just squeaks by - only two sources used to cite. Gog the Mild (talk)William Hardin HarrisonConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)William of ZardanaB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)William Perry Brown Jr.Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Women's BarracksIs this article in scope? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think so. C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yam fortressFails B4; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Yekaterinburg fortressStart. b1=no, b3=no--Catlemur (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Zuhayr ibn QaysConfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for December
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
120 mm Italian naval gunMore a list than an article. C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)120-PM-43 mortarC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)128th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal ArtilleryConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)132nd Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal ArtilleryConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)1831 Naval Air SquadronConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)1987 Burkinabé coup d'étatStart, fails B1 and B2.--Catlemur (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)1993 Sukhumi airliner attacksStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)2014 Battle of BasilanStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)2020 Ayn Issa clashesC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)2020 Nigeria hostage rescueB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)202nd Independent Infantry Brigade (Home)Start, fails B1 and B2.--Catlemur (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)218th Infantry Regiment (United States)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)2nd Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)359th Siege Battery, Royal Garrison ArtilleryHawkeye7 (discuss) 06:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)79th Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)80th Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)811 Naval Air SquadronConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)83rd Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)89th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal ArtilleryConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)90th Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)91st Division (Imperial Japanese Army)B2 = no. No details of formation or early history. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)92nd Searchlight Regiment, Royal ArtilleryB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)98th Illinois Infantry RegimentC class. Fails b2 by a large margin. Hog Farm Bacon 20:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Abu Yahia al-HamawiC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Academic Legion (Vienna)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Ahfad al-Rasul BrigadesC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Aidyn AimbetovDowngraded to a C. Zawed (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Ajnad al-ShamI make this a start. Zawed (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Albrecht SchubertC-class, needs a little more content to meet B2. Zawed (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Alexander Lindsay (East India Company officer)B-class, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Allied Air CommandB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Alton D. SlayB1, B2= no Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Amjad HussainB2 = no. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Andrew McKeeB2=no, reliance on one source. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer)looks good to me Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Anti Submarine Warfare Shallow Water CraftC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Antoine DrouotB1, B2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Ardstinchar CastleC-class, needs more content to meet B2. Zawed (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Arizona Border ReconC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Armed OverwatchC class.--Catlemur (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Armée secrèteStart, fails B1 and B2.--Catlemur (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Armenian Genocide and the HolocaustNot quite at B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Arthur Floyer-AclandI make this a C-class. Zawed (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)AskutB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Aslam ibn Zur'a al-KilabiB.--Catlemur (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Atholl HighlandersB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Australian Defence Force Cadetsdowngraded -- fails B1 and B2. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Avery D. AndrewsB class.--Catlemur (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Avraham Avigdorovdowngraded, dod not cited. Zawed (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Badr-class corvetteC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)BAE Abdón CalderónC class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Bahoz ErdalStart.--Catlemur (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Bala BredinLGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 03:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Baluch Liberation FrontStart, fails B2 and B4.--Catlemur (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Bartolomé SaraviB2= no Eddie891 Talk Work 03:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Battery C, 1st Missouri Light Artillery RegimentStart class. Mostly a data dump out of Dyer. Hog Farm Bacon 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Battery I, 1st Michigan Light Artillery Regimentdowngraded to C. Some battles mentioned in infobox not cited. Zawed (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Battery I, 1st Missouri Light Artillery Regimentdowngraded to Start class. Still largely uses Dyer's shorthand -- would need to be expanded and rewored for B class, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Battle of ArbroathB3=no, insufficient lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Battle of Nuwakotb2=no, Aftermath section is empty. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Battle of San Juliándowngraded to C, needs more detail. Zawed (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Cham–Vietnamese War (982)B4=no, copy edit tag added. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Charles Bryant Drakejust enough content for a B I think. Zawed (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Chen AnB1 = no, all primary sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Christy Mathewson Jr.B1=no, medium is not a reliable source. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Chu PouB1 = no, all primary sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Derbent JamaatStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Director of Military Intelligence and SecurityC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Discoverer 13B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Dongfeng EQ2050No description, C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Duan PidiStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Eric Hayesretained. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Faustin E. WirkusFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)French brig Belliqueuse (1793)No description, C class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)French corvette Dauphine (1773)No description, C class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)French ship Euryale (1863)Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Geoffrey CardozoStart.