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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members

Contents

Instructions
Requesting a review

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

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

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

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

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

French battleship Courbet (1911)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Courbet (1911) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

Courbet had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. I've extensively reworked the article recently and I believe that it meets the A-class standards. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Lumumba Government

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Lumumba Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

After over a year and a half of work in userspace, I present an article on the Democratic Republic of the Congo's first independent government, led by the famous Patrice Lumumba. I call it my magnum opus. Though only in power for barely two-and-a-half months, a fair amount of history occurred under its watch. In terms of being relevant to military history, its tenure was dominated by a widespread army mutiny, a Belgian military intervention, and two secessions, making it more or less a civil war government. There's also plenty in the article about policy disputes, administrative problems, and financial issues, for those of you whose interests are piqued by political affairs. This is the culmination of months of exhaustive (*cough* exhausting *cough* but fascinating) research, and I've drawn on a mix of new and old materials written by historians, political scientists, and even ministers of the actual cabinet. I've done my best to copy edit as I went along, but feel free to correct any mistakes and make any improvements to the prose. I tried to be concise while retaining all relevant content, but I must warn you of the length; there's 525 unique citations. Hopefully this puts us one step closer to giving Africa the coverage it deserves. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

I note that the readable prose size is over the general limit of 100k and the lede, five very long paragraphs, does not meet MOS:LEDE. I highly recommend that you split off some subtopics of the article and use summary style. However, the article appears well researched and very thorough. Catrìona (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I'm in the process of slimming and trimming to rectify that, but I don't think I can make it too much smaller (definitely not below 100k) without cutting critical details or relevant context, lead included. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears, but I'll defend what I think needs to be included. One of the reasons I brought this article to A-class review is that I could get some consensus on size before dragging it over to FAC. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help an Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee then insisted on breaking into a different concentration camp. The article has recently benefitted from a thorough GA review by Gog the Mild.

The literature is somewhat sparse, but my search was very thorough. Recently I went through both Google Scholar and Google Books with both spellings of Lederer's name and found nothing new with substantive coverage. The only scholarly source that I am aware of offering substantive coverage that I haven't referenced here is a four page report by Alena Vlčková in Štěnovice a osobnosti. A bigger problem is that many authors have not applied a rigorous investigative approach to this subject, even the ones that really should really know better. Catrìona (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Soviet cruiser Admiral Oktyabrsky

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Soviet cruiser Admiral Oktyabrsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

This article continues my series on Kresta II-class cruisers. Admiral Oktyabrsky served with the Pacific Fleet for a fairly undistinguished twenty years. The article passed a GAN several months ago, and I have updated with the suggestions from the review on Admiral Isakov. Kges1901 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ottoman conquest of Lesbos

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Ottoman conquest of Lesbos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

The Ottoman conquest of Lesbos was one of the follow-up operations by Mehmed II after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. As an event, it was fairly typical in illustrating the dilemma faced by the many minor rulers in Latin Greece, caught between Ottoman expansion, their own weakness and rivalries, the futility of their protestations of loyal vassalage, and the divergent commercial interests of Genoa and Venice. The article was substantially rewritten in November 2017, and passed GA in January. I think it meets A-class criteria, but, as always, any corrections or suggestions for further improvements are welcome. Constantine 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

  • Why are the civilians listed under strength? Was it normal at that time for civilians to contribute militarily to the defense of their city?
  • There are many occasions throughout the Middle Ages civilians assisted in the defense of their city, particularly when the consequences of the city's fall were slaughter, pillage, and slavery. That said, I cannot find an indication that this was the case here, so I am removing it.
  • Lesbos itself was spared the same fate, for the time being, partly due to the general impotence of the Christian powers in the Aegean. Why would the weakness of Christian powers prevent a Muslim empire from conquering a Christian island?
  • Because they posed no threat. Clarified.
  • Is there an OCLC for Miller?
  • Curiously enough I cannot find any for the original edition, only for recent reprints.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Indy beetle, I've answered the points you raised. Any further comments, even going above and beyond ACR requirements? Constantine 19:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I found the applicable OCLC for Miller on Worldcat and I've added it accordingly. I have no further comments, though I'm admittedly no expert on this subject. I'll save Nikkimaria the trouble and go ahead and affirm that all of the images are appropriately captioned, licensed, and placed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

38th Infantry Division Dravska

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

38th Infantry Division Dravska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

The latest in my series on the Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of that country in April 1941, this is forms part of an expansion of an existing Good topic that will hopefully end up as a Featured topic one day. Undermined by fifth column activities and faced with thrusts by two German corps, the division fell back in disarray and surrendered with the rest of the 7th Army. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • In the Operations map, it is not clear to which of the dots the labels apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No licensing issues, but can't say that the map seems improved. For example, which of the dots is Dravograd? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

  • Due to a lack of Yugoslav counter-attacks, many of these positions remained in German hands into 6 April. "Remained" implies the Yugoslavs attacked them at some point and potentially retook them, which I'm not seeing. Did you mean that the Germans had secured them by 6 April?
  • I don't think that necessarily follows. The Germans captured the Yugoslav positions, and because the Yugoslavs didn't counterattack, the Germans continued to hold them into 6 April.
  • On pages 39–40 of The South Slav Journal Volume 4 ([1]) there's a large excerpt from General Čedomir Stanojlović's memoirs on the campaign. He pays special attention to the division's Croat chief of staff, Major Ivan Babić, whom he suggests hardly had his heart in the fight. I've managed to extract the whole excerpt from Google snippet view. As its rather long, I think there would be copyvio problems if I posted it here. Would you like me to email it to you?

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I've sent you an email. I'll have a look at it, but it is a common trope for Serb senior officers to blame the Croats for the collapse of the army, and they are memoirs, so WP:PRIMARY applies. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've sent the text. I can sympathise with your concerns about POV, but at the very least it seems important to mention that Babić was division chief of staff. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. Will do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the source and mentioned that Babić was the divisional COS, but I am loath to add anything else for the POV reasons I outlined above. The South Slav Journal of that era at least was a Yugoslav emigre "resistance" periodical, and had a significant bias. I think it is ok for basic facts like that of Babić being the COS, but not much else. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
My comments have been addressed and the article is very comprehensive, so I'm supporting its promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Indy beetle! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wartime organisation: "The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937, and the strength of an infantry division was 26,000–27,000 men." : There doesn't appear to be an obvious relationship between the two parts of this sentence, unless the regs laid down what the divisional strength should be.
  • Mobilisation: "...invasion commenced, the 38th ID had only commenced mobilisation, and was largely in its mobilisation..." consider rephrasing to avoid repetition of commenced and mobilisation?
  • 5-6 April: On the evening of 5 April, one of the aggressive..." no antecedence for "the aggressive"? Perhaps "a particularly aggressive..."?

Struggling to find much else to fault here. Zawed (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Berwick (1333)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Berwick (1333) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

An examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to me to cover the topic well and to meet the A class criteria, it has just passed a thorough GAN assessment, and because I have been encouraged to nominate it by a more experienced editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding a colour legend to the caption of the ceded territory map, and what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a "D'oh!" moment from me. I suspect the first of many in this process. Thank you. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What you've done for the data source is reasonable for this article, but it might make sense to also add the information to the file description to cover uses of the image elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

Being rather ignorant of the details of the English–Scottish wars, I found the article easy to read and understand, concise and comprehensive. A few minor issues/questions before I support:

  • for the reader who is unfamiliar with the subject, I would recommend adding regnal dates to the monarchs (the {{reign}} template is handy)
  • Done. Except for Richard I who only gets a passing mention and is placed as "140 years before"; and Edward Balliol as in is disputed as to whether he was ever a "legitimate" king, and if it is accepted that he was then he reigned for three separate periods, which seems overcomplicated to try and get into the article. I could footnote the latter if you think it worthwhile.
  • reference is made to Balliol's "truncated Scotland", but can we have some information (a footnote would suffice) about what this was?
  • I have switched the order of the two sentences in question which I hope makes it clearer. It now reads: "On 19 June 1344 Balliol did homage to Edward for Scotland, after formally ceding to England the eight counties of south-east Scotland. Balliol ruled a truncated Scotland from Perth, from where he put down the remaining resistance."
  • Or at least a brief summary of the rest of the struggle between Balliol and David II.
  • Done.
  • Also, the caption of the map at the end appears to be inaccurate, as both the text and the map description imply that Balliol never ruled all of the "blue" territory shown.
  • Reworded.
  • could some information be added about Berwick's fortifications, e.g. a sketch, or a brief description that?
  • Description added.
  • Is the strength of the garrison known, even approximately so? If not, then perhaps it should be explicitly mentioned in the text.
  • No. Several sources give the Scottish garrison of 1319 as 500, then don't quantify the 1333 garrison. Given this I am loath to guess/OR, or even say much. I suspect that there is a reason why none of the sources mention the number, but I don't know what it is.

Otherwise I cannot find anything amiss, although as said, my knowledge of the subject is limited. Well done. Constantine 09:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you, appreciated. And thanks for the assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the rapid response. My questions having been addressed, I am happy to support. Constantine 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Lion-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Lion-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. I believe that the article meets the A-class criteria, although I'd like reviewers to look for infelicitous prose, unexplained or linked jargon and any examples of AmEnglish in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kges1901

I was unable to find any examples of American English, but I'm a Yank anyway.
Image review

  • HMS Lion.gif - I doubt this image is the uploader's own work considering that the profile drawing is suspiciously similar to this image scanned before 2016.
    • I think that you're right. This image needs to be moved back to the English Wiki and given a fair use rationale. @Nikkimaria: Can you help?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Is anything more known about the provenance of the earlier scan, perhaps at the credited archives? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I can't even find the original source, in either google images or a normal search.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I've been doing a bit of digging, and have found several similar images at the-blueprints.com, as well as this. So far nothing appropriately licensed right out of the box, so we probably will need to go with a local upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that I've tried doing this sort of thing for much the same reason years ago, but it proved troublesome from what I remember. Should the one on Commons be deleted first?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
              • Might be easier to upload locally with a different image name and deal with Commons deletion later. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── done and thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Not exactly part of the image review, but is it possible that you could add at least a couple more images that may be relevant? Currently there are large unbroken sections of text with no illustrations.
    • Since they were never finished, and had only a bare amount of steel laid down, I really doubt it as everything that I just did a search for is still in copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I added a couple of images that may be useful - feel free to do with them what you will. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • All sources are high quality reliable secondary sources.

Lead

  • Suggest avoiding the slash in battleship/aircraft carrier for clarity
  • Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Design and Description

  • You may want to rephrase increased weight of the main armament in the first paragraph since there are consecutive sentences with the same phrase, which appear exactly vertical from each other in a standard browser.
    • Good catch
  • Suggest rephrasing the footnote since it is essentially a quote without context, or integrating the seemingly significant opinion into the text.
  • Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "American insistence" - Perhaps use a synonym as it doesn't seem necessary to directly quote the source.
    • Reworked that bit entirely. See how it reads
  • Suggest linking the exact types of guns in the body (and lead) on first mention unless you have a reason not to, i.e. 5.25 in DP guns.
    • I'd prefer not to.
  • Their rate of fire was two rounds per minute. The ships carried 100 shells per gun. Sentences could be combined as they are too short by themselves. Same suggestion applies for the other similar gun descriptions in the paragraph.
    • Good idea, see if I've varied the phrasing enough to prevent a reader's eyes from crossing.
  • I think you've done the best possible given the limited variety of usable words.
  • all but the new Mk III 16-inch turret. This was finally cancelled by the First Sea Lord on 10 March 1949. Suggest combining the last sentence with the previous one, I presume it means the turret as well.
    • Good idea
  • not well liked - perhaps "not approved of" or "not greeted with approval"
  • Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Construction