--Catlemur (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Gómez de AlvaradoCurrently undergoing GAN --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Harriet HallStart.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Herman AsaribabB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)HMS Anglesea (1742)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Berbice (1793)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Demerara (1804)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Forth (P222)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Garland (1798)confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Jane (1781)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Janus (1796)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Lightfoot (1915)retained -- appears to meet the B class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Milford (L51)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Newbury (1916)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Nile (1806)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Plover (1916)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Roebuck (1743)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Ruby Prize (1694)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Satyr (1916)downgraded - some inconsistencies between text and infobox. Zawed (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Scorpion (1863)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Shoreham (L32)confirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Spey (P234)downgraded to start, a lot of uncited content in infobox. Zawed (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Thisbe (1917)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HMS Thistle (1812)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)HMS Tobago (1805)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)HMS Torch (1845)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)HMS Viper (1779)Of the opinion that b2=no. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Hypothesis ZB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Ilias KanellopoulosB2=No, C.--Catlemur (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Indonesian cruiser IrianFails B1 and B2; start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Jean d'EppeB1=No, C.--Catlemur (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Joachim, 4th Prince MuratB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Jogisho and Palsha massacreStart.--Catlemur (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Johannes de Malamanusyes, albeit weakly. There doesn't seem to be much known on this figure at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)John DevonshireLGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Karl Linderb1=no, tagged for overreliance on one sourceKhojaly Genocide DayStart class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)List of ships sunk by missilesseems to have been very well researched and put together Eddie891 Talk Work 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Lord Edward HayStart.--Catlemur (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Marcel OlteanuStart.--Catlemur (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Mario FalangolaB1=No, C.--Catlemur (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Maud Mitchelldeleted at afd Eddie891 Talk Work 13:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Memorial Day (Azerbaijan)C. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Michael White (British Army officer)LGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 13:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Ministry of Defence headquarters (Thailand)B class.--Catlemur (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Mushegh I MamikonianGA.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)ORP Albatros (602)B Class confirmed. Zawed (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)ORP Mewa (603)B Class confirmed. Zawed (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Pat O'Leary LineB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Prisoners of War in Utah during WWIIB Class confirmed. Zawed (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Rafael Antonio GutiérrezB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Shelburne Escape Lineretained -- seems to meet the criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Sino–Cham warConfirmed.--Catlemur (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS G10B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS G11B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS G12B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS G8B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS G9B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)SMS S14 (1912)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)SMS S15 (1912)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)SMS V185B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)SMS V30B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Talbot armoured carConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Treaty of NymphenburgFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Trevor KeelorMake this a start. Zawed (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Twynham hutB. Zawed (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)William Drugetha start, looks like a work in progress. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)William Francis JacksonI make it a C. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)William Gates LeDuclooks fine. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The final frontier
Now that the MilHistBot is doing most of the work, our backlog of Articles that need assessment or tagging is nearly gone. We have one last backlog in this area: Military history articles with no associated task force . Of which there are 940 at the moment. My proposal is that the MilHistBot be ordered to clean up this backlog too. Using some heuristics, it will allocate task forces to these articles. example. This should drain away the backlog, leaving only the weird cases. If this proposal is acceptable, I will create a Bot Request for Approval. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great idea. Could we do a test run of 50 or something once approval has been given? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking these projects on, Hawkeye! Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye is doing a magnificent job. Sounds like a plan, and a trial 50 per Peacemaker would be sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The idea sounds good, and I'd like to see a larger trial than just one, but I'm skeptical of the bot's ability to handle the task based on the one you showed. It seems that the bot tagged 36 Medium Regiment, a regiment of the Indian army, with WWII and South-Asian. I would have tagged as Indian, National, and if we're gonna include conflicts, might as well add Cold War as well. Hawkeye, you do great work and I think this has real potential, but we should be careful not to sacrifice quality for speed-- I'd rather have users get it right slowly than a bot do a sloppy job quickly, because once there is any task force it's highly unlikely that it will be re-checked. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (I should clarify that I don't think Hawkeye's bot will do a sloppy job-- I'm sure it will be great, but just that we should be careful here Eddie891 Talk Work 22:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- G'day Eddie, this is why I want a trial. We can go through and see how it does, and if necessary, oversee the process in tranches until we are happy the bot is getting all the relevant TFs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking these projects on, Hawkeye! Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The humans are generally sloppy when it comes to tagging, so the Bot may well be just as good. The catch is that when it makes a mistake, the error needs to be reported so it can be corrected.
Here is the result of a test run over 20 articles today
|
|---|
|
Some explanations here. The Bot skips draft articles partly because it is hard for it to assess them, and partly because it is assumed that they are incomplete.
- Thanks Hawkeye, looks a bit scratchy, tbh. Better than nothing, but I reckon we'll need to check the ones that don't get a TF at the very least. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are some interesting cases on the list:
- Alley of Angels in Donetsk was marked as belonging to the Russian task force. An editor angrily protested that it was Ukraine, not Russia. Leaving that issue aside, it appears to me that articles on Ukraine are covered by our Russian task force. Opinions sought.
- Definitely Russian, covers all former Soviet Union countries. I understand the pushback, but that is how we roll. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Arria formula meeting I have no idea what task force this one belongs to myself.
- Given it started due to the Yugoslav Wars, I've added Balkan, but the bot should feel free to use
no-task-force=yesif needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given it started due to the Yugoslav Wars, I've added Balkan, but the bot should feel free to use
- Bombing of North Vietnam would seem obvious on the face of it, but it is a disambiguation page, so there was nothing for the bot to go on.
- Bidaxsh The Bot correctly tagged it as Middle Eastern, but had nothing to go on to correctly guess the period task force
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are some interesting cases on the list:
Another test run over 50 articles today
|
|---|
|
13:56 26 September 2020 started Draft talk:Andrey Davidovich Gorshkov: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Arleigh Burke Trophy: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Assessment centre Talk:Assessment centre: No task forces found Draft talk:Battle of Kafiristan: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Battle of Vikramgad: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Brien S. Wygle
Draft talk:Canadian Army Tactics School: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Central intervention in the Russian Civil War: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Chaland de transport de mat?riel
Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope Talk:Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope: No task forces found Charles Collins (British Army officer)
Draft talk:Charleston Malkemus: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Chemical bombing of Sardasht
Chesney Gold Medal
Chief of Materiel (India)
Chief of Personnel (India)
Chief of the Air Force (Somalia)
China Beach Surf Club
Chiriguano War
Chizbatron
City of Labour Valour
Civil defense of the GDR
Draft talk:Clancy Quay: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Coalition casualties in Afghanistan
Coastal Command Anti U-Boat Devices School RAF
Commander of the Ukrainian Ground Forces
Commando (role-playing game) Talk:Commando (role-playing game): No task forces found Common Infrared Countermeasures program
Company clerk Talk:Company clerk: No task forces found Company Level Intelligence Cell
Confederation of Cologne
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
Conscription in the United Arab Emirates Talk:Conscription in the United Arab Emirates: No task forces found Constantine I of Kakheti
Constantine II of Kakheti
Council of Ministers for Defense of the Reich
Counter-Guerrilla
County of Emp?ries
Cr?nica particular del Cid
Cross for Courage and Fidelity
Crowds Running for Shelter When the Air-raid Alarm Sounded
Cyborgs (defenders of Donetsk airport)
Czech Republic?Poland border
Dagshai Central Jail & Museum Talk:Dagshai Central Jail & Museum: No task forces found Day of Remembrance and Sorrow
Dead Troops Talk
Decent interval
Defence district
Defence Explosive Factory Maribyrnong
Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad
|
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Here is the output from the latest Bot run. If this is acceptable, the Bot Group will clear the Bot to run unattended.