  • Only the first four received names, correct?
  • Contracts for Conqueror and Thunderer were awarded on 15 August to John Brown and Fairfield. Suggest making this more clear to emphasize that both ships were not going to be built by both companies, perhaps "The contract for Conqueror was awarded to John Brown on 15 August, while that for Thunderer went to Fairfield on the same day"?
  • When in 1942 were they cancelled, if available in sources?
  • Is there information on what happened to the Temeraire's keel? Lead says both were scrapped after the war but it is not mentioned in the body. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Your questions have prompted me to rework the entire construction section as I hadn't fully updated it. See if my changes satisfy your comments and thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Excellent expansion, but the section still does not explicitly state that Temeraire was scrapped in 1942. Kges1901 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • After thoroughly revising the design in late 1942, the RN's Director of Contracts wrote to Vickers Armstrongs and Cammell Laird "requesting them to clear the slipways and reuse the material on other naval contracts where possible. That's as definitive as my sources get.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing my comments. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I'm not in a position to do any spot checks here, but the sources are all high quality RS. Based on my knowledge of the literature on British battleship designs, they are likely the best-possible sources on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I've offered it up for the sourcing workshop that's been proposed at FAC, so I expect it'll get thoroughly inspected source-wise there whenever that starts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That sounds good. Given the number of source reviews you've gone through in this topic area over the years, I have no concerns at all about not being able to spot check here. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This is a very interesting topic, and it's good so see such a I quality article on it. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The lead is a bit on the short side for the length of the article - a second para would be helpful
    • I split it and added a sentence as I don't really think that there's much more that can be added. Happy to take suggestions, though.
  • Which iteration of the design is shown in the image in the infobox?
  • The first para of the 'Design and description' section starts abruptly. Bringing forward the material on the London Treaty and then moving onto the discussion of how this design originated would help
    • See how it reads now.
      • I still think that this is too abrupt - the first sentence should explain how the events of the para link to the ships Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "They displaced" ... " The Lion-class ships had four sets of geared", etc: as none of these ships was completed and the design wasn't even finalised, the tense seems wrong. I'd suggest tweaking this to "they would have displaced", "wer planned to have for sets" etc. This is particularly the case for the material discussing the potential performance of the ships: as none were built, you can't really say how effective their engines or armament would have been.
    • I understand your point, but it reads very awkwardly to me. I'd much prefer it if I didn't have to use so many "would have been"s and "intended to be". Happy to take suggestions here as well
  • Was any use made of the 16-inch guns? (do any survive?)
  • Have any historians discussed how good the various Lion class designs were? As the KGVs were generally successful other than their weak armament, are they considered likely to have been a good iterative improvement? Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Nick, see if they satisfy your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Other than the above point, those changes look good. Sorry again for the very slow response here. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

Continuing with submarines. As with the class article which is currently over at FAC, and her sister ship which just passed an ACR, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote several years ago, brought it up to the standards of 2018 in terms of article quality, added every exhaustible source I own and could possibly have come across, and more than tripled the size of the article in the process. The process of getting this article up to speed with ACR standards was helped immeasurably by the recent ACR I worked on for her sister ship, U-1. You'll notice this article is very similar to that, as the two ships shared nearly their entire careers serving alongside one another.

As for the submarine herself, U-2 was very much like her sister ship, U-1. In fact, she was identical to her sister hip. As Austria-Hungary's second submarine, she was built by Simon Lake, an American naval architect, and had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels to "travel" along the seafloor. As an experimental design, U-2 had several flaws (the wheels proved to be entirely useless and the engines routinely poisoned the submarine), but she was commissioned into the navy nonetheless as part of a design competition with two other foreign firms.

U-2 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized alongside her sister ship during the First Balkan War, and she was assigned recon missions out of Trieste during World War I, but never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the conflict. She was declared obsolete in January 1918, and again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-2 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the submarine in Pola that same year. Her career was largely unremarkable, but she holds the distinction of being a member of the first ever class of submarines built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kges1901

Image review

  • Adequate fair use rationales and satisfactory licensing on all images.

Source review

  • All sources are of appropriate quality for the topic. No missing ISBNs or OCLCs.

Lead

  • The second paragraph contains three consecutive sentences that begin with "she", perhaps vary the structure of the sentences?
  • Repetitive uses of the same word in a short span of reading is one of my pet peeves. Fixed.

Background

  • Constructor General (German: Generalschiffbauingenieur) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy Siegfried Popper, omit unnecessary comma at end of sentence

Construction and Commissioning

  • navy yard (German: Seearsenal) at Pola This is partially related to the presence of the redlink for Pola Navy Yard in the lead, either create a referenced stub or unlink. (former is preferable).
  • Removed.
  • I will unlink the redlink. Creating an article for the Pola Navy Yard is on my to-do list, but I'm not comfortable creating a largely junk 2-3 sentence stub at the moment which won't serve readers well.
  • A general comment I have is that substantial portions of the article are copied nearly verbatim from SM U-1, suggest you carefully read over your text to make sure everything that you've written about U-2 actually applies to her.
  • This was done simply because the two ships had almost identical careers. If you read closely however, you'll see there are a few differences. U-2 had a new conning tower installed, and she was stationed out of Trieste for much of the war rather than alternating back and forth between Trieste and Pola. All-in-all however, the two ships probably spent a good 80-90% of their careers doing identical work alongside one another. The two ships were built as twins for experimental purposes and both had almost identical service careers...even to the point that they both were in drydock together at the start of the war to correct the exact same mechanical issue. As a result, I would assume it's only natural that their articles would be very (but not exactly) similar.
  • I was just making sure you did, because of the text I mentioned below. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Service history

  • While conducting one of these training cruises on 13 January 1914 near Fasana, she was rammed by the Austro-Hungarian cruiser Sankt Georg. The damage caused by this collision destroyed the submarine's periscope. Did Sankt Georg ram both U-1 and U-2 on the same day and shear off both boats' periscopes or is this only one of them? Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That was accidentally copied over from U-1. While I had thought that during my edits I had removed all the info which only had applied to U-1, I missed this. Removed.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Support as all of my comments have been addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetle

  • Both ships would prove to be a disappointment, however. Generally "however" is placed at the beginning of sentences and not the end.
  • Fixed
  • Done
  • This diving chamber ultimately proved its usefulness during the sea trials of U-2 and her sister ship when the crew of one submarine forgot to bring their lunches on-board before conducting an underwater endurance test. Is it known which submarine that was?
  • Unfortunately it's not known which one it was, likely because the two ships were identical in design and their only distinguishing features were the numbers painted on each submarine's conning tower. I've included the story in this article because there's a 50% chance it was U-2, and it also illustrates that there were some aspects of the vessel which were not so negatively received.
  • The citations from Dickson, O'Hara & Worth are all used appropriately.
  • Thank you!
  • I have some problems how Lake is cited in this text:
    • Our company had built the first two boats for the Austrian Government, U-1 and U-2...One day, when this submarine was running along with her periscope above the surface, which gave her commander no vision back of him, some officers approached in a speedy little launch and left their cards tied to the periscope without the knowledge of the commander of the submerged vessel. This demonstrated perfectly that it is essential, both in war and peace times, for the commander of the submarine to know what is going on in his vicinity on the surface. This is the quote in the article. The ellipses stands in place of this sentence: Another type of boat had been built later which had only a fixed periscope of the type described. As the quote in the article stands I think it misrepresents the source. Lake is obviously not talking about U-2 or even U-1. I think it would be better to just remove it.
  • I think there's definitely value in keeping the quote in the article, if anything because it's the only direct quote about the submarines from their designer I could find in all of my research on this article. Perhaps it's possible to word the coverage of this quote to make it clear he's referring to a submarine different from U-1 and U-2?
    • Lake himself praised both ships, particularly their periscopes. This is something of an assumption. Lake only says that the single-fixed periscope models of other subs was a disadvantage, and juxtaposes that with the solitary mention of the U-1 class (in the extract above), but it's not obvious praise.

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Rephrased this to say "Lake himself praised the periscopes of both submarines"

« Return to A-Class review list

Tegetthoff-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

Tegetthoff-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

Back at it with another class of battleships. This article was the first one I began working on after returning to Wikipedia from a 6-year hiatus. I've spent the entire summer writing this article and while I have no doubts there are still things that need fleshing out, I'm proud to finally nominate this article for an ACR.

Now, a bit about the ships themselves. These battleships are easily the most famous of all of Austria-Hungary's warships. They were the only dreadnought battleships to be constructed for the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Their construction made Austria-Hungary only the third nation in the world to possess dreadnoughts, and they were the first battleships to be commissioned into any navy in the world with triple turrets. They served as the pride and joy of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the years before World War I, and Viribus Unitis even transported Franz Ferdinand to the Bosnian coastline shortly before his assassination, only to carry the bodies of him and his wife back to Trieste after their deaths in Sarajevo. They were a key asset in the Austro-Hungarian "fleet in being" strategy for most of the war as well, and three of the ships participated in the bombardment of Ancona after Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915. They remained largely in port for the next three years until a failed mission to break the Otranto Barrage in June 1918 (just over 100 years ago) led to the sinking of the only Hungarian-built dreadnought of the class. Near the end of the war, Viribus Unitis was sunk by Italian frogmen while at port. After the war, the remaining two ships were divided between France and Italy. The French studied their battleship (particularly the turrets) before sinking her as a target ship in 1922, while the Italians used their ship as a war trophy before scrapping it in the 1920s. Artifacts from the Tegetthoff-class remain in Italy and Austria to this very day.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I made some copyedits as I went along, but I did not find any major issues, apart from those mentioned below.

  • what is a "transversal resistance"? is it transverse or traversal?
  • Clarified this in a way that makes it a bit more simple to understand for the reader. Good catch.
  • File:Viribus Unitis-class battleship main weapon.svg appears to be missing
  • Apparently the file was renamed or deleted. I've restored the correct image.
  • The first paragraph of the "Secrecy" section repeats facts already mentioned in the article; it could be removed without detriment, IMO, to the article
  • Done.
  • I think it would be useful for the average reader (myself included) if at least one sum in Kronen was rendered to an equivalent sum in current USD
  • If I recall, standard practice is to not include conversions to modern USD or any other currency. @Parsecboy: can likely elaborate more on this than I can but I recall this being brought up in another article I was working on not too long ago.
  • Hmmm, I can't say I agree, but this is not a deal-breaker for me.
  • Should the "Ships" section not be after the naming debate in the "Assembly" section?
  • Traditionally, the section which includes a table covering all the ships in a class is included just above any paragraph that covers construction. There is no formal MOS rule for this, but it's a very common occurrence if you browse many other ship class articles on Wikipedia. I'm more comfortable keeping that section where it currently is, but if a consensus exists to move it, I have no issue doing so.
  • Reference 152, Schmalenbach, pp. 121–122 appears to be missing
  • Added reference, year to citation
  • Part of the reason this occurred is because I went through multiple (like a dozen) drafts writing and re-writing this article. Entire sections were moved around, re-worked, deleted, and re-added over the course of 3 months. In the process, many links where placed further down than they needed to be, and new ones popped up without the old ones being removed. This will take some time to clear away, but it will certainly be done.
  • This should now be taken care of. If you spot something that was missed, please let me know!
  • One thing I wonder is whether the whole effort of building these ships was actually worth it, given that they were used as a fleet in being; I sort of get that they were not meant to be used that way (or was this considered pre-war?), but these ships are textbook white elephants. Have historians or military men issued opinions on this?
  • Constantine, you are 100% right that the ships were effectively white elephants. The Szent Istvan for example was in service for such a short amount of time that she never even had her hull cleaned. With the exception of the Bombardment of Ancona and the failed raid on the Otranto Barrage, the ships almost never left port for combat during the entire war. They served as an excellent deterrent and as a fleet in being for the whole war, but they weren't intended to play that sort of role. Italy's neutrality and eventual declaration of war on A-H ended up wrecking Austro-Hungarian naval plans for a European war. These ships should have been used for combat operations in the Mediterranean Sea against France and Britain, but they were also intended to operate in conjunction with the Italians, not against them. Italy's hostility to A-H prevented them from ever doing much of anything save sitting in port for most of the war. In that regard, they were most certainly a waste of time and money to build, but I haven't found any sources that describe them as white elephants so I'd like to refrain from speculation in that regard, however likely it is that they would qualify as white elephants.
  • I did not mean whether they were explicitly described as "white elephants", but whether in the primary or secondary literature the fact was pointed out, if not in the exact same words. I get the story you just described from the article overall, but as my thesis supervisor never got tired of saying, always summarize your findings :). I would be interested to know if this has been remarked upon, if it became a point of criticism or polemics during or after the war, whether naval historians consider these ships a success, not as a technical design, but as a weapon of war, etc. If there is nothing, no problem, but a brief summary on the relative success or failure of the whole design as a strategic concept would be, IMO, valuable. Your reply above could even serve in this role, if you include it in the lede.

Otherwise I found the article fairly complete and easy to follow, and very interesting. I will be happy to support once the above issues are addressed. Constantine 20:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I haven't found much that I could add in that regard. Much of what I wrote here is already hashed out quite extensively in the article however. If I find anything that makes the connection to white elephants, even if that particular phrase isn't used, I'll be sure to try and add it in.
  • Thank you for the comments. I will be sure to get back to you on each of these points as soon as possible.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Constantine, please feel free to reply if you have any other questions or comments!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rudolf_Montecuccoli.png: when/where was this first published?
  • The Austrian National Library only depicts the date the photo was taken, not the date it was published. As a result, I don't have an answer to that though I could speculate that it was published the same year it was taken.
  • This has a pre-1923 tag - can we confirm a pre-1923 publication?
  • As I said, I can only confirm when the photo was taken. I can't confirm when it was published.
  • Is there another available tag consistent with what can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ll be honest, things may be lost in translation and the photo may have been published in 1901. I have s hard time believing the photo would NOT be published shortly after it was taken.
  • File:Arbeiter-Zeitung.png should also include a pre-1923 tag
  • Done
  • File:Viribus_Unitis_class_battleship_main_weapon.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this image?
  • I was an own-work from Sas1975kr (talk · contribs) so I don't know...and unfortunately the user hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2016 and Commons since December 2017. If you look at photos of the ships, this diagram seems to be spot-on accurate (even to the shape of the conning tower, depicted in grey in the diagram). However, if there's questions about the accuracy of the diagram I can remove it.
  • File:Tegetthoff_turbines.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it will also need a tag for UK status
  • Done
  • The_construction_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan.webm: source link? Any further details on provenance? Same with Artillery_exercises_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan_1915_(720p).webm
  • Sieche's 1991 article goes on to say that the Hungarian government commissioned these films to serve as propaganda for the Hungarian public that their tax dollars were being used wisely to construct a powerful battleship (that was Hungarian in origin). I don't know how to specify a source link however.
  • The former gives source as "youtube" so presumably there is a YouTube link somewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Here, and here. Do you want me to edit the files to provide these links?
  • Will do. That will be added in today.
  • Done
  • File:Ramberg_-_Bombarding_of_Ancona,_1915,_HGM,_2017-03-08.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Kalākaua

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Kalākaua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is almost there. Just need a few reviews to get it there. This is within scope because although Kalākaua never fought in a war to say. He was trained and part of the volunteer military companies of the Hawaiian monarchy from an early age. He was loosely involved in the Household guard mutiny of 1873. And especially his reign was characterized by an effort to expand the military system of Hawaii and territorial influence of Hawaii through the appropriation of military funds and governmental support. This is in line with another one of my past A-Class articles Curtis P. Iaukea who also never fought in a war. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment KAVEBEAR, could you kindly explain how this article qualifies for a MILHIST review or is in project scope, because he seems more of a political leader than a military leader. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, certainly. I will edit above. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I consider that an acceptable explanation. Kges1901 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Kingdavidkalakaua_dust.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Not sure. I’m sure at least by 1891.
  • File:Kalakaua_R_1875_signature.svg should use PD-signature
  • Done.
  • File:Kalakaua,_ca._1850.jpg has a tag saying it was never published before 2003, and yet has a source published before 2003
  • Removed image for now.
  • File:Kalakaua_journey_around_the_world.svg: what is the source of the data presented?
Nikkimaria, Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop September 2017 — Maile (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hawai_1883_dime_129426.jpg needs a tag for the original coin
Nikkimaria, Wehwalt Perhaps one of you could advise what kind of tag would be appropriate here? Looking at Commons:Category:Currency license tags, there is nothing that covers the original being issued by a kingdom that no longer exists. Hawaii was its own independent nation at that time, and it doesn't seem accurate to say, "This image depicts a unit of currency issued by the United States of America." — Maile (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but as it was designed by a US federal government employee, Charles E. Barber and coined by the SF Mint, a PD-US or US Treasury would probably do the trick.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your advice. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Kalakaua_dust_%26_scratches.jpg: why the NPCO tag? The Bain tag is sufficient.
  • Removed NPCO tag.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Kediri campaign (1678)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk)

Kediri campaign (1678) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it pass all of milhist A-class criteria. I started the article from scratch, made sure it covers every major fact and that it's all referenced to a reliable source. It passed GA too. HaEr48 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review - Sources used in the article appear to be reliable. Also conducted spot checks on sources available through Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Link Bugis, all of the geographic place names, including rivers, marines,
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Explain how Speelman became director-general so quickly after van Goens was appointed.
  • That's not what the article said. There were two posts, governor-general (the top post) and director-general. Initially Maetsuycker was g-g and van Goens was d-g. Then on January 1978 Maetsuycker died, and van Goens became g-g. This freed up the d-g post, and Speelman became d-g. Do you have suggestion how to clarify it in the article
  • I just failed to read the paragraph closely enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • However, desertion and reduced this army again
  • Removed 'and'. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Desertion and disease caused the forces to dwindle.[1] At the time of the assault on Kediri, the VOC had 1,750 men, of which 659 were Europeans. Combine these sentences for better flow
  • Put Schrieke in title case in the Bibliography
  • No DABs, no overlinking.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Sturmvogel 66. See my responses above. Let me know if I can do more. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild

  • "14,500 (according to rebel)" Should read '(according to the rebels)'.
  • "the Mataram–VOC army purposefully split itself and the columns took different, indirect routes to". Is it recorded how many columns there were?
  • To my eye the Background lacks background. Having read the first paragraph of it I have no idea where the action is taking place geographically (somewhere in Asia?), what the VOC is doing there (trading, slave trading, settling, colonising?) nor how long it has been doing it (did they first arrive in 1677?).
  • Who is "Trunajaya"? He is mentioned in the first sentence with no introduction. (A local king?)
  • "to establish a new capital in Kediri"; "The capital was sacked". Is this the same capital?
  • What and/or where is Mataram?
  • "signed a treaty renewing their alliance." Is there a reason why the alliance being renewed is not mentioned? Had it been broken, or expired? In either case when? In any case how long had the previous alliance ran for?
  • "This covered all previous VOC campaigns on Mataram's behalf up to October". ? Do you mean 'This covered the costs of all...'?
  • "and awarded monopolies on textiles, opium, and sugar to the company." On growing, manufacturing, trading or exporting them? Or some combination?
  • "the entire treasury was taken by the rebels". I am guessing from context that "the rebels" are the same as "Trunajaya's forces". In either case, the use of "rebels" suggests that a rebellion is taking place. Could you supply some information on it?

Thanks. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

This article is about a Soviet offensive in 1944 on the Eastern Front and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PM

I'll work on this over a few days, but will make a start now.

Lead
  • "the area of manganese ore mines of crucial importance to Hitler" could do with a bit of generalisation, in terms perhaps of the German war effort, with Hitler taking a particular interest in its protection?
  • Rephrased.
  • worth pointing out that the German bridgehead was part of a salient centred on Apostolovo, and link Salient (military)
  • Done
  • worth mentioning that the 3rd UF was on the north of the salient and the 4th UF on the south of it
  • Done.
  • should mention that the German IV Corps was located in the cut-off section of the salient near Nikopol
  • Done.
  • in general, the lead needs to better explain what German formations were across the Dnieper in the bridgehead
  • point out that Krivoi Rog was in the north of the salient
  • Rephrased to northwest for accuracy.
  • perhaps summarise that this offensive resulted in the pinching off of a significant part of the salient and mention losses on both sides in terms of casualties in men and tanks
  • Hard to put in casualties as the Soviets don't have reliable and complete casualty figures, while the German casualty figures are likely incomplete though Soviet reports of German casualties are demonstrably exaggerated.
  • what was the "subsequent offensive"?
  • One that there is no actual article on, the Bereznegovatoye–Snigeryovka offensive. Rephrased.
  • I might have more for this section once I've gone through the article

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved
Background
  • In general, linking of ranks is needed, Generaloberst for Hollidt etc
  • Done
  • link bridgehead
  • Done
  • add something here about the salient, which parts each Front had, and link salient
  • As I understand it, the salient is the same thing as the bridgehead - the Soviets did not have a substantial salient into the German line at this time. Added the front attack sectors (general information).
  • The German position was a salient into the Soviet line, the furthest extent of which was a bridgehead across the Dnieper. A salient and a bridgehead are two distinct things, and in this case the latter is part of the former. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I realized that after I wrote my last comment on it and rephrased accordingly. Feel free to read over it and correct my phrasing if needed. Kges1901 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "since being captured by the Germans in 1941, these deposits had been used by Germany..."
  • Rephrased. Could you kindly read over it to see if it makes sense?
  • Hitler should be Adolf Hitler at first mention, Hitler thereafter
  • Done
  • the Hitler quote, should that read "the end of the war"?
  • Done
  • rank for Manstein
  • Done
  • link a few terms, Trench warfare, Land mine
  • Done
  • the use of Lieutenant general for Generalleutnant isn't right, they weren't equivalent ranks in WWII. Some editors use the German ranks for this reason (Generalmajor was also not equivalent to Major general).
  • Fixed. And not only that, but Russian General-leytenant is also not equivalent to American LTG either as it is a two star rank. Should I create a stub on the Russian/Soviet LTG rank? Kges1901 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What I do is use the native rank with notes providing U.S. Army rank equivalents. Take a look at 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for an example. I'm not saying you have to adopt this approach, but anglicising rank equivalents jars with me, especially when what appears to be the case on face value actually turns out not to be the equivalent. I wasn't aware of the Soviet General-leytenant issue, but I think it just underlines the importance of a consistent and clear approach to non-Anglo ranks. You could create a stub, but also have a look at Comparative officer ranks of World War II to check whether it is correct. I use Niehorster (an accepted reliable source at FA) to cite equivalents, the Soviet page is here which notes that in the cases of General-major and the former Kombrig they are more indicative of hierarchy than firm equivalents. I'm sure you could fashion a note to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Added notes following the format for the Yugoslavs. Kges1901 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • the sequence is out here, it should start with the transfer of command on 1 Jan, then what Manstein tried to do on 4 Jan, it currently doesn't make sense as to why Manstein was going to Hitler about Nikopol before he took command of 6th Army
  • Done
  • for Bolshaya Lepetikha link Velyka Lepetykha? They appear to be roughly in the same area
  • Corrected, they are the same place. Good catch.
  • link Apostolovo
  • Done
  • suggest "which meant that if Soviet troops could capture Apostolovo they would have effectively cut off the German forces in the bridgehead"

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Done
Resolved
Prelude
  • In general, this section needs more information on the German side. When Red Army dispositions are detailed, they should be accompanied by German dispositions, in terms of what corps were located opposite each Front
  • Done.
  • when were the 3rd UF and elements of the 4th UF tasked?
  • Done
  • suggest explaining what Stavka was
  • Explained and rephrased.
  • Vasilevsky's conclusion doesn't make sense. If the 3rd and 4th UF were already tasked with destroying German forces in the area, how was his 29 December 1943 conclusion any different?
  • My understanding is that Vasilevsky was accelerating the schedule for the attacks.
  • suggest reconsidering→reconsideration
  • Done
  • again, no German information regarding the prelim attacks in terms of the opposition or losses
  • Added opposition and losses (see below).
@Peacemaker67: Done. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A very Soviet-centric perspective is being created here. Perhaps stubborn German resistance was also a factor in the lack of success by Soviet attacks, along with lack of ammo and tanks?
  • Added details. Ziemke lines up surprisingly well with the combat journals of the Soviet fronts, which admit that the Germans put up strong resistance. Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • what were the German casualties in the prelim attacks?
  • Added. Note that the 10 day reports include delayed reporting, so not all casualties may be in the period that the reports were made in.
  • On what same day did Vasilevsky submit a new plan? 20 Jan?
  • 17 Jan, rephrased.
  • suggest "Vasilevsky submitted a new plan to Stavka for an attack to begin on 30 January."
  • Done
  • suggest consistency between Supreme High Command and Stavka
  • Done. Stavka would be common name.