Another test run over 25 articles today
|
|---|
|
$ mono AutoClass.exe -f -n=25 17:02 11 October 2020 started 2nd Infantry Division (Belgium)
6th (Caernarvonshire and Anglesey) Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers
43rd Armoured Regiment (India)
116th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
Among the Dead Cities
Andi Depu
Army Act
Assessment centre
At Ready (statue)
Ataul Hakim Sarwar Hasan
Babak (Sasanian officer)
Bard Cottage Cemetery
Bondgate Tower
Cabbage tactics
Chaland de transport de mat?riel
Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope
Chemical bombing of Sardasht
Chesney Gold Medal
China Beach Surf Club
China's Defense White Paper
Chiriguano War
Chizbatron
City of Labour Valour
Civil defense of the GDR
17:04 11 October 2020 done |
- 2nd Infantry Division (Belgium) Just only need National and WWII.
- Understandable, it's just the British and French have really small minor roles in the article.
- 43rd Armoured Regiment (India) Also needs "Post-Cold War" era.
- 116th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery Don't need WWI.
- Looking at a first glass it doesn't mention any events of the WWI even the infobox doesn't say that.
- Among the Dead Cities Also needs Culture.
- Army Act Couldn't find WWI; I believe we don't need it? Maybe also add Early Modern?
- WWI is correct. Early Modern is not.
- Assessment centre Add German, British and WWII.
At Ready (statue)Needs ACW.- Ataul Hakim Sarwar Hasan Needs Cold War and Post-Cold War.
- Babak (Sasanian officer) Needs an Asian.
- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Asian military history task force says "This task force covers the military histories of all Asian states, as well as military activity in Asia by non-Asian powers. The military activities of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Russia and the Soviet Union all fall under both this task force and the European task force." thus it also should have "Asian".
- Bard Cottage Cemetery Since there are Commonwealth soldiers like Canadian, Indian, South African (Africa), British and both Australia and New Zealand. It also needs WWI.
- WWI is addressed by recategorising the article in Category:World War I cemeteries in Belgium; added special rule for the CWGC
Bondgate TowerNeeds Fort and Medieval.- Cabbage tactics Needs Post-Cold War.
- Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope Is a redirect do we really need to assed it? But it needs British if have to.
- Chemical bombing of Sardasht Needs Asian.
- As above.
- Chesney Gold Medal Needs Memorials.
- China Beach Surf Club Needs US and Culture.
- China's Defense White Paper Doesn't need Biography and National - it needs Strategy.
ChizbatronNeeds Culture and Asian.
- As above.
City of Labour ValourNeeds Culture.- Civil defense of the GDR I think it also needs National here.
- Not sure. Article is too vague. Usually I only apply national to units and formations.
- It looks like the same as the "China's Defense White Paper". I think national is the closest we ever would be (since it is a defence organisation) in this example unless a new project would be organised one-day which would work onto defences.
Hey Hawkeye it looks like the bot needs a little bit more work before it's perfect which is okay. But I could find a lot of wrong or missing task forces is it possible to teach the bot another lesson? I haven't changed the articles I believe are missing or have wrong task forces. Will do it soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: The Bot has been taught some lessons. It gets smarter with every run. I have struck the cases where the Bot has been corrected. Always better to report than attempt to correct. Your review of the run is much appreciated, and your opinion on the comments above is sought. Then we can run against another 25 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)