I'm in the middle of this, but break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • were there any German formation or unit transfers, equipment replacements etc to note during the Prelude?
  • Added from Ziemke, moved 24th Panzer info up.
  • put the planned diversionary attacks ahead of the main attacks, as they were to precede the latter
  • Done
  • against which German corps were the attacks to be launched, and who commanded them?
  • Done, except commander of the LVII Panzerkorps is unknown as its regular commander, Friedrich Kirchner was on leave at the time.
  • I strongly suspect it was Generalleutnant Hans-Karl Freiherr von Esebeck, but a quick look failed to find a RS for that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at that too, and found that Esebeck was actually with LVIII Panzerkorps in France at the time, no evidence exists that he was sent to the Eastern Front at the time. If Kirchner was on leave I suspect that the chief of staff may have commanded it, but no RS. Perhaps Hinze can illuminate that when my interlibrary loan arrives in a couple of weeks. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Given we have two 6th Army's, you need to preface each one with Soviet or German, otherwise it has potential to get confusing
  • Done in cases where I did not believe it was obvious.
  • Has this section of comments been resolved to your satisfaction @Peacemaker67:? Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
Comparison of forces
  • Manstein and AG South are overlinked
  • Done
  • A breakdown of the German 6th Army by corps and then by divisions is needed, otherwise we have no idea who is up against whom. An order of battle table would probably be best.
  • If you like I can also add a detailed Soviet order of battle as well, and have them next to each other. Thanks to Tessin there is an equal amount of information available for both sides on the same day - 1 February. Kges1901 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding ranks and linking corps commanders in the ORBAT table, also Brandenberger is incorrectly spelled. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. Good catch. Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • where you talk about 24th Panzer Division, suggest "significantly reducing the armoured forces available to the Germans"
  • Done
  • is there a breakdown between the 3rd and 4th UFs in terms of men, guns, vehicles etc?

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Peacemaker67: - I found a breakdown of the 4th UF in its combat journal, but the figure is not comparable because the 705k figure likely includes rear units, while the combat journal breakdown is only artillery and other combat units. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
Offensive
  • in general, this section needs more context throughout, such as in which geographical sector each attack was being made and in what direction, and against which German formation. It is rather hard to follow.
  • the 24th Panzer Division reappears, but hadn't it been sent elsewhere?
  • Typo in Russian source, should have been 23rd Panzer Division. Location matches up with the counterattack map in the divisional history of the 23rd Panzer Division. Kges1901 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • rank for Kleist
  • Done
  • local resistants? were these partisans?
  • which formations of the 6th Army were in which area?
  • what were the casualties suffered by 3rd UF 30 Jan to 5 Feb?
  • it isn't clear if Soviet formations were leapfrogging each other, or attacking in parallel, and on what flank. It would be valuable to state things like "On the right flank of the XXth Army, the XV Army attacked the German XC Corps" etc
  • Did the Soviets not attack between 2 and 8 Feb in the 4th UF sector, or were attacks continuing?
  • the 24th Panzer is mentioned again, but now we learn it has been called back. Its movements should be clarified
  • Resolved by above.
  • IV Army Corps is overlinked
  • Done
  • Reserve of the Supreme High Command is overlinked
  • Done
  • which German corps was holding Krivoi Rog?
  • Done
Aftermath
  • the Soviet estimate of the German casualties is so obviously inflated as to be useless, and I would dispense with it. Suggest using Soviet figures for their own casualties and German ones for theirs. Same goes for aircraft shot down, which seems excessive, but with no German information to compare it to, it is hard to know.
  • the lack of Soviet casualty figures is a significant gap in coverage. From what I can see, there are only Soviet figures for 1-10 Feb for 4th UF. It is hard to properly assess the full outcomes of the offensive without this sort of information. Is there an equivalent of Tarasov for 3rd UF?
  • This results from the Soviets not (publicly) revealing their casualties. The Russian official history does state that about 20,000 irretrievable losses occurred during the offensive, but that figure is cited to a work that doesn't support the number, that provides figures for the entire Dnieper–Carpathian strategic offensive. So I don't want to include it given that it looks like guesswork. As for the combat journals of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, unlike the 4th Ukrainian Front, they do not have totals for 10 day periods – each daily entry in the front combat journal gives only enemy losses, never their own losses (for the ground units). However, the daily aircraft losses of the 17th Air Army are given, but no totals, so even though I could theoretically make an estimate of the air losses by adding up the daily reports, I would prefer not to perform OR there. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
General
  • Glantz points out that the Korsun fighting drew reserves from this sector, this should be made clearer, and what reserves were withdrawn should be identified if possible. Was it only the 24th Panzer? Or other forces as well? What about the role of deception?
  • I'm wondering if Crucible of Combat: Germany's Defensive Battles in the Ukraine, 1943-44 by Rolf Hinze should be used here, as I am sure it would have useful details regarding the German side, which are currently a bit thin. I've requested a review of it from WP:RX just to check on its reliability.
  • The review makes the point that the book is written almost solely from the German point-of-view and lacks footnotes, but it apparently contains a good level of detail on the German side, which would greatly enhance this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to request a review, PM. I will look into it, as Glantz wrote in When Titans Clashed that it is the "most thorough" German perspective work, though apparently not the "most unbiased". Kges1901 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Hinze was a German soldier in WWII, so some bias is to be expected. Send me an email and I'll send you the review if you want to have a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Well done so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Soviet_truck_with_soldiers_in_Nikopol_1944.jpg: which of the rationales in the Russian tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed, not PD, replaced with a file from mil.ru. Kges1901 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Preussen (1903)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Preussen (1903) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

Another German battleship article - we're getting to where we can see the light at the end of the tunnel! This ship served with the High Seas Fleet during World War I, but saw limited action. She was serving as the guard ship for the Danish straits during the Battle of Jutland, so she missed the largest naval battle of the war. She was one of the few battleships that Germany retained after the war, but she was converted into a tender for minesweepers, and never served again as a warship. A section of her hull was retained for weapons testing, and it was eventually sunk by Allied bombers in 1945! Thanks for all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

  • link ship commissioning at first mention (first section re Dreadnought)
    • Done
  • the beam conversion isn't consistent between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • are naval boilers also Scotch boilers, as the boilers in the infobox are listed as Scotch, but some were naval? Perhaps I'm confusing myself...
    • I would assume so, but Groener doesn't elaborate, unfortunately.
  • the horsepower measurements don't match between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • the cruising speed conversions in the infobox don't match the body
    • Fixed
  • the conversions on the 8.8 cm guns don't match between the infobox and the body
    • Fixed
  • do we know where the TTs were located?
    • Not specifically, but the article does say they were in the hull below the waterline - I'd assume one in the bow, one in the stern, and two on each side.
  • link ceremonial ship launching
    • Done
  • move link to Helgoland up to first mention
    • Done
  • link Kiel
    • Done
  • link IX Corps (German Empire)
    • Done
  • maybe add "in the Canary Islands" to Las Palmas?
    • Works for me
  • Friedrich von Ingenohl is misspelled and therefore double linked (the redlink and the blue one) and the second mention can just be Ingenohl
    • Fixed
  • link dry dock
  • drop the von from von Ingenohl when mentioning him again
    • Done
  • suggest linking guard ship in the body
    • Done

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All sources are of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

All images are PD and appropriately licensed. Kges1901 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • I cleaned up the infobox a little, but you need to link ihp, nmi and knots there.
    • Thanks, and done.
  • I also cleaned up the cylindrical/Scotch marine boiler business
    • Thanks
  • What's a fleet advance? Perhaps a sortie?
    • Yes - I picked that up from Staff, who I think was probably using a too-literal translation of "vorstoss"
  • encountered and briefly clashed The first two words are redundant
    • Good point
  • link capital ship, torpedo boat, flotilla
    • Did the first one, torpedo boat is already linked, and I don't know about linking a word in a proper name
  • Watch your rounding on torpedo tubes
    • Fixed
  • Spell out and link VAdm
    • It is - in the Design section
  • Danish king Christian IX Capitalize king--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

South Australian Mounted Rifles

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

South Australian Mounted Rifles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

This article marks a return to ANZSP for the first time since the NZ Div Cav article after I found that coverage of the Second Boer War was surprisingly incomplete. It is about the first and second contingents from South Australia in the Second Boer War, and passed a GA several weeks ago. Kges1901 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support by Chetsford

This is a very nice article in pristine condition. For a regiment the length seems short, however, it existed for less than two years so probably represents as whole of a treatment as possible. I had one minor comment:

  • Per MOS:SPELL09 I believe numbered 6 officers and 121 men should be "numbered six officers and 121 men" (in the body, I wouldn't think this would apply to the infobox due to space considerations).

Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually not. Consistency is more important than the spelling out rule.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Checking this version of the article:

  • Ref 1 (Bou): Checks out
  • Ref 14 (Plowman): Checks out
  • The link to Murray, P.L. doesn't work
  • The Google Books link to Stirling doesn't seem useful as it doesn't show a preview of the book's text
  • All the sources meet WP:RS. Allara Publishing appears to have been a very minor press [2], but I'm sure that I've seen this work used as a reference in professionally published works. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Having one sentence under the history section is very jarring. Is there anything to be added regarding its prewar service; commander, base, units for the four year period between 1895 and 1899? Also I'm not sure if the infobox should use the word "initial" in case readers interpret it as being that size prior to 1899.
  • The problem with this is that the SAMR that is referring to is a militia unit that had no organizational link to the unit that fought in South Africa. The militia SAMR continued to exist until 1903, distinct from the unit that fought in South Africa. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the 1st contingent was raised as an infantry unit rather than mounted, it may pay to stress in history section that the SAMR was mounted.
  • Do you recommend a specific place to mention it?
  • Add the abbreviation for "The 1st South Australian Mounted Rifles" after first mention.
  • Done.
  • "a mainly SAMR mixed volunteer group": "a mainly 1st SAMR mixed volunteer group".
  • Done.
  • "The 2nd SAMR was raised as a mounted infantry squadron along the same lines as the 1st contingent." recite the 2nd in full. Also, I don't quite understand what is meant by "same lines"; the 1st was a company of infantry, the 2nd was a mounted infantry squadron so they are different?
  • Clarified. The similarity is in terms of the personnel they were drawn from.
  • Looks like a missing word here "J Battery Royal Horse Artillery Major Euthoven", maybe commanded by?
  • Rephrased.
  • "At Bloemfontein, the South Australian Mounted Rifles" suggest clarifying that the two contingents were now unified; i.e. "At Bloemfontein, the unified SAMR..."
  • Done.
  • In the casualties section, shouldn't the POW (the 2nd para of the 2nd contingent section) be mentioned? Also, should the ranks of the DSO recipients be mentioned and is "Humphris" spelt correctly? I'm wondering if it should be Humphries.

That's my review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Done. Humphris is the spelling used in the newspapers as well. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC) - @Zawed: Do you have any further feedback on my responses to your comments? Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:AWM_P00220_South_Australian_Mounted_Rifles_1900.jpg: per the template in use, this needs details on first publication
  • Added date.
  • For the SLSA images tagged CC0, is the library asserting that it has the right to release these photos? Or is this just used to indicate that the images are PD for another reason?
  • Those are identified as CC-Public Domain-Mark 1.0. What is the appropriate template for that?
  • If that is the correct licensing, then the current template is appropriate - what I'm wondering is whether that is in fact the correct licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That is, in fact, what the library seems to be asserting, that there is no copyright. The website links to a page on their copyright policies. Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:AWM_P03797.002_2nd_SAMR_Trooper_George_Lawrence_Hardy_grave.jpg: where does that CC tag come from? It doesn't match what's at the source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • AWM says it is PD under CC-Public Domain-Mark 1.0. What is the appropriate template for that? Kges1901 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Please emphasize that there was no connection between this unit of volunteers and the militia unit and keep the material on militia unit to a minimum
  • Attempted, see if it is clear enough now.
  • Link ranks,
  • Done
  • along with the other companies of the regiment. What other companies? I thought that it only had the two?
  • Done
  • Give Breaker Morant's first name.
  • Done
  • from the same group of personnel as the 1st contingent. Do you mean the same types of men?
  • Done
  • 500 Imperial Mounted Infantry is this a unit or just a non-formed group of soldiers?
  • Used unit name instead.
  • Lieutenants George Lynch and Rowell were handed the keys to the fort, over which the Union Jack was raised; they captured 85 prisoners that day. Was there fighting on this day? I'd think it would be hard to capture prisoners who had already surrendered
  • Rephrased
  • After Belmont, the SAMR Do you meant Belfast?
  • Done
  • Confusing usage of it and they when referring to the regiment--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tried to rephrase that paragraph, see if it is clearer now.

« Return to A-Class review list

Aegidius

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Aegidius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed as a Good Article and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class, and it is a part of my work on the Gallic Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

  • This article is in good shape. I know little about this period, and although this article is brief, it appears to have coverage of all aspects of his life, but needs a few tweaks here and there.
  • you might like to note in the lead that the Kingdom of Soissons was short-lived
  •  Done
  • the lead generally needs to be fleshed out with the main points of the body
  •  Done
  • Gaul is overlinked in the lead
  •  Done
  • the use of unexplained Latin terms isn't helpful for the reader, suggest a translation or explanation after, similar to what you've done with magister militum per Gallias. eg magister militum and Comes (although this is defined later on as "count")
  •  Done
  • The History section needs a bit more detail, like that Gaul was part of the Western Roman Empire etc
  •  Done
  • was Aetius magister militum of the whole Western Roman Empire, or just Gaul?
  •  Done
  • "Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum, alongside the future emperor Majorian" is unclear. Does this mean that Aegidius served alongside Majorian, or alongside Aetius? Reword.
  •  Done
  • "Majorian secured the throne" what throne? Western Roman Empire?
  •  Done
  • a bit more on the Battle of Arelate is needed. Who were they fighting, the Visigoths? How much of the force did Aegidius command? How did he contribute to Theodoric II's defeat? What were the outcomes of Theodoric II's defeat?
  •  Done Couldn't find a source for number of troops. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "After Ricimer assassinated Emperor Majorian 461 and replaced him with Libius Severus, Aegidius refused to recognize the new emperor."
  •  Done
  • Senior Emperor isn't explained. Would it be better to say something like "Libius Severus was also not recognized by the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Leo I, who was considered to be senior to the emperor of the Western Roman Empire"?
  •  Done
  • Gallic Legions or Gallic legions?
  •  Done
  • link Vandals
  •  Done
  • "then elected Aegidius to electrule them"?
  •  Done
  • "theory of Soissons" Soissons is undefined here, and needs to be introduced/explained
  •  Done
  • "Lyons"
  •  Done
  • did Aegidius personally kill Frederic, or was he just killed during the battle? It currently reads like the former.
  •  Done
  • Theodoric II has already been introduced, so just Theodoric will do at this point, also overlink
  •  Done
  • are any details of the Battle of Orleans known?
    None in particular unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Burgundian King Gundioc"
  •  Done
  • all isbn's should have hyphens
  •  Done
  • who publishes Byzantion? Location?
  •  Done
  • Frankish is an overlink
  •  Done
  • in the succession box, it says Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but the article says others were appointed after Aegidius seceded?
    Here it is a matter of legitimacy. According to Soissons, Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but according to Rome it was one of the two listed in article. Not quite sure how to mention that in the box; but if you have suggestions I'd be more than willing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

Lead:

  • "Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.
  • Could you state Syagrius' relationship to Aegidius.

History:

  • "Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum (Master of Soldiers)". I don't see why "Master of Soldiers" is capitalised.
  • "Aegidius was granted the title of magister militum per Gallias (Master of the Soldiers for Gaul)". Ditto, and in other places.
  • ""the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat". 's
  • "Aegidius is credited with being the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat; as a result of the defeat Theodoric II was forced to return Visigoth territory in Hispania to the Western Roman Empire, and submit again to the Western Roman Empire as foederatus." A. A rather long and complicated sentence. B. "Western Roman Empire" twice in 11 words; could it be rephrased to avoid this. C. What is a "foederatus"? I know that it is Wikilinked, but a bracketed translation would improve readability. (Personally I would use an English phrase and Wikilink to foederatus, but that's just because I prefer the English Wikipedia to be written in English.)
  • "who was considered the Senior Emperor". I don't think that "Senior" should be capitalised. The MoS would (strongly) suggest that neither should "Emperor".
  • "Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.
  • "Some historians have said that this was due to pressure from the Visigoths, whereas others assert that he was unable or unwilling to march to Italy, leaving Gaul exposed". I cannot find this debate in the single source given. Do you list the correct page numbers? MacGeorge offers different reasons on pages 93-94 without referencing other historians, except, arguably, Pricus. Perhaps change to 'Modern historian Penny MacGeorge has suggested that...'?
  • "According to some primary sources..." Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.
  • "his death led to an invasion by the Visigoths, which historians have tentatively located as having occurred in the Auvergne area". I can't find this in the source given. Page 125 does refer to the Visigoth conquest of Auvergne in 475, 10 years after Aegidius' death.

References:

  • Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.
  • Nice to see recent sources and scholarship used.
  • Leans heavily on MacGeorge, but she is certainly a RS and gives the most detailed and comprehensive modern account that I am aware of, which admittedly isn't very far. (Other sources I have to hand, including one more recent (Mitchell), do not contradict in any way anything the article sources to MacGeorge.)
  • For the ISBN given for Mac George I get a publication date of 2002, not 2003.

Declaration of interest. I added the three references to Mitchell back in March.

Political offices (in the box at the bottom):

  • I though that it was accepted that Agrippinus preceded Aegidius as magister militum per Gallias?

Looks a good, well written, exhaustive and balanced account of what we know about Aegidius to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

CommentsReviewing by Eddie891

*Syagrius is linked twice in the body, in an article this size it really doesn't need to be. That's about it. I'll look a bit closer in a few minutes/later today, but seems to be pretty good. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review: The map used in the article is good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review The used sources seem of high quality and reliable, but A Companion to Late Antiquity, Philip Rousseau (ed.), seems to have useful material on his likely status, saying that he might have been more of a regent. Also Studies in the history, literature and society of Late Antiquity by Hakkert seems to have quite a few mentions of him and should probably be examined before a FAC nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

I'm finally starting to get back into the swing of things after taking several years off Wikipedia. My first solo project after returning is this article, the only class of Austro-Hungarian battleships designed to operate on the high seas, which were unfortunately never built because of World War I. My personal library has grown over the years and this allowed me to finally flesh out this article to the fullest. Thanks to everyone who reviews this article as I work to take it to FAC!--White Shadows New and improved! 02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - some of the entries in your Citations are not in your References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! That has been fixed.--White Shadows New and improved!

Abstain, soft decline (not willing to re-review, see below). Review limited to A1 (quality, reliability, occasionally ) / A2 (scholarly historiography)

  • It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Was trying to note I may be overly hash on sourcing. The Abstain is not meant to halt the progress of this article to a-class. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A2 not actionable: was there any interesting historiographical issues raised in the sources you read of WEIGHT to justify a discussion or section on this? Given Gebhard and Sondhaus (including not yet cited) there may infact be a historiographical review element in the published sources of WEIGHT to include?
This is a request that if you read anything of historiographical interest, to include it. Trying to note that it is a potential expansion Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Political-economic / Economic history: "Different figures have been offered…" in which year? It matters. You may be surprised by the amount of Original Research around people computing prior year to current year values in different forms of worth. (I explictly suggest you DO NOT compute such, my belief is it comprises original research as repeatedly stated at FAC years ago now).
  • "Fitzsimons, Bernard (1978). The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 18. Columbia House." volume isn't part of the title. Etc., for similar. TERTIARY check clean.
    Fitzsimons opcit, both in bibliography and foots, spell out the author of the article used and the article title! Both in 8 and 18. The actual work cited is Author "article" (date) in Fitzsimons…. If it is unsigned doubly consider if it meets TERTIARY expertise. Note: consider
  • Potential un-/under-used source Gebhard, Louis [<1968] "The Development of the Austro-Hungarian Navy 1897–1914: A Study in the Operation of Dualism (1965)." PhD thesis
  • "Gill C.C[sic]" If we can't get his initials right, how do we know he's cited?
  • Good variety in citations based off citation through article (indicative against bad research of scope)
I may have obscured this. This is meant as great praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "With the outbreak of World War I a " missing subclause comma
  • "when the war expected to be over." missing verb "was"
  • Review halted, restricted to sources.
  • Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "This disparity illustrated that while the Austro-Hungarian Navy was approaching its goals on paper, a modernization of the fleet's battleships were necessary." 'Modernisation of the fleet's battleships' is singular, not plural. While the quality reviewed so far is high in sourcing, the language quality does not appear to me to be adequate to EFL standards in any of the primary English sub-types Fifelfoo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I will be apologising in depth when able to. Also the article's getting a free detailed language copy edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to admit I follow very little of what you are saying here.
  • "It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history" What?
  • "while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria" Similarly confused here.
  • Not following what you're referring to regarding "A2". If you're referring to a lack of original sources in the article, I have to point out that there are several primary sources that are used in the article. That said however, I wasn't aware lacking original sources was a factor necessary for an ACR.
  • Volume 8 and Volume 18 issues have been fixed. Good catch.
  • There is admittedly not a lot of resources that exist on the subject because we're talking about a series of battleships that never got off the drawing board. STT hadn't even laid down the keel of a single ship before Franz Ferdinand's assassination, and the ensuing July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia resulted in the battleships never being built.
  • The missing period in "C.C" was just a simple typo which has been fixed. I think that's a huge stretch, the conclusion you are drawing from that. If you're not confident he's being properly cited, the link to the work itself is on google books, and the entire file can be downloaded directly to one's laptop as it is now in the public domain.
  • "Good variety in citations based off citation through article"" What?
  • Fixed the comma and missing verb issue.
  • "Review halted, restricted to sources" What?
  • "Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues." Not sure what this is supposed to mean. If you're implying English isn't my primary language, I have to say that it most definitely is. I've got to say, some of the stuff you just wrote near the end there is borderline insulting...a handful of typos which are in some cases extremely minor and in other cases the sort which would be quite easy to make for almost anyone on this site are not indicative of the sort of conclusions you are drawing here. The use of the word "modernization" in a singular rather than plural context suddenly makes the entire article sub-par by ACR standards?
  • The fact that you aren't even willing to re-review is even more insulting. You may as well have left no comments altogether. An ACR isn't the place to belittle other editors and then state immediately that you aren't interested in any revision to issues that you brought up. That's not how this works.

--White Shadows New and improved!

  • It's very late here but I'm starting to think there was some communication breakdown between us, which let me to interpreting your comments extremely negatively. I apologize for that and appreciate the help you have offered regarding copy-editing.--White Shadows New and improved!

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "The Monarch class coastal defense ship Wien": should have a hyphen, e,g "Monarch-class"
  • same as above for "The Tegetthoff class battleship Viribus Unitis"
  • the table in the Ships section needs citations
  • Tegetthoff-class battleship is overlinked in the Construction and cancellation section
  • in the References, the two Fitzimons works should use title case capitalisation
  • in the References, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Fitzsimons works?
  • per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above your Notes section
  • there appears to be a mix of English variation. For instance, "defense" (US) but "metres" (British) - either is fine, but the article should be consistent
  • in the Armament section: "10 35 cm, 14 15.24 cm (6.00 in) guns, 20 8.9 cm (4 in)" --> "ten 35 cm, fourteen etc..."
  • same as above for other instances where there are two sets of figures next to each other
  • "By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII",[38] but after the July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's subsequent declaration of war on Serbia a month later which marked the beginning of World War I, construction for the battleship was pushed back to September at the end of July". Suggest removing "at the end of July" here
  • "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as a war prize" --> "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as war prizes"
Thank you for the suggestions. I’ll be sure to make these changes as soon as I can.—White Shadows New and improved! 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of these points.--White Shadows New and improved! 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I've made a few more tweaks. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

  • the info in the lead about the delays and cancellation needs correcting. Based on the material in the body, it appears that construction was halted in July 1914, the contracts were suspended in August 1914, there was an unsuccessful Hungarian attempt to cancel the class in October 1914, and then in February 1915 a compromise was reached to suspend the project and halt construction until the end of the war, with eventual cancellation in late 1917. The lead should reflect this sequence. As present it says that construction was postponed until September 1914 when the war was expected to be over (although the latter isn't supported by the body), that there was delays in October (not in the body), and says that Austria-Hungary expected to win the war by February 1915 (not supported by the body)
  • Construction on the first battleship was to begin 1 July. This was delayed or halted by the political chaos that ensued following the Archduke's assassination on 28 June. Austria-Hungary was deeply involved in the July Crisis, which led to the keel not being laid down on the intended date. Following the outbreak of war, construction was formally pushed back to September as Austria-Hungary didn't expect a world war to unravel, and they also anticipated a quick decisive victory over Serbia in a matter of weeks. In October, the Hungarians attempted to outright cancel the plans, but Haus fought them on that all the way until February 1915 when it was agreed to delay construction indefinitely until the war was won. The plans were eventually canceled in 1917 as the war continued to drag on. Plans still were developed for a new class of dreadnoughts and even super-dreadnoughts all the way up to nearly the end of the war, but these were just plans and they had no formal approval by the Delegations. I may one day create an article centered upon those plans, but that's neither here nor there.
  • This hasn't been addressed. The lead doesn't reflect what is in the body.
  • I've reworked the lead to address this. If there are still issues regarding this point I'll have to ask for further clarification.
  • the lead says they would have been the first class of ocean-going battleships in the Austro-Hungarian Navy. This is clearly incorrect, as the Tegetthoff-class had already entered service, and A-H had already had several classes of ocean-going battleships before them. I would have thought this would have been a description of the Habsburg class, not this one. Or are we talking about the first class of superdreadnoughts?
  • They were indeed the first truly ocean-going battleships that would have been built for the Navy. By "ocean-going" I of course mean the sort of battleships that could engage in offensive operations as far out as the Atlantic. Of course the Tegetthoffs could operate in the Adriatic and even the Mediterranean, but they were never intended to operate in the high seas like the German or British battleships. That's why the forecastle of the Ersatz Monarchs were designed to be raised rather than the flush decks present on the Tegetthoffs. The Habsburg class most definitely was not considered an "ocean-going" class of battleships. The Habsburgs would be described as the first pre-dreadnought battleships of the Navy, not the first ocean-going battleships.
  • I suggest modifying this statement to add in why they were the first "ocean-going" ones, ie the better sea-keeping characteristics from the raised forecastle, not present in earlier A-H battleships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've taken this advice and added a bit to the lead to mention the raised forecastles which would have given the ships better seaworthiness.
  • Chief-of-staff of a building? Belvedere?
  • The Belvedere was the residence of Franz Ferdinand. The Chief of Staff of the Belvedere was basically the one in charge of the heir's personal household, and Ferdinand's right-hand-man. Bardolff was Ferdinand's subordinate, and the article says that he as acting on Ferdinand's orders when he suggested a second division of dreadnoughts.
  • This is pretty obscure. Why not just say that he was chief of staff to Franz Ferdinand? The link doesn't achieve anything, as we aren't told that the Belvedere was FFs palace, and it isn't even in the brief description you get when you hover over the link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "suggested that to Haus"
  • Fixed!
  • "34-centimeter (13 in) 45-caliber guns with three guns each in two superimposed turrets." isn't clear. Do you mean each turret would have three guns and there would be two turrets, superimposed? What about rear turrets? Or is it some other combination?
  • This means the turret structure would be the same as the Tegetthoffs, but with a larger set of guns. I'm not sure how to better describe the layout...in total there would be 12 guns and four turrets. Three guns would be located per turret, and the four turrets both fore and aft would be superimposed on-top of one another. Unlike the Tegetthoffs however, two of the turrets (bow and stern) would only have two guns, while the other two would have three.
  • I've tweaked this a bit and moved all the info on the main guns together. This may not suit, as it isn't clear whether the latter part of the section is all about a change to the armament? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Armament issues should be all sorted out now.
  • Is there any sort of monetary conversion available for Kronen?
  • None of the conversions I've seen out there are all that reliable, or rather I haven't seen any sources that I've used when writing this article include any conversions for other denominations.
  • Per MOS:CURRENCY given the Austro-Hungarian krone is a less-familiar and obsolete currency, perhaps provide a conversion of krone into 2015 Euros using this website, which provides sources on which is bases its conversions. This would result in a conversion of 81,600,000 kronen to 310,115,020 Euros, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't recall where now, but a few years ago there was a discussion where the point was made that converting figures like this into modern currencies (and adjusting for inflation, more importantly) is misleading, for reasons I don't really understand. I'll see if I can find it, but my takeaway from the discussion was "don't do it". Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "opposed the budget in large numbers" isn't particularly useful, could you just delete the last bit?
  • Fixed!
  • "criticized the budget as fiscally"
  • Fixed!
  • should Ersatz Monarch be in italics? (several examples of this)
  • outside the title of the page and the initial bolded usage of the article title, no. The class' formal name was never going to be "Ersatz Monarch". That's the title historians (and the Austro-Hungarians themselves) used to describe a class of battleships that would have been constructed had WWI not occurred, but they were never actually built because of the war. It was effectively a placeholder name for what would have been a properly named class once the first ship was launched and christened.
  • So this class should probably be treated like the Flower-class corvette, and not italicised at all, including in the article title? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not a call I'm comfortable making, because it would set a precedent that would apply to many, many other ship-related articles, including other Austro-Hungarian warship classes such as the Ersatz Zenta-class. Most sources I've seen use the italics, but also stress repeatedly that the italics were simply a placeholder name for the class of ships, which would have been properly named had they been built.
  • I always italicize in cases like this (for instance, most German and Austro-Hungarian warships are ordered as "Ersatz ____"), for a couple of reasons. First, the sources generally do, and second, Ersatz is a foreign loanword that isn't widely used, so it should be italicized per the MOS, and the name of the ship being replaced would normally be italicized per our conventions. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Italicized throughout the article.
  • Pitzinger should just be Pitzinger at second mention
  • Fixed!
  • Vego's claim about the "open ocean" is extraordinary. Does anyone else support this claim? Surely all the previous battleships were designed for the Mediterranean at least?
  • By "open ocean" that means the Atlantic. The Tegetthoffs were designed for the Mediterranean but that's not what Vego means when he says "open ocean".
  • link Horsepower#Shaft horsepower
  • That's part of a conversion table. I can't really link to another article as part of Template:-convert-
  • I don't think you need to name Vego's book, just that he's a naval historian
  • Fixed!
  • is that four single-shaft steam turbines, or a single turbine with four shafts?
  • "Four (or 4) shaft steam turbines" is the proper technical term. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships uses the term, as does Vego in his writings. There are four shafts with turbines powering each of the four shafts.
  • I'm not a naval architect myself, but that is indeed my understanding of the ship's propulsion system.
  • Then can I suggest you state that in clear layman's terms, rather than with the technical term currently used, as it is unclear what it means in terms of the number of turbines? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • the infobox says 21 kn, but the text says a range of 21 to 25?
  • Fixed! Needed to add to 25 kn to the infobox. Good catch!
  • what was the final layout of the main battery in terms of turrets? ie twin turrets superimposed forward and aft of the main superstructure, plus a twin turret amidships etc?
  • The final layout was identical to the Tegetthoffs, just larger in size and with two less guns in total.
  • the six inch gun conversion has two unnecessary decimal places
  • I don't think I can help that, that's part of the conversion template itself.
  • You just add |sigfig=1 or |sigfig=2 to the markup depending on how many places you want. I've done it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • the Armament subsection is confusing about the number of 4 in guns and TTs, (says 20 × 4 in in one place and 16 elsewhere, and six TTs and five TTs)
  • This is something I will work on fixing soon. There is admittedly a lot of confusion as multiple respectable sources give conflicting claims...this is no doubt in part because the battleship class went through literally dozens of different designs...even after the war started. Heck, there were designs for battleships being drawn up even after the Ersatz Monarch class was technically canceled in 1917. I need to list what each of the different claims are for the armaments and include notes explaining that different sources cite different numbers. I ask you just give me a bit of time to finish that up as that'll no doubt be the longest thing out of this list to flesh out.
  • Still working on this! I just want to make sure all the major sources have their details covered and I'd rather not have massively long efns that explain different authors give different numbers for different components of the ships' general characteristics.
  • Sorting through all the different sources took a few days, but that should be all addressed now.
  • link belt armor
  • Fixed!
  • there is armament info in the armor section
  • Fixed!
  • the fn need citations
  • I'm having problems linking citations in efns...any guess what's the issue?

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Most of these issues should now be addressed. Please let me know if you have any comments or follow-up questions.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • The sources are all of high quality and reliable, mostly commonly used sources on A-H naval matters.
  • the United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN or OCLC
  • I'm not sure one exists? These were printed 104 years ago.
  • You can find them here.
  • Fitzsimons' books need a location, as does Roberts
  • Roberts has been removed as I don't think Warship 1995 has anything covering the Ersatz Monarch class (I don't have a copy ATM). Regardless, it was not necessary to keep around as a citation when Fitzsimons covered the one piece Roberts was being used to cite quite nicely. I have added a location to Fitzsimons' books.
  • This PhD dissertation [3] p. 108 states that STT got the contract for all four of the class?
  • That may be a mistake. Every source I've seen says the contracts were split between STT and Ganz-Danubius.
  • I'm wondering if this article by Sondhaus might provide further information on the class, or whether it would have been captured in his book?
  • Let me check on that.

Just a few minor points to sort out here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Link class in the lede.
  • Done
  • I cleaned up the infobox (mostly for you as standards have changed since you were last active). A couple of pointers: No need to specify language if you're gonna abbreviate, which is most things in the infobox; no need to specify output for knots and nautical miles as they default to km and miles; convert meters into feet and inches (|ftin), boilers and horsepower go in the Installed power parameter; be sure to link lesser-known measurements like hp, knots, nautical miles, etc.
  • Thank you!
  • Add links to steam turbines, armored belt, barbetters, conning tower, battery, deck; you can use any recent A or FA-class article from me or Parsec to see formatting and the links.
  • Done
  • Thanks for the comments! I'll be sure to get on that as soon as I can.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The construction of the Tegetthoff class battleships Hyphen between Tegetthof and class since they're a compound adjective modifying battleship
  • Done
  • equipped with 35-centimeter (14 in) guns Only need to convert on first use.
  • Removed
  • Link caliber
  • Done
  • lattice towers Cage masts is what they're referring to
  • Done
  • Down to propulsion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • standard weight for the Ersatz Monarch class You mean [[Displacement (ship)|displaced]]
  • Done.
  • That's an awfully broad range of speeds from 31,000 shp. The British King George V class ships of a similar size needed 27,000 for 21 knots. Given the nearly exponential ratio between horsepower and speed, those extra 4,000 wouldn't have gotten more than 22 knots. I'd suggest that you drop any sources that say 25 knots and just leave those that say 21 or 22 knots.
  • Done
  • The quote from Vigo should be moved a sentence earlier to flow better with the sentence covering speed.
  • Done
  • substantially greater reserve stability and a smaller list in heavy seas Link to ship stability and explain what you mean by list, which should also be linked, 'cause I'm not understanding it.
  • Let me know if you like the re-write.
  • to facilitate the size of the main battery Awkward. Try: "to accommodate the greater size and weight of..."
  • Done
  • Link funnel and bridge. Remember these are jargon terms and need to be linked or explained for readers not familiar with the terminology. Which is just about all of them.
  • Funnels and bridge are both linked, as well as a few other terms. If there's anything else you think needs linking, please let me know.
  • Done
  • There are a couple of British spellings in the Armament section.
  • Did you intend to say "Armor"? Because I don't see any spelling issues in the Armament section?
  • Nope. The second para of the armament section is littered with Brit spellings of millimeter. That's because the conversion template defaults to BritEng. You fix that by adding "|sp=us" to the template. If you chose to abbreviate the units by adding "abbr=on" then the difference doesn't show.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This should be fixed. I've made sure that every instance I can find of a conversion template being used that doesn't have "abbr=on" attached has an "sp=us" attachment.
  • Ok. I think I get what you mean here. Made some edits that should be in-line with this. Please let me know if I've missed something.
  • Explain why the secondary armament differs in the second para from that listed earlier.
  • Done. Please let me know if you'd like to see more.
  • that anti-aircraft guns would also complement the vessels awkward
  • Fixed
  • with twelve of them on mountings What does this mean?
  • Please let me know if you like the clarification.
  • thick in the central citadel, where the most-important parts of the ship would have been located Awkward. The belt armor forms the side of the citadel, so not "in", and explain what's in the citadel better, if you want to do that. I generally don't and just say that it was amidships, linking that term.
  • Done
  • Some of your roundings in the armor section are off and there are missing hyphens. Lemme know if you need me to explain proper hyphen use in these sorts of paragraphs. And remember, once you've converted a term, you needn't do so again.
    • each ship with ten 35.5 cm (14 in) Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns and two 47-millimetre (1.9 in) Škoda SFK L/44 S have already been converted and they should be deleted in these.
    • And 8.9cm shouldn't be rounding to 4 in (102mm). Add a "|1" inside the template to tell it to round to one decimal point, not zero. Same with 310 mm.
  • Any further explanation would be greatly appreciated!
  • Quick question before I made any edits...when you say "you don't need to do so again" regarding converts, do you mean just simply have the language spelled out to say "each ship with ten 35.5 cm Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns" or rather "each ship with 10 Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns"? The point I'm trying to get here is just some clarifications regarding what you mean by asking me to remove conversion templates that are used more than once for the same conversion...I don't know if you want me to just eliminate the conversion itself, or eliminate the references to the measurements altogether.
  • Generally keep the measurement but not the conversion in these cases. However, if you've mentioned the model of gun earlier then the measurement becomes optional.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The deck and slopes of each ship Explain
  • Removed "slopes" to eliminate confusion.
  • Explain this armor deck mentioned at the end of the para. Is this something separate than the one mentioned earlier? And what was its purpose?
    • Are there two armored decks? If so then say as much and delete the second-to-last sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is actually something I myself have been a bit confused over. As I'm not a naval architect, I can only speculate on what the purpose of this system was, and I only have a fuzzy picture of what it even looks like in my mind. That said, I'd rather documented information be in the article than not. If I removed something simply because I don't 100% understand it, I don't feel like that would be fair to the reader...do you or perhaps @Parsecboy: have any thoughts about what this may have been and what its purpose was?
  • The first thing that I'd want to know is how the source references them. From my own knowledge ships of this period often have multiple armored decks, as naval architects generally didn't emphasize protection against plunging shells which is best provided by a single thick armored deck, possibly with much lighter decks above or below to catch splinters or to deform the shell by ripping off its armor piercing cap before it impacted the main armored deck. Regardless, though, you should keep all the references to decks together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me re-check the source. The book is currently on loan so I'm waiting to take a look at it.
  • Fix the broken link to bow
  • Fixed
  • Link kronen, laid down, launched on first use
  • Done
  • Building times were 36 months just to launch, not finished.
  • Clarified.
  • By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII" Of course they had with her scheduled to be laid down on 1 July. The question really is why wasn't she laid down on that date?
  • I've reworded that section a bit to clarify exactly what happened between Franz Ferdinand's assassination and the onset of world war in August.
  • In August 1914, the Austro-Hungarian you already told us the year in the previous para. Don't insult the reader by giving the year so often.
  • My apologies. Fixed.
  • What did the French do with the guns?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't found anything in my research about what the French did with the guns. I presume they studied them much like they did the guns and turrets of SMS Prinz Eugen after they acquired the battleship after the war, but Wikipedia discourages speculation like that.
  • Thanks for the input Sturm! I've addressed some of these points now, and will get to the rest as soon as possible.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an update Sturm, I'm still waiting on access to the source in question. Will address that point about the deck armor as soon as I can. Please let me know if there's any other outstanding issues from the points above, or anything else you want to bring up in the meantime.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That's about it, I think. Will abide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • <Montgomery Burns voice>Excellent!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So here's what the source has to say. "A horizontal armour deck was carried inwards from the bottom edge of the belt, as far as the last of three vertical bulkheads" I'll be honest...I have no idea what this means.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Strumvogel 66: so here's what I did, I cut the info because it's extremely confusing, and the language we have at the moment is very close paraphrasing anyway. If there's a way to incorporate this info that isn't going to almost repeat it verbatim, and isn't going to just make the reader confused, I'll happily do so...but at the moment I don't think the way it was incorporated into the article did either of those two things.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not exactly helpful, so I think that you did the proper thing. Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review:

  • Replaced the image. This one should be good now.
  • See below...I think/hope the PD I've put into place will work.
  • Removed. Would love to find a new image for the infobox!
  • I'll be the first to admit that image policy is easily my weakest area of expertise on this site...when you say things like "this image needs a US copyright tag" I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, I know that sounds bad but there's so many moving parts to Wikipedia that it would be dishonest for me to claim that I have an expert knowledge of every aspect and policy of this site...especially since I've been gone for roughly 6 years. Any help or advice would be appreciated, as would any potential replacement images for the infobox. I'd love to get an image of what the ship would have looked like, or a line drawing of it.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 15:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Images on Commons have to be in the public domain in the country of origin and the United States, since that's where Wikimedia's servers are located. For the Haus photo, we need a source that confirms the date of publication, which will help us determine the copyright status in the US. The other two should be covered by {{PD-US}}. As for the illustration, one possibility would be to move it to en.wiki and use a fair use claim. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the Wien photo came from ONI, it's probably actually {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. As for the NFP image, I don't think Commons uses the US-1923-abroad template, but if they do, then sure, that'd work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wein photo is updated. Commons doesn't use US-1923-abroad. It seems like Commons requires that that PD be replaced with just PD-1923, and an appropriate tag for the country where the work was first published.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Fantastic. I just got the source in question so I anticipate being able to address this issue within the next 12 hours or so.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Emanuel Moravec

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Emanuel Moravec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
  • Alt text
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • Disambig links
  • External links
  • Peer review
  • Redirects
  • Reflinks

Sturmvogel 66 was nice enough to just pass this through to GA so I thought I'd now submit it for A-Class. This article is about Emanuel Moravec, an interwar Czechoslovak infantry commander and staff college instructor who called for the country to declare war against Germany in 1938. When that failed, he cast his lot with the Germans and was appointed Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. His son, Igor, was probably the only Czech national to serve in the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf (though the "only" claim is not contained in the article as it's WP:OR). When I found this article it was just five sentences long. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Emanuel_Moravec.jpg: given the dates involved, this seems unlikely to be own work
  • File:Logo_Czechoslovak_Army_(pre1961).svg: what is the copyright status of the original design?
  • File:Emanuel_Moravec_-_ministr.jpg: not seeing support for that tag at the given source? Same with File:Ceska_mladez.png
  • Voice_sample_of_Emanuel_Moravec.ogg needs a more complete FUR. Same with Moravec_at_Week_of_Czech_Youth.ogv. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - thanks for this. I didn't even think to verify the images already existing at the Commons were correctly licensed! Anyway, I've removed the offending images and completed a FUR for the two AV files. Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Can you clarify where the tag for Emanuel_Moravec_-_ministr.jpg is coming from? Not sure it's supported. Also, what is the status of File:Emil_Hácha_5.jpg in the US? Finally, the fair-use tag at Moravec_at_Week_of_Czech_Youth.ogv should be swapped out - it is for screenshots, and this is a video clip. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - thanks for catching these. I think a lot of these are uploaded by users at the Czech Wikipedia who play a little fast and loose with images in the same way they do with textual references. I'm going to remove these and propose them for deletion at Commons and will replace the infobox image with a NFCI headshot. Will also correct the fair use tag on the movie file. Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - just finished updating this if, at your convenience, you wouldn't mind giving it a check to make sure I got everything right this time? Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Is anything more known about the provenance of Emanuel_Moravec_headshot.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't, unfortunately. The credit on the website of the Czech National Museum says "source: National Museum" but doesn't provide any deeper details. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this one. Unfortunately, this isn't a subject I am familiar with, so apologies if I miss something. I have a few observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • in the lead you link World War II but not World War I: suggest both or neither for consistency
  • in the infobox, "1942-1945": should have an endash
  • in the Early life and education section, do we know the names of his parents?
    • G'day, not sure if this has been addressed, or if this information isn't available? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Chetsford: G'day, not sure if you saw my comment above. This is the to only remaining point for me. Do you know if these details are able to be reliably sourced? If not, no worries, but just let me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert - I apologize, I missed your question. I did check on this and was not able to source the name of his parents, unfortunately, or at least to a RS. The corresponding article on the Czech Wikipedia [4] does list his father's name as Jan Petr and the source appears to be respectable, however, it's offline and difficult to obtain so I can't affirmatively state it actually says that. I would usually just GF it, however, they seem to have a laissez faire approach with sourcing over there so I'm not sure it would be faith well placed. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, that's a fair call. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Early life section, suggest linking officer
  • in the Early life section, do we know why he chose to change sides?
  • The Imperial Russian Army captured Moravec in 1915 and made him a prisoner of war: suggest that this might be smoother as Moravec was captured by the Imperial Russian Army in 1915
  • in the Fist Czechoslovak Republic section, link major
  • Moravec wrote and published extensively using the pen name Stanislav Yester: was this fiction or non fiction? What were the topics he wrote about?
  • Igor Moravec fought on the Eastern front: should be "Eastern Front"
  • ordinary Czechs' to...: the apostrophe isn't necessary here
  • for the titles in the Publications section, I suggest adding English translations as well as the original title
  • in the External links: "a scene..." should be "A scene..."
  • Citation # 25, GRATIAS AGIT Award should be "Gratias Agit Award" per MOS:ALLCAPS
AustralianRupert - thanks, kindly, for the review. I've just amended the article to address all these points. Please let me know if you see that I've missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Almost everything is "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;". But otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi thanks much - I've updated references. Please let me know if I've overlooked anything. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi - just wanted to check and see if there were any other issues or if you see that I've overlooked anything? Chetsford (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

  • Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
  • What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide) Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D - thanks, much, for the review.
  • *Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
 Done
This is not done. Please break up the large page ranges to the specific page which supports each fact. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D - sorry, I misunderstood your page comment. I've now added Template:Rp to all books referencing more than two pages. Chetsford (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This is still not done. Please provide the relevant page number for each fact, not broad ranges of pages for each work. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D - the only instance I can see where there's a range of more than two pages cited is He also promoted the idea of Czech culture as an historic component of Germanic culture. which cites a range of three pages. Unfortunately, this sentence is not succinctly limited to a corresponding sentence on a single page and is a summary of three pages of content discussing this aspect of Moravec's views and writing. Instances where a range of two pages are cited are for similar reasons. For instance, In response to the German ultimatum, Syrový declared that "further concessions from our side are no longer possible"; 42 Czechoslovak divisions were mobilized in preparation for an expected German invasion. cites a page range 201-202; the Syrový telegram is discussed at the bottom of page 201 of the source and the number 42 is invoked at the top of page 202. Chetsford (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm most concerned about reference 5, to which multiple things are referenced to "Pynsent, Robert (November 2007). "Conclusory Essay: Activists, Jews, The Little Czech Man, and Germans" (PDF). Central Europe. 5 (2): 217, 224–225, 272, 229, 236–240, 255–256." The three page range for the large number of references to Demetz's book (which I continue to be concerned about) should also be fixed. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Nick I apologize that I don't understand. The Rp template provides specific page numbers (or a short range of numbers in cases where a point is summarized from content contained in multiple pages) within the text for each claim. The page ranges in the References section are only a compilation of all those individually invoked in the text and don't support any specific point in the way the inline citations do. I'm not entirely clear how I could remedy this to your satisfaction other than converting the citation style to short citation format. Sorry if I'm misreading. (Edit - I did see one of the Demetz references lacked the Rp template so have corrected that.) Chetsford (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that the page numbers now appear in the article's text. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
 Done
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
You're correct. It is primarily a reflective memoir, however, is interspersed with historical chronicles and I've only used those sections. Kirkus [5] described these as "... a vast amount of political and cultural material, veering between scholarly and autobiographical approaches. The academic analysis is at times intimidatingly dense, but readers who persevere will be rewarded with rich, balanced profiles of significant figures ranging from Konstantin von Neurath, the Nazi-installed leader of Bohemia and Moravia, to Franz Kafka’s beloved Milena Jesenská, an essayist who was active in the resistance movement." and PW [6] describes it as "Interspersing political and cultural history with snippets of memoir"
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
 Done
  • "What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
 Done
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide)
It's possible he was anti-Semitic prior to middle age, however, I have seen no RS that unambiguously says this and - purely on personal speculation - I think it might equally likely have been the case that he became an anti-Semite of convenience, rather than conscience, following the German occupation. I base this assumption on the Pynsent article which introduces Moravec's suddenly Anti-Semitic statements as "subserviently accepts a version of the Nazi line", however, that is still somewhat interpretive to the point I didn't feel I could insert a definitive conclusion without veering into the realm of OR.
Hopefully I didn't miss anything, but please let me know if so! Chetsford (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick, have you had a chance to review Chetsford's latest responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been horribly remiss with this review: commented above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day Nick, are all your observations addressed here? This looks about ready for promotion, but I just wanted to check if you felt there was anything outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposing promotion, but can't support it either due to my concerns over Prague in Danger being so extensively used as a source. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Seems like a good, succinct bio on someone I admit I hadn't heard of.

  • Prose-wise, no outstanding concerns but pls let me know any issues with my copyedit.
  • Structure and level of detail seem reasonable.
  • Source review:
    • No red flags leapt out re. quality (noting the response to Nick's query about one source) but no harm someone more familiar with the subject/sources having a look also.
    • Formatting-wise, I agree with Nick that we need more granularity in citing the sources. For instance, the way you've cited Demetz is fine, because only one page range is used from the book to cite the info in the article. When you come to say Pynsent though, you should list the book details under a separate Sources or Bibliography section, and employ a short citation (e.g. author, year, page nos.) for the part(s) of this article using p. 217, a short citation for the part(s) using pp. 224–225, etc.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read, assuming all resolved.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I don't believe we have a style requirement for WP:SFN as per WP:CITEVAR? Chetsford (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
No, as WS says below, it's just one of several citation methods (I don't use it myself). Anyway it looks to me that individual statements are now cited to relevant page numbers, and that's the main thing. A couple of bits of formatting:
  • You could safely remove the sets of page ranges from the cite book templates for which you've employed the RP page numbering, as they're now redundant.
  • It would be worth trimming the infobox of unused and/or unlikely to be used parameters, as it just clutters the first part of the article in edit mode.
Overall though my comments have been addressed sufficiently for me to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by White Shadows

  • Some of the citations use "P" or "pp" to donate pages cited, while others lack that. Citation 5 is a good example of this.
  • Other citations lack page numbers, which is something other editors have mentioned so I won't go into detail there.
  • Who is Radola Gajda in the "See also" section?
  • I'll be sure to bring up anything else that catches my eye.

--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

White Shadows - thank you for the review. The difference between "p/pp" and no "p/pp" is because some sources are journals and some are books. The cite templates on WP insert "p/pp" for books and does not for journals. While I agree it's not consistent, I'm afraid it's out of my hands. Insofar as citations lacking page numbers, at the present time the citations that don't have page numbers are those which are unnumbered, such as websites (for example: [7]). I've removed Radola Gajda from See Also. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
That can be fixed if you place the journals in a reference section and only cite the author and the page number(s) in the citation itself. Websites are fine when it comes to not having page numbers, that's not to be expected.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The WP:SFN citation style to which you're referring can't be mixed with the referencing style used in this article according to the policy under WP:CITEVAR if I read it correctly? Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
SFN is just one method to cite things though. It's certainly my preferred method, but it's not the only one. If you place the journals in a reference section and create citations using the <!ref> tags, you can then include the page(s) from said journal. It doesn't seem like a huge issue, but I've never seen an ACR pass with citations that don't actually include the pages of whatever book/journal is being cited.

If you're still having problems or are confused by anything that I'm saying (communicating in text does that), please just let me know. I'd be happy to help fix the problem if I can be of any service.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed the page numbers in citation 12 were removed during a previous edit. I'll replace them. Could you clarify that's what you were referring to as I don't see any other journals referenced without page numbers? Also, as far as I can tell all the journals are presently in the References section and use !ref> but let me know if it's displaying differently for you. Chetsford (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Update - I've added the page numbers for citation 12. It was just one page for all three points so I didn't use the RP template. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentSupport by PM

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

Lead
  • the lead sentence should properly define his notability. It is clear that he was a notable writer, and that should be included. Suggestion: "Emanuel Moravec (17 April 1893 – 5 May 1945) was Czech army officer and writer who served as the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia between 1942 and 1945. He was also chair of the Board of Trustees for the Education of Youth, a fascist youth organisation in the puppet state.
  • point out that he served in the Austro-Hungarian army, Russian Army and Czechoslovak Legion in WWI then fought alongside White Forces against the Bolsheviks, including links
  • some context for his collaboration is needed, suggest adding that he turned to enthusiastic collaboration after the occupation of rump Czechoslovakia and creation of the puppet Protectorate
  • Other than his son Igor serving in Totenkopf and being executed for treason, I don't think any of the personal stuff is needed in the lead, as it isn't significant. I would instead add a couple of sentences summarising the Legacy section
Resolved
Early life etc
  • link conscription and World War I
  • do we know what regiment he served in?
  • do we know when and where he was captured, what battle for example? and where he was held?
  • do we know when he was paroled?
  • explain that the First Serbian Volunteer Division consisted of former POWs, including Serbs and those from nations of the A-H Empire
  • do we know what fierce engagement he suffered shell shock in?
  • explain Czechoslovak Legion in-text
  • explain that the Legion fought on the White side against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
  • do we know where he fought during the Russian Civil War?
Resolved
Career
  • link Czechoslovakia, normally you wouldn't link well-known countries, but as it no longer exists...
  • apparently the War College was called the War School at that time, and link
  • commissioned as a major, and in what year?
  • do we know any more about his postings between commissioning and 1931? Seems a bit sparse.
  • suggest "In parallel with his military career," also do we know what newspapers he was published by, and their politics?
  • if writing under a pen name, how did Masaryk link Moravec to Yester? Was he outed or something?
  • Czechoslovakian Army
  • combine the para that starts "In 1938 Moravec" with the single sentence para above.
  • link Edvard Beneš and state his position
  • is there a link for the territorial demands Poland made, if not, then a quick explanatory sentence would help here
  • Beneš backtracked on mobilisation or his rejection of concessions?
  • note b should be in the body, as it explains Moravec's political philosophy of the time
  • Beneš' diplomatic incompetence?
  • Resttschechei is a German term and not helpful, perhaps rump Czechoslovakia?
  • add that the Protectorate was a puppet state and link puppet state
  • Czech Lands jars, just say the puppet state
  • were only intelligence officers sent o/s? What about the pilots of No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron RAF and other Czech military types that served with the Allies?
  • point out in the text that Moravec tried to leave before the Germans moved in, as it isn't clear
  • if V uloze... is the most popular of his works, it should be in the Publications list. Also say when it was published to inform the timeline.
  • explain that the Board was a fascist and Czech nationalist youth org
  • explain who Heydrich was, SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei and Acting Reich Protector of the Protectorate, effectively the military dictator of the puppet state
  • Hácha in full, link, and explanation that he was the President
  • In his new post as minister of education
  • Protectorate schools
  • State President Hácha
  • at what point in 1943 did he discuss it with Frank? The reason I ask is that Frank was only promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer in June 1943. Also, state that Frank was Reich Minister for Bohemia and Moravia at the time
  • fn 18 needs page number(s)
  • state that Buchenwald was a concentration camp
  • suggest "During his tenure as a Protectorateeducation minister"
  • Tatsachen und Irrtümer should be in Publications if it is being discussed

"...the Czechoslovak resistance group, the Three Kings,"

  • to go after Reinhard Heydrich
Resolved
Personal life
  • state that Rykov was a prominent Bolshevik
  • Yuri Moravec
  • Karl Hermann Frank
  • rank and position for Jodl
  • explain what Igor was tried and executed for and by whom he was arrested and tried
  • who arrested Yuri and what was he tried and sentenced for and by whom
Resolved
Legacy
  • Emil Hácha
  • suggest "or Jaroslav Eminger, who was later completely exonerated for his service in the Protectorate government"
  • who was Cyril Svoboda? position I mean?
  • in the quote "people such as"?
Resolved
Publications
  • add the ones I mentioned above
  • add oclc's
  • Just need to decap the title of the Borufka citation
General
  • the newspaper articles should all have page numbers for purposes of verification

That's me done. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - thanks very much for this thorough review. I'll be getting to this shortly and will ping you when I'm done. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Running update on updates:
  • Lead: all updated per suggestions; let me know if I missed anything
  • added
  • Legacy: all updated per suggestions; let me know if I missed anything
  •  Done
  • Personal life: mostly updated per suggestions; in point of fact Yuri and Igor were both arrested by the Sbor bezpečnosti, however, I don't have a secondary RS for this
  •  Done
  • Early life etc: I've updated insofar as possible. There's some information I just don't have, unfortunately. (By way of comparison, our entire article on the Carpathian Front is just two sentences I wrote a few months ago just to have something to WL to!)
  • There are still a few things to do in the other sections, I've done a few, I'll leave you to do the rest.
  • Publications: added newspapers.com page #s and book oclc #s; added Prague in Black but the PDF returned a broken link for me ... still working on other sections and will continue putting running updates here
  • Career: updated insofar as possible with the following notes:
  • commissioned as a major, and in what year?
Unfortunately I don't have the year of his commission.
  • do we know any more about his postings between commissioning and 1931? Seems a bit sparse.
Unfortunately I don't have further details beyond his service in the 21st Regiment.
  • if writing under a pen name, how did Masaryk link Moravec to Yester? Was he outed or something?
By my reading of the material it is suggestive that it was a literary, not secret, pseudonym.
  • Beneš' diplomatic incompetence?
If we worded it as "disillusioned with his incompetence", I think we (WP) would be making an affirmative statement that Beneš was incompetent, whereas if Moravec was "disillusioned with his competence" Moravec is the one questioning the presence or absence of competence.
  • add that the Protectorate was a puppet state and link puppet state
I don't think, technically, the protectorate was a puppet state in the way of Slovakia or Manchukuo where there was the appearance of independence but sovereign powers were held elsewhere (Germany or Japan) as the protectorate was an overtly incorporated subject of the Reich with no pretense of independence and Hacha was legally subordinate to the Protector (unlike Jozef Tiso who was legally a sovereign but practically subordinate to Hitler).
  • were only intelligence officers sent o/s? What about the pilots of No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron RAF and other Czech military types that served with the Allies?
I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that RAF 312 was crewed by Czechs who individually fled and volunteered of their own volition as opposed to being "sent" per se. The Czechoslovak intelligence operators actively sent abroad under official orders a few hours before the state extinguished itself as part of continuity of government planning.
  • at what point in 1943 did he discuss it with Frank? The reason I ask is that Frank was only promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer in June 1943.
I don't have a date on which the discussion occurred, however, the full source refers to Frank by the title Obergruppenfuhrer on which basis I deduce it was after June, however, I removed the title out of a preponderance of caution.
Chetsford (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Still a few things to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 - thanks again for the review. I've finished updating the rest of the sections. Let me know if you see that I've missed anything or have any questions or further edits. Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Just the decapping of the title of the citation. Otherwise good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - done! Chetsford (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

  • It looks like you have made good use of Czech/Slovak language online sources, but I'm surprised there isn't more on him on Czech print sources. When I was reasearching Prague uprising, it became obvious that I wouldn't be able to take the article to featured status because of a lack of access to and inability to read Czech-language print sources, which are the most recent and best quality histories of the uprising. This isn't necessarily a reason to oppose, but just a reminder that comprehensiveness is one of the most difficult criteria to asses as a neutral reviewer.
Unfortunately, there is only one definitive book on Moravec, which is a 1997 biography by Jiří Pernes. I didn't use it as a source, however, as it was the centerpiece of a major plagiarism scandal in which Pernes was involved which, I think, was serious enough that it casts doubt on whether the book can be viewed as a RS. Adding a further layer of complexity is that the dissertation from which Pernes supposedly plagiarized may or may not have resulted in the awarding of a PhD, so in case of the latter it wouldn't meet the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (The scandal was actually unmentioned in Perens' own article, I had to add it last February. [8]) I'm sure most of the content of the book is probably accurate but, for purposes of the article, I treated it as though it didn't exist. Chetsford (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day Chetsford. Given Nick-D's questions about the liberal use of Demetz and the fact that he includes an element of personal narrative alongside his historical research, I would like to suggest using Pernes (or another source if available) to corroborate Demetz on those personal details he is used for. Assuming of course that he corroborates them. Failing that, I think that Demetz might qualify as a biased source and should be attributed in-text with a note about the fact that his book contains personal recollections as well as historical research. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem. This may take a little while as I think the book was pulled after the plagiarism issues but I'll track down a copy make these additions ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

The sources all look to be high quality and reliable. I did wonder about whether all current scholarship was covered, and found this which contains a story about Moravec and Benes on page 16. Also Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism by Chad Bryant and, as Catrìona notes, other Czech and Slovak language sources on this period and Moravec in particular, should probably be examined before a FAC nomination. Most of the sources need a location of publication added, and ISBNs should be hyphenated. A few of the sources need a trans-title field with an English translation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Just looking at the Czech article, other Czech language sources that might need to be consulted are Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-Class_review&oldid=860510510"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-Class_review
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA