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
Contest Awards Members


Requesting a review

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

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

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

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


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

Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Ibuki was the lead ship of her class of heavy cruisers begun shortly after the start of the Pacific War. While still under construction, she began conversion into a light carrier after the losses during the Battle of Midway eviscerated the IJN's carrier force. But that was stopped in early 1945 so that the shipyard could build small submarines for the defense of Japan. As usual I intend to send it to FAC and so need checks for BritEng, unexplained jargon, etc. I also suspect that I should add a bit about the need for the conversion, though I'm uncertain about how much is necessary. So I trust reviewers will weight in with their opinions! Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Landing at Jacquinot Bay

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

Landing at Jacquinot Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This article looks at an amphibious operation that marked the start of Australian ground operations on New Britain in late 1944, as they relieved the US garrison on the island. Nick and I have worked on this together and took it to GAN a couple of years ago. Last Christmas holidays we took the overarching campaign article through ACR, and I figure that we are slowly working through the child articles. (Nick's article on Arawe is already an FA, and the other battles are all B-class, some of which I hope to improve further these holidays). Thank you to everyone who stops by to help improve the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Australian_6th_Inf_Bde_stores_Jacquinot_Bay_November_1944_(AWM_photo_076679).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Australian_soldiers_disembarking_from_a_US_Army_landing_craft_at_Jacquinot_Bay_on_4_November_1944.JPG, File:Australian_Army_power_shovel_unloading_gravel_into_a_truck_at_Jacquinot_Bay_in_December_1944.JPG
    • All three images are PD as they're Australian Government created/owned and are more than 50 years old - I've updated the copyright tags. Their records on the Australian War Memorial's website also all state that they are PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:New_guinea.png: what is the source for the battle locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The caption in this article doesn't state that they were battle locations, though it includes many sites mentioned (with refs) in the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I believe the map itself was sourced to Open Street Map by its creator. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Buzz Aldrin

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Kees08 (talk)

Buzz Aldrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Buzz Aldrin was a fighter pilot who down two MiG-15s in the Korean War. Later walked on the Moon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked some millenials if they could name an astronaut. Neil and Buzz are remembered. They couldn't think of anyone else. John Glenn drew blank looks. Buzz may be more famous than Neil now, although Neil has a movie. Of course Jim Lovell and the Mercury Seven had movies too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye and Kees. Thanks for tackling this important topic. I have a few suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Round star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame
  • the ext link tool reports a couple of deadlinks: [1]
    ☑Y Repaired all the link rot. In the process I discovered Buzz's plaques on the Hollywood Walk of Fame are round and not star-shaped. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Apparently the Walk of Fame guy was friends with one of the astronauts. Given what we know about them, and that it was Los Angeles, it was almost certainly Buzz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement, it can improve the experience for some of our readers: [3]
    ☑Y Checked all the links and repaired the link rot.
    Would you like to perform an image review as well? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done, please see below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • there are a few overlinked terms: Nellis, NASA, Los Angles, Gemini 10, Gemini 11, aircraft carrier, S-IVB, Apollo 8, Presidential Medal of Freedom, The New York Times, George W. Bush
    ☑Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "metres" -> "meters"
    Can't find it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    You fixed it when you got the "metres" --> "miles" issue. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aldrin was flying about 5 metres" --> "miles"?
    ☑Y Oops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "did not exist−the last mission..." --> should possibly use an emdash or spaced endash
    ☑Y replaced with a semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Then flight plan then..." --> "The flight plan then..."?
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "It contained mission patch for" --> "It contained a mission patch for"
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "the first man in spacer" --> "the first man in space"
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "flown to the aircraft carrier USS Hornet": move the link for aircraft carrier to the first mention
    ☑Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find "12 days 1 hour and 52 minutes" in the body of the article, although it is in the infobox
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • same as above for "7 hours 52 minutes"
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, for the Encounter with Tiber entry, the year "1996" is repeated
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Notes, some of the citations are missing endashes for page ranges, for instance # 93 to 96
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the References, "The Eagle Has landed" --> "The Eagle Has Landed"?
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the References, Farmer is out of alphabetical order
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Notes, some newspaper titles are in italics, but some aren't. For instance: Citation # 138 "New York Times" and 191 "Pontiac Daily Leader"
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Image licencing and sourcing looked ok to me, except a couple of minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "File:Apollo 11 Crew.jpg": one of the source links is dead
    ☑Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "File:Buzz Aldrin black and white dress uniform photo portrait.jpg": source link is dead
    ☑Y Switched link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "File:Buzz in Mission Control - cropped.jpg": the source is listed as "NASA/Harnett jsc2009e143745)" - what does that mean?
    ☑Y Probably that the image was taken by Lauren Harnett from JSC. Re-categorised the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Looks good, there are just two points outstanding about the times in the infobox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Nice work, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Elands River (1900)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Elands River (1900) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This article is about an action during the Second Boer War that become known as a moment of Australian resistance against overwhelming odds. The article was expanded by AustralianRupert back in 2012, and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

  • The "For other uses" disambiguation at the top of the page is too broad, as there is only a single alternative use. A different template should be used.
  • attacked a garrison of 500 Australian, Rhodesian, Canadian and British soldiers, who were stationed at Brakfontein Drift near the Elands River to act as a garrison for a British supply dump. Over the course of 13 days, the garrison was heavily shelled and attacked with small arms. "Attacked" is in two adjacent sentences. Perhaps changing one or the other would help.
  • The lead needs expansion. A little on the background would be nice, as would something about its implications.
  • a quantity of ammunition, food and other equipment worth over 100,000 pounds. Clarify that pounds is being used as a monetary value, not a measurement of weight.
  • Desperate for supplies, Boer forces decided to attack the garrison with the view to securing the supplies located there. "Supplies" X2. Perhaps "provisions" or "materiel", etc.
  • about 30 loyalist European settlers who, because of their support for the British, were being evacuated from the area. I presume this means that the settlers had withdrawn to the farm but had yet to actually evacuate? A minor clarification would help.
  • Wikilink pom-pom to QF 1-pounder pom-pom, if applicable.
    • Done.
  • Hore, who had been suffering from malaria, had become ill by this time. If we was suffering from malaria, he was already ill. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase how it worsened to a point where he could no longer effectively command.
  • This article says the garrison had only one machine, but the Australian War Memorial says it had two. The source also gives information that needs to be included, such as an estimate on the Boer's artillery output, the fact that the hospital was struck in the bombardment, and details on the burial and re-internment of those killed.
    • Added these details, thanks for locating that source. There is a discrepancy between Coulthard-Clark and Ross unfortunately, so I have added a range. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This source (p. 196) says that the original garrison at Elands river was one of three positions established to guard the Mafeking-Pretoria supply line. Might be worth a clarification in the background.
    • Added something, please let me know what you think. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Rhodesiana article appears to have more info about this battle, such as the building which was used as a hospital and the implications of Carrington's bumbling relief efforts. Unless there are concerns about POV pushing (the journal was published in apartheid Rhoedesia), this info should be incorporated into the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I will leave this one to Kges1901 as they probably know the source better than I do. Thanks for your comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Kinsey wrote several articles for the South African Military History Journal, so I do not think bias is an issue with Rhodesiana. Kges1901 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Added a bit now. Please let me know what you think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is Dawson 2010 RS for this? Sydney Daily Telegraph is described as a tabloid on its Wikipedia article. Kges1901 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem a controversial point to me, but anyway I've removed it and replaced it with Ransford & Kinsey's less precise figure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Indy beetle: G'day, Indy, I think that together we have covered off on your points, would you mind taking another look and letting us know if there is anything outstanding? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a minor point, really, but Ransford & Kinsey say "An Australian in the relief force later commented that 'Carrington had earned an unenviable reputation among the men under his command'. The hurried retreat to Mafeking, he said, was 'something no Australian who took part will ever forget'.* When Lord Roberts heard of it he immediately ordered Carrington back to Elands River, but the cautious general moved so slowly that his troops only reached the camp after its relief". These details about Carrington being ordered back should be included in the article. A think a final glance over this journal article to make sure all points are covered should be made. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Thanks, Indy, I think I have gotten the important points now, hopefully. Added a couple of minor points from Wilcox now I have access to a scan of the relevant pages. These are the changes: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing to support. Well done. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Upscaled to 325px, but I was a bit concerned about sandwiching so I didn't go beyond that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:AWM_A05317_3rd_New_South_Wales_Bushmen_Elands_River_1901.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:AWM_A05318_Sangars_at_Elands_River.jpg, File:AWM_A05312_Graves_of_Australians_killed_at_Elands_River_1900.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look at this. I have adjusted the licences and descriptions as they are owned by the Australian government and are more than 50 years old. The AWM entries indicate they are PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

  • the word garrison is used twice in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, suggest rephrasing. It happens again in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead (actually four times in the first three sentences of the 2nd paragraph).
    • Changed a couple of instances to vary the language. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the word ultimately is also used in successive sentences at the end of the lead.
  • the word position is used several times in the third paragraph of the background section. Probably substitute one or more of these with posts or the like.
  • Prelude: "...prior to being withdrawn further." The use of further seems a bit vague, do we know where (presumably a more secure location).
    • Wilcox doesn't say specifically. Adjusted the wording. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Battle: "A third position, about 4,300 yards (3,900 m) away, consisting of an artillery piece..." I think it may be preferable to not use position here; I read it initially as being one of the three of the Elands River garrison before realising it was actually referring to the Boers.
  • Battle: "the telegraph line was destroyed, while a considerable amount of stores were destroyed" repeated use of destroyed, suggest rephrasing to "the telegraph line was destroyed, along with a considerable amount of stores."
  • Battle: "his opposite number, however..." presumably this is Gore, why not name him?
    • The source doesn't specifically say it was Hore at this point, so I went with something a bit more generic. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Battle: "it was marked with Red Cross flag..." I added the "a" to this, but it occurs to me possibly it should be "flags"?
    • Appears to be a single flag, I think, per Ross. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Battle: "Baden-Powell, despite having a superior force, delayed just 8 miles" should that be was delayed?
    • Went with "halted" as I think that conveys the more correct meaning in the circumstances. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Battle: " Based on the reports provided by Carrington upon his return..." in this sentence Baden-Powell is mentioned three times, possibly rephrase?
  • Battle: "...attacks on nearby farms by members of the Kgatla tribe." Why would the tribe be attacking? Were they hostile to the Boer settlers?
  • The Beckett reference, RE location, do we have a state (presumably Oklahoma)? The Wilcox ref also needs a state for consistency with the other refs.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thank you for taking a look at this. I think I've gotten everything. Please let me know if there is anything more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Marcus Aurelius

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk)

Marcus Aurelius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Marcus Aurelius is an important military figure in Roman history. He was Roman emperor from 161 to 180, the last of the Five Good Emperors. The Roman–Parthian War of 161–166 and the Marcomannic Wars occurred during his reign. Векочел (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Awesome work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, Векочел, epic work. Thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the topic, so can't really help much. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • the checklinks tool reports a few of the external links as being dead: [5] Can you maybe add links to archived versions of these through the Wayback Machine or another such web archive?
    • These should be archived at the Wayback Machine. Векочел (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • some images have alt text and others don't: [6]. Suggest adding this in.
  • in the lead, was Roman emperor from 161 to 180 --> "was the Roman emperor from 161 to 180"?
    • He co-ruled with his brother and later with his son, so he was not the only emperor. Векочел (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The most important group of sources, the biographies contained in the Historia Augusta, claims to be... --> should be "claim" not "claims"
  • but was in fact --> "but were in fact"
  • in the Sources section, I suggest moving the text above the images, as the images seem to take the eye away from what is important here
  • there is some date style inconsistency; for instance compare "26 April 121" with "April 26, 121". Either style is probably fine, but it should be consistent
  • Marcus Aurelius was taught at home... --> "educated at home"?
  • be careful of overlinking terms. Duplicate link checker reports a few: Denarius, Antoninus Pius, Galen, praetor, Pontifex Maximus, tribune, Castel Sant'Angelo, Eturia, Tiberus, Pannonia, Germania Superior, Vindobona, Chatti,
    • Some are linked within images or notes or in the lead, so I do not wish to remove these, but I have removed all others. Векочел (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I read down to the start of the Emperor section and will have to stop there for a bit, I'm afraid

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • every new emperor since Claudius: suggest linking Claudius here
  • crossed over the limes: is there a link or something that could explain this term (limes)?
  • mere patrician: not sure about the use of the word "mere" here, probably best to avoid as it might seem a bit POVish
  • The dissolute Syrian army was said to spend more time in Antioch's open-air taverns than with their units: said by whom?
    • See the citation Векочел (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
      • As it sounds like an opinion (based on the way it is currently worded), I feel it should probably be attributed in text. If it is generally agreed upon, I'd suggest it could simply be reworded as "The dissolute Syrian army spent more time in Antitoch's..." AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • perhaps he had already heard of Verus' mistress, the low-born and beautiful Panthea: this sought of speculation probably needs in text attribution
  • perhaps Marcus Aurelius wanted him to watch over Verus, the job Libo had failed at: same as above (there may be other instances of this also)
  • particularly into Gaul: move the link to Gaul to the first mention
  • Numerous members of Germanic tribes --> "Many members of Germanic tribes"
  • but this time the numbers of settlers --> "but this time the number of settlers"
  • For this reason, Marcus Aurelius decided not only against bringing more barbarians into Italy, but even banished those who had previously been brought there --> "For this reason, Marcus Aurelius decided not to bring more barbarians to Italy, and banished some of those who had already arrived"?
  • link "manumission"
  • A possible contact with Han China occurred in 166 --> "A contact with Han China possibly occurred in 166"?
  • Modern figures such as Wen Jiabao and Bill Clinton admire the book --> "According to Hays, modern figures such as Wen Jiabao and Bill Clinton admire the book"?
  • the heading "Equestrian Statue" should probably be "Equestrian statue" per WP:Section caps
    • Changed to "Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius", the proper name Векочел (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • that's it from me. Overall, I think potentially the level of detail is a bit much, and might be held against it at FAC. I found it an interesting read, though, with a flare that isn't usually present in most Wikipedia articles (mine own included). Whether it is too much, though, I'm afraid I am not sure. I also think that potentially there are too many images in the article and would suggest removing a few
  • I am totally out of my depth with the sourcing, so will have to leave that to others to look at. Sorry

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Vrbanja Bridge

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Battle of Vrbanja Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This is one of my rare forays into an article on the Bosnian War. This skirmish happened while I was in Bosnia on a recce for my later deployment, and had a significant impact on the training my troops underwent. It is particularly notable for being the most recent bayonet charge by the French Army, and for the fact that the officer who led the assault is currently the French Chief of the Defence Staff. It went through GAN a couple of years ago. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

  • Facing a second hostage crisis What was the first?
  • Should the ARBiH be considered co-belligerents in the infobox for firing on the VRS?
  • I'm open to that, but overall, I think the ARBiH involvement was incidental as far as this incident was concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The infobox says the captured VRS soldiers were released, but this is not stated or supported in the prose. Phillip Corwin, UN officer in Sarajevo, discusses some of the legal implications of their capture in his memoir and their eventual release (pp. 63–65, 90, 93).
  • I'm seeing if I can find a better or corroborating source for the release, as memoirs are generally to be avoided due to the mix of primary and secondary material they usually contain. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This source says that French President Jacques Chirac, who had been frustrated by UN pacifisticity, ordered the counterattack. Then, on 1 June, he said, "France will no longer permit its soldiers to be humiliated, wounded, or killed with impunity by those who choose to oppose their peacekeeping mission." The source further claims that this signified a stark break from "the mushy consensus among Western nations which, for four years, had cloaked their unwillingness to act in humanitarian garb." Any veracity to these claims?
  • He was far from the only one who was frustrated with the UN approach! I reckon this might be able to be used, I'll see if I can hunt down a news report to confirm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Indy beetle, I'll report back once I've tidied up these bits, but I'm interested in whether others think the ARBiH should be considered a co-belligerent in the infobox. Could you chime in on this @AustralianRupert and Nick-D:? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, it's not a big deal for me, to be honest, but I would probably leave them out. I think their involvement was opportunistic and suspect that they would have opposed the UN troops in different circumstances (PM you can probably correct me if I am wrong), so it would possibly give the wrong impression to list them in the infobox alongside the UN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AR - the UN/NATO forces and Bosnians had an OK relationship, but this was largely due to them not attacking each other rather than cooperating at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Apparently, I reviewed this at GAN a few years ago. I don't recall this, I'm sorry, but I have reviewed the changes since then and have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I wonder if there might be some sort of map, that could be added to the article?
  • VRS seized 377 UNPROFOR hostages --> do we know which countries these were from? Potentially this could be added in a note?
  • General Smith and other --> there is no need for the rank here, as it has already been introduced
  • The first evidence that something was wrong at Vrbanja Bridge... --> "The first evidence that the French (or NATO) received that something..."
  • The French marines overran a sangar held... --> perhaps try to introduce the bayonet charge in a more active way here. For instance, French marines, with bayonets fixed, overran a sangar held...
  • a corporal, managed to escape: do we know how?
  • One of the wounded French soldiers died of wounds later that day --> "One of the wounded French soldiers died of wounds later that dayn, bringing the total of French killed during the battle to three"?
  • some of the citations use cite templates, and some don't. For instance, the news articles don't -- this creates a very slight inconsistency in outward presentation
  • is there a place of publishing that could be added for Schmidt's work in the Notes section?
  • the infobox mentions a strength of 14 soldiers for the VRS, but I couldn't locate this number in the body of the article, unless I missed it somewhere
  • in the Aftermath, is there anything that could be added (if it exists in reliable sources) about how the incident impacted future deployments of peacekeepers in the region?
  • I believe that a large number (121) UN peacekeepers who had been taken hostage, were released on 4 June. These were from France, Canada and the UK. This might be relevant for the Aftermath, perhaps? Source: "Fighting escalates, UN role in question", UN Chronicle, 32.2 (September 1995): p. 29 + (accessed via Gale's War and Terrorism Collection online information database through my work library). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This is a great little article. I only have some minor comments:

  • Can you include material on the impact of the battle on how your troops and other UN/NATO forces were trained/deployed?
  • It presumably isn't an accident that the aggressive and successful young platoon commander ended up running the French military. Could some material be added on the battle's impact on his career? Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Lothringen

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Lothringen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Who'd have thought that I'd get the last battleship of the German Imperial Navy to a MILHIST A-class review? Lothringen was under repair during the Battle of Jutland and wasn't available when the rest of her squadron sortied with the German fleet for the battle. The ship was one of the few battleships retained by Germany after the war, though she was only used as a parent ship for minesweepers while Germany fulfilled the requirement to clear the North Sea of mines. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:German_battleship_SMS_Lothringen_underway_at_sea_before_1914_(ggbain.28288).jpg: if this is from the Bain collection, why is it believed to be USGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Good question - seems to have been a result of confusion between being held by the LoC and being a work of the US government. I've removed the US tag. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Chetsford

I think this is just wonderful. I'm not all that fond of ship articles as a general rule, but I had a very enjoyable time reading this very thorough article which is superbly illustrated and composed in a compelling prose. I have a few very minor comments you can consider or discard, at your leisure.

  • The article is 14,819 characters; the manual of style (MOS:LEADLENGTH) advises a lead of "One or two paragraphs" for articles of this length. However, it's so close I think you should just keep the lead as it is.
  • I feel like at some point the Baltic Sea could be wikilinked.
    • Good point.
  • I feel like adding the literal translation (President of the Realm) after Reichspräsident is a bit clunky.
    • Yeah, it's not great - do you have a better idea? Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Parsec, nice work. I have a few minor suggestions, but otherwise it looks good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • in the lead, was the fifth of five --> "last of five"?
    • Agree that that's better
  • in the lead, She was laid down in 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906 --> "She was laid down in December 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906"?
    • Added
  • in the lead, Hessen's peacetime career centered --> Lothringen's?
    • Fixed
  • in the infobox, "December 1902" (as the laid down date) does not appear in the body
    • Added the full date to both
  • in the infobox, "16,000 ihp (12,000 kW)" compared with "15,781 ihp; 11,768 kW" in the body
    • Fixed
  • the launching speed --> "speech"?
    • Funny what the fingers type sometimes, eh?
  • Prince Heinrich had --> wikilink name on first mention
    • Done
  • same as above for "Wilhelm II"
    • Done
  • island of Helgoland --> move link to the first mention of Helgoland
    • Done
  • KAdm: has this abbreviation been formally introduced?
    • Fixed
  • same as above for "VAdm"
    • Fixed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No worries, I have added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Auberoche

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

  • 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 just passed a GAN and the assessor pressed me to enter it for FA. It seems to me to meet the standards, so have at it. One of the most important battles of the Hundred Years' War, the capstone of one of the most successful campaigns, the point at which the tide turned against the French, and virtually unknown, so read all about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from CPA-5

A nice page I would say let's start if you don't mind?

  • I'm not sure but shouln't the "English crown" be fully capitalised and become "English Crown"? Because it looks like an organisation like the Great Council which is an organisation right?
That is a very good question. It reads oddly to me when capitalised and I am not fully convinced, but I can't think of a logical reason to refute you, so changed.
  • "stages of the Hundred Years War" --> "stages of the Hundred Years' War"
  • "The status of the English king's" should it not be "The status of the English King's"?
No, IMO. It could be, and is, referring to any of a number of English kings, rather than being used as a short form for a specific king.
  • Good catch, my bad for the misunderstanding. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the Gascons had had" two hads?
It's allowable grammar; but you are correct that it both reads oddly and is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph, so changed.
  • Thanks, I didn't know it was allowable. I was just reading and I found it out and because I'm not a native English speaker was this new or a wrong sentence. In my native language its allowable too and I though in English it wasn't allowed to use it but I learn everyday something new. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "only25 miles" --> "only 25 miles"
D'oh! Done.
  • "hill about a mile" in kilometers please?
You are good at picking these up. Embarrassing that I keep missing them.
  • "200–300 yards (200–300 m)" yards and metres are not the same.
To this level of accuracy they are. It would read oddly for me to write 182.88-274.32 m, or even, IMO, 180-270 m when we are talking about an extremely rough guide to how far the horses had to charge.
  • Good point. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's it, goodluck. CPA-5 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, thanks for that. As ever, I am open to discussion where I haven't implemented your suggestions, if you are not convinced by my thoughts.
If you have time to cast your eagle eyes over Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333), it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Firstly, you're welcome, I'm happy to help you. Secondly I'd like to have a new review normally it'd take until Thursday ('cause of my busy days in the last weeks) but because I have my break right now, I will have a look into it, tomorrow. So be prepared. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
A further map has been added which may obviate the need for this. What do you think?
  • File:Combat_d'Auberoche,_October_1345.jpg: source link is dead, and can an approximate date be provided?
Source tracked down (quite a job) and added. Approximate date added. I would appreciate a check - I am still a tyro at this.
  • Arms should include a tag for the copyright status of the design
Umm. All are labelled up as free use on Commons. Beyond that I start to get lost. Is there a list of appropriate tags somewhere which I could consult, in which case I will see what I can do.
  • File:Portrait_of_Henry,_Duke_of_Lancaster_-_William_Bruges's_Garter_Book_(c.1440-1450),_f.8_-_BL_Stowe_MS_594_(cropped).jpg: not seeing the given tag at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The source seems to be tagged to me. Which obviously means that I am missing something. Would it be possible to spell out the problem in terms suitable for an idiot - ie me?
Hi Nikkimaria Thanks for the review. You seem to be tireless with these, and I appreciate it. Apologies for the delayed response, I missed your queries among those from the other assessors, and then the Combat d'Auberoche took a fair bit of tracking down. This is only my fourth ACR and the image use issue is still a bit of a black box to me. I think that once I have grasped something I am then implementing it correctly, but there seems to be quite a bit for me to pick up. If you could be patient with me I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Constantine

As usual, a finely written and well-referenced article. Not knowing much about the conflict, I had no trouble following it, and made only some minor copyedits and tweaks (addition of regnal dates). My only comments before supporting are the following:

  • "on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal" if some detail can be briefly given as to what this "breach" was, I'd recommend simply stating it. For that matter, was Edward in breach?
I could write a much longer article on that. Political will meets legal theory. Think Brexit, only worse. One source, Sumption, devotes 46 pages to this without coming to a conclusion. And he is a member of the Supreme Court of the UK. (Really.) Basically, Philip wanted the English to be in breach. (And his judges damn well better bear that in mind!) I have added a little, but really, it is a bottomless pit, and each piece of explanation literally asks more questions than it answers. No, I have taken it out again. Philip was looking for a casus belli, any casus belli. The actual cited reason was inconsequential. Can we stay with the deep historic reasoning and the politic implications suggested by "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that..."? (I have just found a 3 volume history on The Origins of the Hundred Yeara' War!)
Yeah, I anticipated that this would not be easy to cover. However, if Philip was indeed seeking a casus belli, and if the sources say that, I would simply add this in a brief note, e.g. "and determined to go to war with England" or something like this, before "on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris", to satisfy the curiosity of the average reader. If the motivation of Philip is made clear, then the details are irrelevant, and can be read up in the Hundred Years' War article. Constantine 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined" is a figure available for the sum levied? Ditto for "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London", "a reportedly vast army", "a very large detachment". It is always best to give an indication of what "large" or "vast" translates to in the given context.
Ah, you like the tricky questions today. Sadly, no data on specifics. It probably varied wildly anyway. The source is impeccable, but imprecise. See here, the second link, p xxxix, from "embarrassment" down for about a page. I wanted to stress the enormous importance of Gascony to Edward, and reckon that I have milked the sources about as far as they will go. (Most are vaguer that Rodger.) That said, any suggestions for different wording are welcome.
"a reportedly vast army": nobody knows, nobody counted. The chronicles note these things in self serving hyperbole and I rely on the professional historians to interpret. Occasionally they make an informed calculation and I can seize on it, but usually they stay well away. (Quite a few English muster and pay records survive, so figures there are better.) French detachments would drift in and out. I seriously doubt that a French commander knew at any given time how many men he had to +/- 20%. The main reason that the French total in the battle is consistently given as 7,000 seems to be because there was a recorded body and prisoner count afterwards.
The following year the main French army in Gascony was estimated at 15,000-20,000, so I would guess "a reportedly vast army" at the upper end of that. Given that everyone seems to agree that 7,000 French fought at Auberoche I would guess that "a very large detachment" at about the same size. I have boldly inserted a figure for the army, but wimped out re the detachment. If you think that the forgoing is solid enough to justify actual numbers in the article then I shall insert them.
Population. I have found an author stupid/brave enough to estimate the population of London, but not Bordeaux, so that has gone in.
No problem if you don't have the figures, that's to be expected, I was simply double-checking. It's simply that when there are numbers, they should be mentioned; a "large army" is a different thing at different times and for different nations, and the average modern, non-expert reader won't have a point of reference either way. Constantine 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France." this is probably meant to describe events hitherto, so I'd suggest "whenever an English army had previously campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France"
Oops. Completely correct. Done - albeit slightly differently to your suggestion.
  • "whichever country was stronger", "country" is a bit anachronistic here, I'd suggest "monarch" instead; this occurs twice, perhaps rephrase entirely the second time around?
Done, and done.

Cheers, Constantine 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Thanks for that. You really got into the article and asked the difficult questions. As a good reviewer should. French record keeping of the period was not so much poor as self seekingly non-existent, so few sources go near a solid, non-English number. See what you think. (You are lucky mostly dealing with Byzantines, who ran a bureaucracy, and Venetians, who were accountants!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Your changes look good. If you think you can put in Philip gunning for war, then I'd be happy, but this is nothing to stop me from supporting. Constantine 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Constantine: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Well done, once again! Constantine 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


It seems clear why the British won this battle; according to the image at the top, they had airborne troops.

Sadly parachutes had not been invented at the time.

I'm concerned primarily with readability, so here are the things I found:

  • the first two paragraphs of the Background are jumbled together. I think this would be improved by splitting off a new para at "Towards the end of 1336", and moving "The status of" and "French monarchs systematically" to the start of the new para.
  • the new para should be grouped with the other statements about the start of the war, so it would make sense to move it above "Although Gascony was the cause of the war", and splitting off "During the first half of the 14th century" as its own para directly under "A large proportion" and then putting it with " 1339 the French besieged Bordeaux" at the bottom. I realize this may be confusing, would you like me to implement this and then revert?
Done. If I have it wrong, feel free to correct.
  • "was extremely unclear" - remove "extremely", "anachronistic" - I get the idea, but I'm not sure this is clear to most readers. I had to look it up, and I love jargon.
Really?[!] You need to stay in more. Done. (A quick search shows it turning up a lot in articles American Civil War, Buddhism, Supreme Court of the United States, Martin Luther, Catholic Church etc, etc. And that's not considering variations such as anachronism etc.)
  • "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London, which had a population of 50,000" I think you're saying London was 50k? It's not entirely clear in the context.
How's that?
  • The map of the regions is in french, so I suggest adding french terms for the areas where they are mentioned, mostly in the "plans" section.
Done. Bracketed at first mention under "plans".
  • "The French, hearing of Derby's arrival" - para break.
  • "sallied with all the mounted men he could muster. Taken in the rear" - by Hallam? Or by the "small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry"? It is not clear which of these caused the collapse.
Reworded. Clearer?
  • "Despite outnumbering the Anglo-Gascon force eight to one he retreated to Angoulême and disbanded his army" - damb. Maybe para break here?
I have broken it, but a sentence earlier that you suggested. Does it read ok? ("damb"?)

That's about it! I also made two very minor edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maury Markowitz. Thanks for going through the article and for your copy edits. Appreciated. Your points all addressed and some comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My only remaining issue is with this section:

Derby made a cavalry charge ... A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear ... Hallen ... sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

So... 1) there are two sets of troops attacking from the rear, and 2) there are two groups of cavalry. So is it all of the cavalry pursuing? And was it the infantry's attack, or Hallam's, or both, that caused the collapse? I know there may be no answers to these questions in the available sources, but if its there I think this could be clarified. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I also re-worded the border issue, which I think now better explains it, feel free to RV. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maury Markowitz.
  • Border. IMO it now understates the extent to which there was nothing even remotely resembling what we would call a border. But I will think on how I can express that both clearly and succinctly, rather than banging in the first thing that comes to mind.
  • Pursuit. Who knows; not recorded. Probably some of each.
  • Attack in rear. Hallen's charge was the final straw, a couple of hours or so into the fight.

    A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west. The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time. Hallen realised that the French troops guarding his exit from the castle were either distracted or had been drawn off to join the fighting; he sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

To me the sentence "The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time." after "... to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west." makes it clear that it wasn't the "small" force that broke the French. I have given it a go at making this even clearer, but I am probably too close to it. See what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:
  • Your border explanation does make it clearer. I have added an additional sentence and that is probably about as good as we are going to get.
  • Pursuit. No, no record. I imagine that it was an undifferentiated mob of cavalry.
  • Tweaked the wording a bit to try to clarify just what the final straw was, as this is - more or less - in the record.
Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Thanks again for your input. I was wondering if you felt that the changes made have got this article up to a level at which you felt able to support it for A class. If not, would you be able to identify what further improvements might be able to bring it up to that level? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes sorry, forgot to end it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Australian Rupert

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work. I looked mainly at sources. I have a few minor points, otherwise it looks good to go to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Bordeaux and Bergerac, Dordogne are overlinked
  • for citation # 19 (Ormrod 2004) is there a page number that could be added?
I don't remember that the on line version has page numbers. However, I am having trouble with my library card and can't get in to check. So I have lost Ormrod and replaced it with another source. It is not as if where I used Ormrod was a matter of any scholarly debate.
No worries, I would be fine with you keeping Ormrod without pages if it is the online version you cited... I understand that sometimes that is necessary. But your solution works fine, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Sources section, the title of the DeVries work should use title case capitalisation for consistency
  • same as above for Lacey
  • in the Sources, remove the second authorlink for Rogers
  • in the Sources, the date for Prestwich doesn't need to be so precise: 2007 is fine
  • in the Sources, the hyphenation of ISBNs has some variation. For instance compare Rodger (which has no hyphenation) with Prestwich (which has four hyphens) with Gribit which has one.
Apologies. Standardised.
  • in the Sources, move the link for Boydell Press to the first mention
  • for the Fowler thesis, can it be made clearer it was a PhD? I think this can be done by adding "|type=PhD"
Done. It now shows that it is a PhD, but not that it is a thesis. I assume that can be taken as implied?
I didn't realise it would display like that, sorry. I have tweaked it slightly so the word "thesis" shows also. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but it seems like it is clearer that way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • was Fowler's thesis accepted?
Oh yes. He used it as the spine of The King's Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310–1361, the first detailed account of a single, pre-Poitiers, Gascon campaign since the 15th century. I prefer the thesis - the prose is mostly identical, but he cut the thesis down to size for the book and I find a lot of the tables and detail he removed useful. Let me know if you would like more information - several of the leading experts in the field explicitly praise his work, even though one would normally have thought that it was a little dated. A sample of his subsequent books and papers. He went on to become the Professor of Medieval History at Edinburgh University.
That's fine: great work digging that up! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • except for the above question, the sources appear to be reliable to me as a lay person
Hi AustralianRupert many thanks for bringing your forensic gaze to bear on this. I think that I have corrected the sloppiness which you identified above. Sourcing was a bit tricky - down to personally emailing professors to request copies of out of print papers - but I think that I got there. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Gog. I think you have done a fantastic job, and I don't think you are sloppy at all. These are just minor nitpicks to hopefully just polish it a little. We all make mistakes in our articles, and need a reviewer's eyes to spot them. That's really the strength of Wikipedia, IMO. If we were writing offline, we wouldn't have others to help pick up these things. Anyway, mate, keep up the great work! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks AustralianRupert. I find it frustrating that I can't spot things in my own articles that I can in others, even though I know that this is normal. And that I seem to keep making the same "errors" *rolly eyes". I guess that being very new to this level, and new enough to Wikipedia at all, I am not sure what level of completeness it is normal/acceptable to present an article at. You reassure me that I am getting my nominations near enough to acceptable, but I shall still try to do better. You are, of course, correct, that this probably the greatest strength of Wikipedia; by the time an article gets through this stage it has had a lot of eyes on it. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Hulao

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

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

One of the most pivotal battles in Chinese history, as it cemented the Tang dynasty as rulers of China. A rather old article, it passed GA back in 2013, and I had held out a nomination hoping to find more sources. Alas, Graff's monograph will probably remain the basis of this article for the foreseeable future, or until my Chinese skills are up to the task of reading historical literature. Nevertheless, I am confident that the article is comprehensive and meets A-class criteria. Any and all suggestions for improvement are of course welcome. Constantine 14:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

  • Suggest alternating the first two sentences in the lead. Roughly: The Battle of Hulao (虎牢之戰) on 28 May 621 was a major and the final battle during the Luoyang-Hulao campaign between Tang, Zheng and Xia. It was a decisive victory for the Tang Dynasty prince Li Shimin, through which he was able to subdue two rival warlords, Dou Jiande and Wang Shichong.
  • Something of a side note, but how did military failures cause the provincial governors to question something as sacred as the Mandate from Heaven? Did they believe that Heaven was expressing its displeasure with Yang?
  • Li Yuan was now firmly placed as a major contender for the empire. That reads as a person "for" a country...perhaps major contender for the throne?
  • it has been described as a "Chinese Thermopylae". Described as such by who?
  • apart from skirmishes between the two armies' cavalry, the two armies maintained their standoff Suggest revision as apart from skirmishes between their cavalry, the two armies maintained their standoff.
  • Wang was ostensibly allowed to retire in exile, but was killed on his way there. Exile where?
  • There's a number of commanders in the infobox that have no mention in the article prose.
  • Should Wang and his faction and the total 50,000 Tang troops be included in the infobox, if they didn't participate in the actual engagement?
  • Do you know if there are any modern commemorations of the battle, plaques or monuments or the like?
  • Even if you aren't able to fully read them, are you aware of any Chinese sources that might have some info that is not represented in the article?

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Fall of Kampala

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Fall of Kampala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The Fall of Kampala in April 1979 was a critical but oft forgotten moment in the history of the African continent. It was the first time an African state seized the capital of another African country, and it resulted in the overthrow of the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin. The actual fighting was nothing to write home about, as the bulk of the Ugandan Army crumbled and fled in the face of a three-pronged Tanzanian assault. The bulk of this article was written with information from a 1983 book by two journalists, War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin, with some additional details provided by contemporary newspaper reports and some recent articles by Uganda's Daily Monitor. Achieving A-class would herald a great improvement in coverage of the Uganda–Tanzania War on Wikipedia. Hopefully this article can reach featured status before the 40th anniversary of the battle next spring. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


What a great article to bring to a high standard. I have the following comments:

  • The first para in the lead is a bit lengthy: I'd suggest splitting the first two sentences into a single para (which does a great job of summarising the entire article) and significantly trimming the remainder - this amount of background seems unnecessary for the lead.
    • Split and trimmed.
  • " 201st Brigade led by Brigadier established" - the Brigadier's name is missing (though I don't think this is needed for the lead)
    • Removed led by Brigadier.
  • A map of the relevant areas of Uganda would be helpful in the background and/or Prelude section
    • Added a map of Kampala city centre in the Prelude section.
      • A map of the general Kampala area would be very useful given that not all of the article (especially the early sections) is about things which happened in Kampala, and the geography is a bit obscure. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D: Changed to cropped portion of a map showing Kampala and several surrounding towns. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "alternating dirt shoulders of the road" - I'm not sure what this means (how do road shoulders alternate?)
    • Revised as walked on the dirt shoulders of the road, the units staggered on alternating sides. It would have looked something like this: _–_–_–
  • The para starting with "Lieutenant Colonel Msuya was eager" is a bit lengthy
    • Split after "This is almost worth getting court-martialed for."
  • "The Tanzanians recovered the body of Hans Poppe, a biracial police officer who had been killed in a 1971 border clash" - was he Tanzanian? (this is implied, but not clear) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Revised as The Tanzanians recovered the body of Hans Poppe, a biracial Tanzanian police officer who had been killed by the Ugandans in a 1971 border clash.
@Nick-D: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now all addressed. It really is good to see a high quality article on an important but under-represented topic such as this. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Just starting off, but one question from the start... why was Amin in Entebbe and not Kampala? Was the capital moved during this period, or was he simply camping with his forces? Is Entebbe State House a major center, or just somewhere he was at that time? This is not clear to me and I suspect others might want to know this too. I'll try to have some more constructive comments later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Maury Markowitz: The capital was always Kampala, and the article makes that clear enough. Historically the Ugandan President has always had an official residence in Entebbe. More information can be found here at this Ugandan government site: [7]. That source says by 1979 Amin was not living there permanently, but Avirgan and Honey are quite clear that Amin was there at the time, presumably overseeing the mobilisation of his forces and the movement of the Libyans. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Any other comments? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Indy. Nice work, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • the year "1979" should be mentioned in the lead somewhere
    • Done.
  • in the lead, Uganda-Tanzania War should have an endash
    • Done.
  • at five paragraphs, the lead is probably a little too long per WP:LEAD. You could potentially combine a couple
    • Trimmed, consolidated into four paragraphs.
  • make any broadcasts (He...: decaps "He"
    • Done.
  • Entebbe-Kampala road: probably should have an endash
    • Done.
  • Bwaise-Kawempe area: same as above
    • Done.
  • I see some inconsistency in the English variation, for instance "defence" and "centre" (British), but also "neighborhoods", "center" and "kilometers" (US)
    • Should all be UK now.
  • Lieutenant Colonel Msuya was...: the rank isn't necessary here, as he has already been introduced in the previous section
    • Removed "Lieutenant Colonel".
  • destroying a Land Rover: suggest linking Land Rover here
    • Done.
  • The evening of 11 April was dubbed "the night of the wheelbarrows" in allusion to civilians carting away property: who dubbed it this?
    • Resourced to the Newsweek article where this was originally reported. Its three authors have only this to say: "Far more destruction occurred when the victory celebration degenerated into an orgy of looting and violence. Stores were emptied during what came to be called the "Night of the Wheel-barrows," and soldiers loyal to Amin were beaten to death by mobs."
      • I'd suggest maybe attributing it to Newsweek in text. For instance, "The evening of 11 April was dubbed the "Night of the Wheelbarrows" in a Newsweek article..." AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Changed to According to a Newsweek report, the evening of 11 April "came to be called the 'Night of the Wheel-barrows,'" in allusion to civilians carting away property.
  • in the Citations, No.s 1, 2, 20, 23, 36, and 46 probably should have retrieval dates
    • My understanding was that uploaded archive material did not need access dates, as everything is as it was originally printed (versus the Daily Monitor articles, which were published on the web and may have been updated).
      • G'day, I haven't heard of that before, to be honest. The retrieval dates really just help people find dead links in web archives, so I feel it would be an improvement. That said, I won't die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Point taken; retrieval dates added.
  • in the References, add hyphens to the ISBN for Avirgan for consistency of style with the other entries
    • Done.
  • in the References, Amin and the tragedy of Uganda --> "Amin and the Tragedy of Uganda" (title case caps)
    • Done.
  • in the References, Gordon B.K. Wavamunno: the story of an African entrepreneur --> " Gordon B.K. Wavamunno: The Story of an African Entrepreneur" (per above)
    • Done.
@AustralianRupert: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk)
No worries, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

German torpedo boat Albatros

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): L293D (talk) and Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

German torpedo boat Albatros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The fourth of six Type 23 torpedo boats, laid down in 1925 an launched in 1927. Albatros participated in the Spanish Civil War and WW2, fired the first shot of the Norwegian Campaign, and ran aground while attempting to avoid Norwegian costal artillery. I created this article in April, passed GA a couple days ago, and a DYK about it should get on the Main Page soon. Many thanks to Sturmvogel 66 who wrote a good part of the article, and Vami IV for the GA review. I am hoping to get it to pass FAC one day (and win the four award). L293D ( • ) 16:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Indy Beetle

Seeing as Action in the Oslofjord and Battle of Horten Harbour were among my first articles, I think I'll take a stab at this one:

  • Instead of "Norwegian Campaign", seems better to say Operation Weserübung.
    • I disagree, I think that Operation Weserübung is the more obscure name and wouldn't be familiar to most readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      • But it is the name of the German invasion operation that this German torpedo boat was participating in. Besides, there's always the wikilink. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it's best to give a reader a general idea of what's what; they can click on the link if they want more information. That's why I give the ship type the first time I mention it so that readers don't have to click on the link to get basic information. Operation Weserübung is meaningless to the average reader without clicking through. If you like, you can put the operation name in parentheses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems important to mention that Pol III rammed Albatros.
    • Added. L293D ( • ) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vincent O'Hara (The German Fleet at War, 1939-1945 pp. 26–28) has the timing surrounding the action in Horten somewhat different. He also suggests that the main reason the Albatros retreated from the harbour is that its forward battery "malfunctioned" after eight rounds.
    • Haarr doesn't say anything about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • It doesn't appear incompatible with what Haarr gives. At the very least a footnote should be added explaining the jam.
  • What happened to the ship after it wrecked? According to OÕHara it was a "total loss".
    • Added. L293D ( • ) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Source review

  • All the sources are books from professional, reputable publishing companies.
  • I can vouch that the information from Haarr is represented accurately in this article.
  • The last three citations all include relatively large page ranges from Haarr. Why not break up the citations to the info they support throughout the paragraphs?
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • And reversed. The last para has five different pages, that's all. And the other paragraphs aren't much different.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Five is relatively large, especially when the pages aren't sequential.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria

Image review

  • Suggest elaborating on the map caption
  • File:Damaged_Pol_III.jpg: per the tag, please provide more details on the provenance of the photo, particularly when/where it was first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably not published as it's from the Norwegian Armed Forces Musuems website and is not attributed. Possibly taken by an official photographer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • That would likely pose a problem per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. Do we know the date it was first published on the museum site? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
        • No, probably not before 2000 or so, which doesn't help. But as an anonymous work, it was out of copyright in Denmark before 1996 and therefore doesn't fall under the URAA, right?
          • Denmark - Norway? I uploaded the photo to Commons two or so years ago, I didn't find any additional info about it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
            • My understanding, per the Cornell chart, is that unpublished anonymous works don't become PD in the US until 120 years after creation, regardless of country of creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Jesus, that's five-odd generations! It's gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: now that the issues are sorted, would you like to support? L293D ( • ) 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kges1901

Lead and infobox

  • In the lead, and then ran aground and was wrecked while maneuvering in an attempt to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. should be rephrased to avoid repetition of 'and'
  • Infobox says 32–34 knots max speed but body says 33 knots
  • Infobox has 1927 as completion year, presumed typo

Construction and career

  • First para of construction and career is uncited at the end
    • Fixed
  • Link Falke, Greif, Möwe, Wilhelmshaven at first mention
  • In 1931, the Commander of the Reconnaissance Forces (B.d.A), Konteradmiral Conrad Albrecht, took part with his flagship Königsberg, and the 4th Torpedo Boat Half-Flotilla in the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the Latvian Navy in Libau. extremely awkward phrasing, should be reworded to focus on the torpedo boats
  • Two consecutive sentences beginning with 'in' in the second paragraph of 'Construction and career'
  • On 1 October 1934, the 2nd Torpedo Boat Flotilla was commanded from Albatros and consisted of Möwe and the two Type 24 torpedo boats Jaguar and Leopard. This is my somewhat loose reading of the term flagship, but can this be rephrased to say that Albatros was the flagship of the flotilla that included the other boats? In addition, I note the minor inconsistency between Half-Flotilla and Flotilla.
  • From July 1936 to October 1937, Albatros carried out four patrols of neutral Spanish waters. Briefly explain here why they were there, some context may be necessary
  • and the heavy cruisers Deutschland and Admiral Scheer to the north Spanish coast and evacuated Germans and other refugees to France. heavy repetition of 'and', sentence seems like a run on
  • chartered by the Reich the Third Reich is not mentioned until this point, so a rephrase may be necessary
  • 28 September to 29 November 1936 Unnecessary repetition of '1936'
  • During subsequent attacks later that day, several bombs fell near the ship and he steamed to join the cruiser in Ibiza. Is this a typo or are torpedo boats male?
  • Link Adolf Hitler
  • Last para of Spanish Civil War should be rephrased to make it more Albatros-centric. As it stands right now, it is more a recounting of the incident with Deutschland and the repercussions of the latter than part of the service history.
  • Now assigned to the 5th Torpedo Boat Flotilla Is there a specific date? There appears to be a gap between 1937 and 1939.
    • The sources often don't specify when the boats were transferred between flotillas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • North Sea mining operations clarify by adding German before North Sea, perhaps rephrase to 'participated in' instead of 'used'
  • captured four ships in the Kattegat - were these neutrals or Allied?
  • Link Kondor
  • which sheered off presumed typo, awkward phrasing. Also clarify that 04:03 is on 9 April, presumably.
  • Later that morning, Kondor and Albatros were ordered to land their troops at Son and then, reinforced by R21, she was ordered to secure the submarine base at Teie. The following morning, Kondor and Albatros were engaged by coastal batteries on the island of Bolærne and forced to turn away. Later that day This becomes repetitive and hard to keep track of exact dates, suggest rephrasing.
  • later took over Olav Tryggvason which was initially renamed Albatros II and then became Brummer - Explain the Norwegian surrender that led to the acquisition of Olav Tryggvason since the Alabatros crew, as I understand it, was only transferred to her. The current phrasing makes it sound like they boarded/attacked Olav Tryggvason
  • That's me done. A surprisingly long read. Kges1901 (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • See how everything reads now. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing the comments. Support Kges1901 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

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

  • where were the TTs mounted?
    • Added.
  • the conversions of the original TTs don't match between the body and infobox
    • Fixed. - L293D
  • what does C/30 mean?
  • suggest "of the Swedish Crown Prince Gustav Adolf withto the German princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha"
    • Nice idea, done. - L293D
  • link Seeadler and state what type of ship she was
    • Done. - L203D
  • do we know anything about what she did between returning to Germany in 1937 and the start of the war?
    • Nothing's in the sources
  • any losses in the grounding?
    • None given.
  • she wasn't salvaged?
    • No. - L293D

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review. See if our changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Rhine Campaign of 1795

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Rhine Campaign of 1795 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's been updated with all the information available. Full casualties are not available unless I do OR. Its sister articles, Army of the Rhine and Moselle, Rhine Campaign of 1796, and Army of the Sambre and Meuse, have undergone A-class review and the latter two have passed FA. Army of the Rhine and Moselle is at FA consideration now. auntieruth (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure, I assessed this for GA.

  • @Auntieruth55: I have done a little copy editing, could you check that you are happy with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs alt text for the Battle of Handschuhsheim.
  • Optional: "Pichegru's army made a surprise capture of Mannheim" seems a little clumsy; maybe 'Pichegru's army captured Mannheim in a surprise attack'?
  • Siege of Mannheim: I am genuinely unsure if Siege should be capitalised, as Battle would be. Is there any guidance on this?
  • "traitorous contact with French Royalists". Why is Royalists capitalised? (And elsewhere.)
  • "the army had made itself odious throughout France, by both rumor and action". I am not sure what "rumor" is alluding to. Perhaps you could expand? (A little.)
  • "Imperial Circles". Why the capital C? (In Note 1 it is lower case in the first sentence, upper case in the second and lower case again in the third!)
  • ok, I've "regularized" this. perhaps better? It should be capitalized when referring to a specific circle.
  • Optional: "Political terrain"? Perhaps 'Political background'?
  • "the Rhine Ditch". Why is this in italics?
it's a translation from German, and in English or German, it is colloquial.
  • "Further to the north, the river became deeper and faster". Does your source definitely support this? I thought that in this stretch it became broader and slower, and meandered more.
  • north of the knee it broadened, and then as it progressed further north, it became deeper, narrower and faster.
  • "By 1794-95, military planners in Paris". Is the source not more precise?
  • " For the French, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." In what way was the approach "reliable"?
  • Optional: "not only in terms of war aims but also in practical terms: the French Directory believed that war should pay for itself". I would replace the colon with a full stop.
  • "The right flank of the Armies of the Center". Should that be 'Army', singular?
Always referred to as Armies (plural) because there were several armies in the Center.
  • Then see the next sentence "The remaining units of the former Army of the Center…" Singular.
  • "Although this solved some of the problems of feeding and paying the army". How and why? I don't see why it should?
make the occupied territories pay wages and for food.
  • But you don't mention that:

    Theirs was an army entirely dependent for support upon the countryside it occupied. The planners reorganized the army into task forces. The right flank of the Armies of the Center, later the called the Army of the Moselle, the entire Army of the North and the Army of the Ardennes were combined to form the Army of the Sambre and Meuse. The remaining units of the former Army of the Center and the Army of the Rhine were united, initially on 29 November 1794, and formally on 20 April 1795, under the command of Jean-Charles Pichegru. Although this solved some of the problems of feeding and paying the army, it did not solve them all.

The article reads as if the reorganisation partially solved these problems.
  • "in May 1796, in the border town of Zweibrücken, a demi-brigade revolted. In June, pay for two demi-brigades was in arrears and two companies rebelled". Why are incidents several months after the campaign finished relevant?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "The Coalition garrison of 9,600 negotiated secretly". Why the upper case C? (And elsewhere.)
Because the Coalition was a thing. The First Coalition (as opposed to the Second), included allies that called themselves the Coalition.
  • "With Jourdan temporarily out of the picture, the Austrians defeated the left wing of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle at the Battle of Mainz: 17,000 Coalition troops commanded by Wurmser engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers, commanded by Pichegru, who were encamped outside the Mannheim fortress." That's a long sentence. Suggest replacing the colon with a full stop.
  • "Mainz, on 29 October 1795, a Coalition army of 27,000, led by Count of Clerfay". Either 'the Count of Clerfay' or 'Count Clerfay'.
  • "and prepared for invasion". Is that 'and prepared to be invaded', or 'and prepared to invade'?
  • "this meant drafting raw recruits from the ten "Circles,"" Why an upper case C? Why the scare quotes? Why the comma inside the quotes?
  • "in the spring of 1796, Charles had half the number of troops covering". Half the troops compared with what?
  • "By 1795, Pichegru was leaning heavily toward the Royalist cause. During the campaign, he accepted money from a British agent". Should events "during the campaign" not be covered in the section "Campaign of 1795", rather than one after the Aftermath section? In any event, I don't see what this paragraph has to do with School for marshals.
  • "Jean-de-Dieu Soult, who participated in the campaign as an infantry brigadier, noted that Jourdan too made many errors but the French government's errors were worse." Suggest deleting "too".
  • "The Army of the Rhine and Moselle (and its subsequent incarnations) included five future Marshals of France" Why do you not include Soult, "who participated in the campaign as an infantry brigadier"?

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Ruth, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • 1792–98 --> "1792-1798" per WP:DATERANGE
  • units combined the old military units with new revolutionary formations --> "units that combined..."?
  • there are a few duplicate links: Holy Roman Empire, French Directory, Duchy of Bavaria,
  • in the Sources section, the ISBN that is provided for Phipps appears to be the same as that provided for Rothenberg 2007
  • in the Sources, "Dunn-Pattison" should appear after Dodge, if it is to appear in alphabetical order
  • in the Sources, some ISBNs are hyphenated differently to others. For instance, compare "978-3540293934" with "978-1-908692-25-2"
  • 1789-1797: should have an endash
  • in the Web sources section, the date ranges should have endashes in the titles
  • there is some inconsistency in date formats, e.g. compare "2014-11-12" with "10 February 2009"
  • "Rothenberg, pp. 37-39": needs an endash
  • "Rothenberg, pp. 37-39" and "Rothenberg, p. 39": seems ambiguous - is this Rothenberg 1973 or 2007?
  • Gates, listed in Citations but not in Sources
  • Pichegru bungled --> "bungled" seems quite strong, and while potentially true, I think we need to be careful with this word as it might convey a point of view. Potentially "Pichegru missed at least one..." might be less problematic?
  • Wurmer then laid --> "Wurmser"
  • Of the lessons learned in both 1794 and 1795, the Habsburgs may have concluded that they could not rely on their allies --> suggest this should probably be attributed in text. For instance, "According to Gunther Rothenberg..."
  • led by Count of Clerfayt --> "led by the Count of Clerfayt"?
  • citation density looked fine to me, and on face value the sources look reliable to me, although some of the German language references were beyond my skills to research, I'm afraid
  • in Template:Campaignbox Rhine Campaign of 1795 there is a redlink for 1st Mannheim, is this the same as Siege of Mannheim (1795). If so, can I suggest that the template be updated? If not, I am not sure whether the redlink appears in this article. It probably should. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Real Life has intervened, but I will get to these comments over our long weekend. auntieruth (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Ruth, I hope all is well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Apollo 11

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Apollo 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Apollo 11 was the first manned landing on the Moon. We're trying to get the article up to Featured in time for the 50th anniversary, which is in July next year. Article has been overhauled, and is already rated Good, so bringing it here for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Minor comment The statement that "In 2015, the quarantine trailer, the flotation collar, and the righting spheres were moved" isn't supported by the source. From checking my photos, the Apollo 11 flotation collar and quarantine trailer were at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center when I visited it in 2009. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Consider uploading some of the photos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just uploaded a couple of photos of the quarantine trailer - [8], [9], though the quality isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

  • Placeholder for now. I'm about 80% through notes on prose. Hopefully will finish in next day or two. JennyOz (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, following are some comments, primarily on prose and very much from a lay person's reading. I also took notes on some refs and inconsistencies. Will add them separately soon.

  • launched by a Saturn V rocket from Kennedy Space Center - wasn't called Kennedy then (others at Anders below)
    ☒N Yes it was. The facility was given its current name by President Lyndon B. Johnson under Executive Order 11129 on November 29, 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eisenhower's successor, John F. Kennedy. [13] - space before ref
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the Soviet Union had better booster rockets, he required a challenge that was beyond the capacity of the existing generation of rocketry, and therefore would mean the US and Soviet Union would be starting from a position of equality - Difficult to parse.
    ???? Tweaked it. How about now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Something spectacular, even if it could not be justified on military, economic or scientific grounds. - not a sentence?
    I think it works. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Kennedy's speech via here does not have cap on earth ie "safely to the earth". If we are going to capitalise Earth, (which mos typo allows) we should also Moon.
    ☑Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • required for Apollo were developed by Project Gemini - swap 'were' to 'had been' (so it doesn't sound concurrent)
    I think it works this way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Apollo 7 tested the command module in Earth obit - orbit
    ☑Y ribbet Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Apollo 9 tested the lunar module in Earth obit - orbit
    ☑Y ribbet Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • they launched Luna 15, - replace 'they' with the Soviets?
    ☑Y Okay
  • Jodrell Bank Observatory was called Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories during that time (see note Anders below)
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and this was published in July 2009 - do we know where/how published, if not, is 'released' better word?
    ☑Y Changed to "released" Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • July 2009 on the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 - The Independent ref is dated 3 July so 'on' is incorrect, 'the month of'?
    ☑Y Changed to for the 40th Anniversary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • table has Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin but opening line "The crew assignment of Neil Armstrong as Commander, Jim Lovell as Command Module Pilot (CMP) and Buzz Aldrin .." It 'looks like' an error - suggest adding 'initial' or 'original' between 'the' and 'crew'
    ☑Y Re-organised this paragraph. What I find fascinating is that five people had to die before Neil and Buzz got this mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Backup crew
  • Anders... In early 1969, he accepted a job with the National Space Council effective August 1969 - was named National Aeronautics and Space Council (1958–1973), use pipe? (Anders' article uses proper name of the period. Others this page use the 'then' name eg Manned Spacecraft Center ie not Johnson Space Center, Sabine D crater not Collins.)
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • would retire as an astronaut on that date - no specific date is given so change to 'at that time'?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • At that point Ken Mattingly... at which point Anders would be unavailable - swap second 'point' to 'time'
    ☑Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Lovell, Haise, and Mattingly would ultimately be assigned as the prime crew of Apollo 13 - not really 'ultimately' because Mattingly was grounded and replaced by Jack Swigert
    ☑Y Good point. Changed to "later assigned". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Support crew
  • During Projects Mercury and Gemini, each mission had a prime and a backup crew. For Apollo, a third crew - was 'prime' an official term? If so, add Prime to Crew table
    ☑Y Yes, it was oficial. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Capsule communicator (CAPCOM) was an astronaut - clarify on ground at mission control center
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bruce McCandless II,Jim Lovell, Bill Anders - space before Jim. Also, Anders not called Bill previous mentions.
    Fixed the space, not the Bill issue. Kees08 (Talk)
    ☑Y Very well. Changed to "William" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Flight directors
  • Director/s or director/s
    • Only capital if used as a title (e.g. Flight Director Kranz) Kees08 (Talk)
  • Extravehicular activity (EVA) - is cap E correct?
Call signs
  • director George M. Low - pipe?
    No need. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Julian Scheer wrote to Manned Spacecraft Center director George M. Low to suggest the Apollo 11 crew be less flippant - ref?
    • @Kees08: Need you for this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      I like to write all my notes down when I find a more complicated answer, so the information is not lost. Page 392 and 393 of Hansen discusses the choice of Eagle and Columbia as them names, but has no information on Julian Scheer (related to this, at least). Since the book says Michael Collins was the main driver, I found in Carrying the Fire, pages 332-335. It discusses how Julian Scheer suggested Columbia, and how Collins thought it sounded more pompous than the previous Gumdrop and Charlie Brown names, but says nothing about a memo from Scheer. Page 635 of Chaikin summarizes what is in Collins' book. The current citation does not appear to even mention the names. I should have started with online searches, because Chariots for Apollo has the text. I will let you incorporate it, unless you want me to. I would suggest incorporating more background information from Collins' book into the section, there happens to be a lot of detail about naming the spacecraft. We could even include when it was announced to the public. Sorry for the long paragraph, figured it is useful to know where the information is in each book. Kees08 (Talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      I've created a new article on Julian Scheer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • During early mission planning, the names Snowcone and Haystack were used - explain Snowcone for the Command Module and Haystack for the Lunar Module (per the pdf)
  • put in the news release. - is that Technical information Summary pdf 'the' news release? Otherwise replace with 'in the Technical information Summary '.
    No, wrong document. It wants the Press Kit. I have a copy and will replace the reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    ☑Y Ah. It's in the technical summary as well, on p. 8
  • a personification of the United States - does Collins' book specifically say the 'personification' otherwise just 'historical name'
    ☑Y No, he doesn't so sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Eagle for the national bird of the United States, the bald eagle - per bald eagle article, is both the national bird and national animal of the United States of America
  • We all know it's a bird. I've seen them in the wild in the US and Canada, but they're not as big as our wedgetails. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The crewmen of the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission leave the Kennedy Space Center's (KSC) Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB) to ride the special transport van over to Launch Complex 39A where their spacecraft awaited them.
  • The Apollo 11 mission insignia - was the design used only for cloth patches (ie not as a logo on letterhead etc)? If so, call it 'mission patch insignia'?
    No, it was used as a logo. Collins calls it the "mission emblem", as does the press kit - went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • personal preference kit - explain what it is? i remembered from his article he also had a World Scout Badge. This kit is different to the 'bag of memorial items'?
    Yes. Added a bit about the PPK. The link takes you to Collins' PPK, which is in the NASM. The memorial bag was of official items. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Site selection
  • result of two years of studies - apostrophe on years
  • Site 1: 34° East, 2°40' North, in the Sea of Tranquility (hmmm degrees minutes seconds?) The ref has Site One: 34° East, 2°40" North - so is the 40 minutes or seconds? (ditto all 5 site coordinates)
    Nota bene* Remember what happened in This is Spinal Tap? I don't think the ref is correct. @Kees08: Need you for this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    We could detail the zone they were interested in, instead of the exact locations. We could mention that three locations are selected per launch, to allow for launch delays. The paragraph should detail where they were looking to land (the zone), the down selection process, the requirement to have three landing sites, and perhaps the location of the final landing site. So I would remove the specific locations and do that, but I will leave it to you. Kees08 (Talk) 00:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The site needed to be smoothness, with relatively few craters - either 'to have smoothness' or 'to be smooth'
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package - wlink to Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package
  • "crawler-transporter, bound for Launch Pad 39A" - add a copy ref 51 (Apollo 11 Mission Overview) for the rest of these dates
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A countdown test commenced on June 27 - ref 51 says 26 June
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fuelling was completed by three hours before launch - remove 'by'? (or US thing?)
    I know what you mean, but it's in the source. It means that it was completed sometime before then, not at that time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    ☑Y My browser automatically corrects to Australian spellings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • written in the Atoll programming language. - ATOLL
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Haise entered Columbia about three hours and ten minutes before launch time - same time as fuelling taking place, more likely when it finished?
    Not sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Finally, Aldrin entered, taking the center couch. The closeout crew sealed the hatch - when did Haise and tech leave?
    ☑YAdded. Note that Aldrin is in the CMP's couch, a legacy of the crew shuffling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Launch and flight to lunar orbit
  • William C. Westmoreland - article doesn't use the C
    ☑Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 60 ambassadors - they'd be foreign?
    Probably, but the sources don't say. The US ambassador to Canada might have driven down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Spiro T. Agnew - article doesn't use the T
    ☑Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Richard M. Nixon - article doesn't use the M
    ☑Y Alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969, at 13:32:00 UTC (9:32:00 EDT) - wlink EDTand maybe UTC again? (UTC is wlinked in first line of lede)
  • the rocket stage flew on a trajectory past the Moon and into orbit around the Sun - comment - why?
    Nota bene* Good question. @Kees08: Any ideas about this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    I do not think I will find a citation for this, but it is essentially a graveyard orbit. Since the Earth is orbiting around the Sun, you need enough energy to escape the Earth-Moon system and you will be in an orbit around the Sun. For a less successful example, see J002E3. An easier to visualize example is a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit. Since it would take so much propellant to send it back to Earth to burn it up in the atmosphere, they just push it further away from the Earth into a less useful orbit. Kees08 (Talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, page 7, section 'SIVB "Slingshot"', describes why they did it. To avoid contact with the spacecraft, earth, or the moon (so the reasons I listed above). They passivated the spacecraft by venting propellants non-propulsively (a simple representation of this is to put a tee on the outlet of a thruster, so the force going out each end of the tee cancels out). I think I crossed the line where I have too much detail, so let me know if you want more. Not sure if you or Hawkeye want any of this in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • major landing or extravehicular activity (EVA) challenges - abbreviated already
Lunar descent
  • Eagle was travelling too fast - US spelling is one L?
  • Or it could have been the - is this new sentence starting with 'Or' because not part of Kranz speculation?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • unexpected "1202" and "1201" program alarms - swap order
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • in real time should it become necessary to do so. - 'to do so' not needed?
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ACA - explain?
  • "Out of detent. Auto"- fullstop?
  • 413 - explain?
    ☑Y Added: "ACA was the Attitude Control Assembly, the LM's control stick. Output went to the LM Guidance Computer (LGC) to command the RCS jets to fire. "Out of Detent" meant that the stick was moved away from its centered position. It was spring-centered like the turn signal control in a car. LGC address 413 contains the variable that indicated that the LM had landed." Kees08 is probably saying, "well, duh". I think this was added to give the reader a feel for what it sounded like. In addition, one notes that the CDR, not the LMP pilots the LM. The LM could be piloted automatically or the CDR could take manual control. Every CDR did. But it was just pointing the stick at where you want to go; the computer did all the rest. So it was more like the joystick in a computer game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • about 25 seconds of fuel left - apostrophe on seconds?
    I don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • with "Engine arm is off", before - fullstop after 'off'
    No, because we are continuing the sentence after the quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and his communion kit was prepared by the pastor of the church, the Rev. Dean Woodruff - this can go? non notable church and reverend. Is in Aldrin's article.
    Keeping it in, but removed the sentence starting with "Aldrin described". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • had been awake since early morning - add how many hours
    ☑Y Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Lunar surface operations
  • but on the Moon the cabin contained a large number of other items as well - any examples?
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • At 02:39 UTC on Monday July 21, 1969, Armstrong opened the hatch... - this is a repeated detail of " The hatch was opened at 02:39:33..." a few lines up
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remote Control Unit - caps intentional?
    ☑Y Probably. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • folded against Eagle's side and activate the TV camera - adding 'to' before activate would read better
    ☑Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • incompatible with commercial TV - broadcast TV?
    ☑Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The inscription read: - reads? ie still does
    Micrometeorites and the solar wind may have taken their toll over 50 years, but is should still be quite readable, but the MOS says we write everything in the past tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and "almost like a powder," - move comma outside
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's one small step for a man - this para aligns with Armstrong's FA?
    Yes, but it has a lot more discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Twelve minutes after the sample was collected,[2] He removed the TV camera - uncap he
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • integrated thermal meteoroid garment - wlink to Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Add micro to meteoroid to fix redlink JennyOz (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • but Frank Borman, who was at the White House as a NASA liaison - this is a better description of his role than where he is first mentioned just as an 'astronaut'
    ☑Y Added earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • During this period, Mission They deployed the EASEP - something gone wrong here
    ☑Y Deleted some stray words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • used for the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment - lowercase e on experiment (is e at Moon rocks section and in own article)
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • core tubes - wlink to Core sample
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • geological hammer - Geologist's
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Armalcolite was named after Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins. - using italics formatting per its article?
    Not sure what you mean here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, my question should have used 'use' not 'using'. See second sentence Armalcolite lede where italics are used to clarify how Armalcolite is derived from their names. JennyOz (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Control used a coded phrase... Mission Control - swap
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Lunar ascent and return
  • This was an inefficient tool - sounds like they were sent with a bad tool, maybe 'proved to be an inefficient tool'
    ☑Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • items in his suit pocket sleeve - sleeve pocket?
    ☑Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • one Hasselblad camera - after removing its film? emptied Hasselblad
    ☑Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • resulting in it impacting in an "uncertain location" on the lunar surface... then "and would have impacted on the Moon" - repetitive
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On July 23, the last night before splashdown - add 'on Earth'
  • through the blood, sweat, and tears of a number of a people - remove the 'a' before people (I can't access ref 61 but used this)
  • Greg later was thanked by Armstrong - move 'later'
Splashdown and quarantine
  • On July 12, with Apollo 11 still on the launch pad, Hornet departed Pearl Harbor to retrieve the crew. - 'to prepare' to retrieve
    ☑Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Apollo recovery area - not yet defined? First sentence should mention where splashdown expected?
    ☑Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Poor visibility was serious threat - a?
  • ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • locate the command module, the spacecraft - what is spacecraft referring to here?
    ☑Y Changed "command module" to "Columbia". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • its priceless cargo of moon rocks - priceless warranted? sorta devalues the crew?
    ☑Y Well we were willing to risk them for it. Nice of you to bring that up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fleet Weather Center - pipe wlink to Joint Typhoon Warning Center?
    ☑Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A different sequence of computer programs was used, one never before attempted - not clear? what is the 'sequence' ie program 3 swapped to five? to change the flight plan coordinates or software replacement?
    ☑Y Added: In a conventional entry, P64 is followed by P67. For a skip-out re-entry, P65 and P66 are employed to handle the exit and entry parts of the skip. In this case, because they were extending the re-entry but not actually skipping out, P66 was not invoked and instead P65 led directly to P67. The crew were also informed that they would not be in a full-lift (heads-down) attitude when the entered P67. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • a new splashdown target was designated,[119] 215 nautical miles (398 km) northeast of the original - as above the 'original' has been defined?
    ☑Y Alright, I've added the lattitude and longitude. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Before dawn on July 24 - local time not UTC
    ???? Do we need to say that? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the drogue parachutes were deployed. - last mention was the sea kings so insert Columbia's before drogue. What altitude was she?
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of re-entry, force on them, prep inside, etc
    ☑Y Added how many Gs they were pulling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Columbia struck the water forcefully - confirm was in target area?
    ☑Y Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • flotation bags triggered by the astronauts - activated?
    ☑Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and position rafts - did they attach things called 'position rafts' or is position a verb here ie should be positioned?
    ☑Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • no mention of what astronauts said to recovery people
    Meh. Apollo 11 was all business. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • biological isolation garments - no wlink available? closest I could find was Hazmat suit
    Look quite different to me. Here's Buzz's suit Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Divers provided the astronauts with Biological Isolation Garments (BIGs) - this repeats prev sentence (and the suits were put through hatch before the astronauts got out)
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • wiped with Betadine to remove - does it have to use brand name here? (even though yes ref at 12-8 says "Betadine, a water-soluble iodine solution"). Betadine is a redirect.
    It's what the source says. (One of my work colleagues confused it with methyl iodide in a chemistry test.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The raft containing decontamination materials was then intentionally sunk - missing a bit before here ie astronauts first got into (winched?) helicopter
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • lowered by the elevator into hangar bay - 'the' hangar bay?
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the five-ton Command Module - convert?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • dolly - just use 'trolley' seeing a dolly can also be a boat launcher
    ☑Y I think it's the right term. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ref at 12-9 talks of the command module being attached with a flexible tunnel to the MQF and the samples, films etc being moved in.
    ???? Which reference is this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, the ref Manned Spacecraft Center (November 1969). Apollo 11 Mission Report (PDF). on p 262, (12-9)
    Okay, I see the problem. My hard copy of the Mission report is SP-238, not MSC-00171. They appear to be identical, but the page numbering is different. Switched the reference to SP-238 so we're all on the same page. Added a bit about the flexible tunnel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and finally in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory ), - remove space before closing bracket
  • ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On August 10, 1969,... - when were their families allowed to visit? between then and parades?
    Their wives visited them while they were in the MQF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • bill of health - there is nothing here about reacclimatizing eg weight / gravity
    All were in good health. They were only gone for a week, not months like the folks in the International Space Station. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Celebration - plural?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill. - change Cap Hill wlink to United States Capitol?
  • ☑Y deleted Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Samoa which was brought to the - taken
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • brought to the moon by Apollo 11 - cap M on moon, taken? (maybe 'brought' is a US thing?)
    ☑Y Changes to "taken". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    MOS says capital "in a scientific or astronomical context". So standard in this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (NASM) in Washington, DC - D.C.?
    NASA style guide says ti use "DC". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Armstrong's and Aldrin's space suits are displayed - first apostrophe correct?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • righting spheres - ?
    ☑Y Changed to "flotation bags", which is the term I used earlier in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • on display along with a test lunar module, - fullstop
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • are presumed to lie at an unknown location - can't presume it's unknown - it's unknown.
    ☑Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • and impacting the Moon - is this what is presumed?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • located the F-1 engines - is a redirect. Insert 'used in the Saturn V rocket'?
    ☑Y Added "from the S-IC stage" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center - wlink
    ☑Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • from October 14, 2017 to March 18, 2018, etc - are these specific dates warranted? Maybe reduce to months not specific dates?
    The later dates are still current and may be of use to the readers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Moon rocks
  • at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center - is a redirect
    ☑Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • wlink of Houston, Texas - should have been linked first at "Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas"
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For safe keeping, there - safekeeping one word
     Done} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico - near Las Cruces
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
40th anniversary events
  • released a photo gallery - digital only on their website, not in print?
    They don't publish in print any more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition, it is in the process of restoring - update?
  • set up an Adobe Flash website that rebroadcasts the transmissions - does it still?
  • Re 40th anniversary too much info? - presumably 1st, 5th, 10th, 20th, 25th etc were also commemorated. Maybe a sentence. Will need a section for plans for 50th which must be underway by now?
    Nota bene*@Kees08: I'm tempted to remove the entire first paragraph. How do you feel about that? Do were have anything on the 50th? I know NASA will want to celebrate, but it will not be a good time politically in the US, so it may not be as big as the 40th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    NASA has settled on a logo for the 50th [10], so that's the hard part done. NASM is celebrating [11] and the US mint has issued a commemorative coin [12] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    I would be fine with changing the section title to Anniversary events and creating a main article List of Apollo 11 anniversary events. I recall events for both the 40th and 45th anniversaries, I am sure there was something on the 25th, and there will certainly be events for the 50th. We could then summarize the major events that occur during the anniversaries here. Thoughts on that? Kees08 (Talk) 23:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me know any clarification needed of my comments. I saw a list somewhere of articles being considered for 50th, can you remind me where it is pls? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:S2019 is the shortcut. The DYK page has the most articles. A co-run of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Apollo 11 would be fantastic on the anniversary, but that is a conversation for another page. Kees08 (Talk) 02:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: hope I did not step on your toes Hawkeye, saw there were a lot of comments so started hitting some of the easy ones. Kees08 (Talk) 02:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There are some clarification requests. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I made some recommendations, left the edits to you unless you want me to perform them. Let me know if you disagree with my suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Hawkeye7 and Kees08, I'll try to explain myself. When I asked about emphasising splashdown by adding 'Earth', and suggested adding a bit more about re-entry, and my comment about 'priceless' etc, what I'm suggesting is a little more weight to be given to what was the stated original goal of the mission... to get a man there and safely back.
Kennedy said to Congress "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."... "one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight." He said at Rice, "...then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25 thousand miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun—almost as hot as it is here today—and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out—then we must be bold"
NASA says in summary top of this "The purpose of the Apollo 11 mission was to land men on the lunar surface and to return them safely to earth ." Somewhere else (I've temporarily lost which ref) says "This stride in the Space Race was at least as much to get a man there and home alive as it was to collect samples." Our Space Race article says "When the spacecraft splashed down, 2,982 days had passed since Kennedy's commitment to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade; the mission was completed with 161 days to spare.[139] With the safe completion of the Apollo 11 mission, the Americans won the race to the Moon"
(If the rocks/samples hadn't made it back but the 3 astronauts did (and were alive), there'd have been just as much rejoicing of success?)
The splashdown was the actual minute that the success was realised. "Safely to Earth". JFK emphasised it and I bet everyone at mission control held their breath at that moment more than at any time in the whole mission. Start from Earth --- finish on Earth.
PS and Hawkeye, if EEng adds that comment to Astonishment or to his wonderful museums (I've been terrified to check), I will have some trouble finding my forgiveness button for you pinging him. Face-smile.svg JennyOz (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The deed is done, I fear! [13] If you can forgive me nonetheless, let me suggest On July 23, the last night before their return to Earth... BTW, I can't agree that The splashdown was the actual minute that the success was realised: there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. EEng 05:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and JennyOz: Is there more to do here? I do have a couple of suggestions that I was going to have Hawkeye implement (like the list of apollo anniversaries), or otherwise tell me they are a bad idea. Not sure if there is anything else? Kees08 (Talk) 00:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Hawkeye7: Thanks Kees08 for the reminder. Will look over. JennyOz (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Kees08 and Hawkeye7: for your patience! I have added my support. Pls though check this... back on Oct 18 an edit was made to Insignia "put an olive branch in its beak, and drew a lunar background", changing 'beak' to 'talons'. Was good faith but editor missed reading its following sentences? Should it be changed back? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
☑Y Changed it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Tom Wilson, a simulator instructor, was actually who suggested the olive branch. Right now it implies Lovell came up with that too. Not sure if we should modify that to make it more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
☑Y Fixed that. And corrected an error I found in the process. I moved the insignia section above the call signs one, which is more logical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Proper review this time. The article is excellent, and my comments are pretty minor:

  • What "1201 and 1202 program alarms" are is unclear, though they are later explained. Does this technical term need to be used?
    We chose to do so because they are so frequently referenced in sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    They are also mentioned in the audio of the landing, which is attached to the page..
  • The para starting with "The Apollo onboard flight software for both the CM and LM was developed" seems overly specific. Does it need to be included?
    Seems pretty basic to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    I can follow it, but I'm not sure that the topic it covers needs so much detail. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Removed this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Armstrong stepped off Eagle's footpad and declared: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."[92][93][94][95]" - are four references needed for this famous fact?
    Where the controversy comes in is with the "[a]". This appears in the transcripts. Trimmed back to one reference; moved two to the next paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • At what time did the moonwalkers re-enter Eagle?
    Added that the hatch was closed at 05:01 UTC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The first part of the first para of the "Spacecraft" section would benefit from the dates Columbia was displayed in Washington, DC - when I read it I started to wonder what had happened to this icon!
    It was displayed at the NASM from 1971 to 2017. It's in Pittsburgh at the moment. Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    Hope this addresses your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. All the best for FAC, and it will be good to see it on the front page next year. Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

Going to make some comments here. Reviewing just the sources for now.

  • Publisher name for the Smithsonian should be consistent
  • Is the bible citation correct..or needed?
    ☑Y I like the way we have short quotes from each of the three astronauts. The quote is correct (in the KJV). The reference is in the footnotes in case anyone wants to look it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Just weird to me, since we have the quote cited. We can leave it in though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Can we split the Orloff citation up? It is from pages 102-110 and has 15 different cites. Can probably bust that up a bit.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • At least one citation (Excerpt from the 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs') uses the last updated date as the citation date. Other cites (one of the Apollo 11 Surface Journal cites) uses the original publication date (1995) and not the most recent one. Probably should get them all consistent. I always use the original publication date. Wish our templates allowed for last updated so you could indicate which version you used.
    ☑Y We'll go with your way. Corrected that reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The citation titled Flight Directors is from SP-4029 and can probably be expanded
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Use an endash on this? Capitalize it consistently too perhaps "Apollo 11 Flight Journal - Day 1, part 1: Launch"
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like Sarah Loff authored this? "Apollo 11 Mission Overview"
    ☑Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For "Apollo-11 (27)", if you scroll to the bottom there is more author information. Looks like NASA SP-350.
    ☑Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For "Failure is Not an Option (TV production)", are we required to have a timestamp?
    Don't see the harm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Honeysuckle Creek : the story of Tom Reid, a little dish and Neil Armstrong's first step" should probably be in references
    No page number, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 35th anniversary citation uses parameter "|origyear=updated December 9, 2007", i think incorrectly?
    ☑Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Of the three citations supporting "More recent digital analysis of the tape claims to reveal the "a" may have been spoken but obscured by static.", two are from BBC news. Could probably get rid of one, or replace it with another. Would be nice to replace the Snopes citation with something better if available as well.
    They say different things. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a draft copy, is the official version available? "Lunar Sample Compendium: Contingency Soil (10010)"
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we get a better source than The Attic? Seems like a blog?
    Haven't got anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We can probably be more detailed than: "This was related by Frank Borman during the 2008 documentary When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, Part 2."
    ☑Y Replaced with a reference from Borman's autobiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think UC Santa Barbara is probably the publisher here: "Richard Nixon: Telephone Conversation With the Apollo 11 Astronauts on the Moon". The American Presidency Project. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This can be expanded: "Moon-walk mineral discovered in Western Australia". ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2018.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the homepage of The Smoking Gun, we can probably do better than that
    It has copies of the original documents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrong dash: Manned Spacecraft Center 1969, pp. 169-170.
    The Bot can deal with it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is The New Nixon a RS?
    ☑Y Replaced with The American Presidency Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at the linked Google Book, this citation could have more detail: Extra-Terrestrial Exposure, 34 Fed. Reg. 11975 (July 16, 1969), codified at 14 C.F.R. pt. 1200
    Unable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nothing inherently wrong with this source, but we could probably have better: "A Front Row Seat For History". NASAexplores. NASA. July 15, 2004. Archived from the original on March 19, 2006. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
  • Not sure about Lunar Hall of Fame either (in terms of RS)
  • Same with Fodors Travel. If not replaced, the citation can be improved
  • I think magazine should be capitalized per this for Maksel, Rebecca (February 22, 2017). "Apollo 11 Moonship To Go On Tour". Air and Space magazine. Retrieved August 27, 2017.
    ☑Y Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Date does not match up: "LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites". NASA. March 10, 2015. Retrieved September 25, 2018.
    ☑Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Expand this: Bezos, Jeff (July 19, 2013). "F-1 Engine Recovery – Updates".
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This title looks auto-generated and could be cleaner: "Apollo 11 SIVB NSSDCA/COSPAR ID: 1969-059B". NASA. Archived from the original on February 19, 2017.
    Looks correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Expand this: Earth magazine, March 2011, pp. 42–51
    Unable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Are these dashes right? Bates, Lauderdale & Kernaghan 1979, pp. 2-3, 4-32.
    Job for the Bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    What I meant is that the page number could be 2-3, and a hyphen is correct. If it is a range of pages, it would not be correct. We would need to know if the page numbers follow the 2-1 format or not, and the bot could not know (I submitted a bot request for this and it was rejected for this specific reason). Kees08 (Talk) 22:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay the sports game I am watching is ramping up, I am taking a break. Will have more comments. Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'm off to the Canberra Capitals game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
77-65. Knew you would want to know that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good! My team lost in triple overtime, which really sucked the wind out of my day. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Side note, for whichever coordinator closes this, I am involved with astronaut biographies and a bit with this one, in case you want to factor that into my eventual vote. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC) numb« Return to A-Class review list

Nazi Germany

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk) Diannaa (talk) Kierzek (talk)

Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This has been a project several editors have contributed to, most notably @Diannaa: and @Kierzek:. Since being promoted to GA-status, there has been an effort underway to improve the article to the point that it can be brought to FAC in the near-future. The editors involved mutually agreed it would be best to take it to ACR first however, to get input from the community before we take things to FAC (especially in light of the sentitive topic, the importance of this article, and the fact that millions of people view this page on a yearly basis). There need be little explanation what this article is, or the subject matter. Nazi Germany is quite well-known and studied throughout history. If any questions or comments arise regarding the scope and depth of this article, please do not hesitate to ask. Due to article length guidelines and the sheer scope Nazi Germany entails, this article is supposed to give an overview of the entity which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Note: Please keep in mind, Diannaa, Kierzek, and myself have been collaborating on improving this article, and using Diannaa's talk page as the hub for communication between one another, but by no means does this mean us three alone should get the credit for improving this article should it pass. Several editors have contributed to this article over the years. I've just included us three as the nominators due to the collaboration we each agreed upon to get it to ACR.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 22:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • All of the maps but the first, and several of the images, would benefit from being scaled upGreen tickY Done
  • File%3ANational_anthem_of_Nazi_Germany%2C_Horst_Wessel_Lied.oga: composition needs a US PD tag
  • File:German_Reich_1942.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Greater_German_Reich_NS_Administration_1944_Variant.png, File:Weimar_Republic_states_map.svg
  • File:Nazi_Germany.svg is tagged as disputed
  • File:German_Autobahn_1936_1939.jpg: where/when was this first published? Same with File:The_Bochnia_massacre_German-occupied_Poland_1939.jpg
  • File:1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • File:National anthem of Nazi Germany, Horst Wessel Lied.oga: I have added a {PD-1996} tag
    • File:German_Reich_1942.png: I have asked the image creator (Beyond My Ken) for more information. Update: Beyond My Ken says he didn't create the map; it's a derivative work of a map by User:Director, who appears to have left the project. I can get you data and sources as to when each polity was incorporated into the Reich if that's what you're looking for, but I need to be sure first that the work is necessary, as I expect it would take several hours. Alternatively, we could move File:Greater German Reich NS Administration 1944 Variant.png to the info box, since I can source it to Kershaw 2008. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Update: there's a map in Kershaw The End (2011) p.19 that is similar. It shows as of July 1944 the Nazis holding France, Belg, Neth, Lux, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Crete, northern Italy, and part of Russia. It doesn't go all the way to the Crimea because they'd lost that territory by July 44. It does not distinguish by status (incorporated, General-Govt, civilian administration, etc). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • File:Greater German Reich NS Administration 1944 Variant.png: I have asked the most recent person to amend the map for information. The creator of the map is no longer active. This map was not present when the article passed GA review in 2013. Update: A version of this map appears in Kershaw (2008) Hitler pp. xx-xxi.
    • File:Weimar Republic states map.svg: I have asked the creator of the map, but he may not know, as he derived it from another map on the Commons. This map was not present when the article passed GA review.
    • File:Nazi Germany.svg: I have removed the map after reading the discussion at commons:File talk:Nazi Germany.png.
    • File:German_Autobahn_1936_1939.jpg: the Library of Congress states the image was created/published between 1936 and 1939 and that the image has no known restrictions.
    • File:The_Bochnia_massacre_German-occupied_Poland_1939.jpg: I have no way of answering with certainty, other than to state that the earliest publication mentioned on the file description page is 1957.
    • File:1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG: the source at the USHMM states it's a still from a Nazi propaganda film held at NARA. However such seized documents do not automatically fall into the public domain. I have replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14597, Berlin, Opernplatz, Bücherverbrennung.jpg — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D It's great to see this article at ACR, and it's in excellent shape. I have the following comments:

  • The coverage of the Nazis rise to power in the 'Background' section seems a bit brief. In particular, it doesn't note the role of violence and lawlessness in the Nazis' rise to power, a point emphasised by Evans.Green tickY Added
  • Say what the Sturmabteilung was the first time its mentionedGreen tickY
  • "In the following months" - as the previous para (quite rightly) jumps ahead, a date here would be helpfulGreen tickY
  • "This meant the only non-political institutions not under control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches" - this is unclear, as the Army was under control of the Nazi government. Also, many officers and rank and file supported the Nazis.Green tickY Evans states this, but it's obviously incorrect, so removed.
  • "An additional 20,000 died in the land campaign" - which land campaign is being referred to here?Green tickY I can't access the 1960 yearbook to confirm what it means. I think this may overlap with the Battle of Berlin, so removing.
  • Rather than call out civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin, it would be better to discuss the scale of civilian deaths on the eastern front during 1945 as a whole given that they were far higherGreen tickY Removed detail about Battle of Berlin, but not adding material regarding the Eastern Front in this paragraph, which is discussion casualties in Germany itself.
  • The para on mass suicides should discuss what motivated them. Kershaw's book The End covers this issue in detail.Green tickY Added
  • "Himmler envisioned the SS as being an elite group of guards, Hitler's last line of defence" - how it ended up (a large and often low quality force which was frequently involved in war crimes) should be noted.Green tickY Added
  • The "Reich economics" section doesn't really capture how unsustainable the Nazis' economic policies were (a major argument made by Tooze).
  • Picking up on another point made by Tooze and recent historians, the section also doesn't cover the considerable extent to which the Nazis economic and industrial policies damaged Germany's war effort (duplication of effort in multiple fields, over-ambitious, badly run and ill-conceived weapons programs, being too late in starting the shift to a total war economy, etc)
  • The article presents the clergy as being unified in their opposition to the regime, which I don't think is correct –Red XN Reply I'm seeing where the article demonstrates that the regime was opposed to pretty much all the churches, but I'm not seeing where it claims that all the churches opposed the regime.
  • "Hitler favoured the music of Richard Wagner, especially pieces based on Germanic myths and heroic stories and attended the Bayreuth Festival each year from 1933" - I presume he stopped doing this at some stage during the war?Green tickY fixed
  • The article doesn't really discuss how public attitudes towards the regime, including active resistance, evolved over Nazi Germany. Evans and Kershaw argue that it probably only had majority support for a minority of its existence, and Hitler had become irrelevant to most Germans by 1945. The resistance movements in the foreign service, intelligence service and military were significant, and after the Western Allies crossed the Rhine in 1945 most troops and civilians were keen to surrender. Green tickY 500 words added on the resistance and added a bit in a couple of spots about deteriorating support for Hitler and the regime. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The large scale of the post-war trials and de-Nazisation process could be made more clear.Green tickY done
  • The coverage of how the Nazi era is remembered in Germany and influences its government and society could be expanded a bit, given it seems quite profound on the basis of my visits to the country. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Green tickY done
    • Replies above by Diannaa. I will have to bring Tooze in on inter-library loan. There's a copy over at the U of A so this shouldn't take long. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply from Kierzek as to Waffen-SS. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

  • A word or two on the formation of the Weimar Republic, and how it was presided over by a series of unstable coalition governments that worsened as time went on would be helpful.Green tickY
  • As the Free City of Danzig was a separate entity from Poland, it should be made explicit that it was annexed by Germany.Green tickY
  • The display or use of Nazi symbolism such as flags, swastikas or greetings is illegal in Germany and Austria[449][450] and other restrictions, mainly on public display, apply in various countries. The rest of this sentence needs a cite.Green tickY unsourced part removed; will look for sourcing.
  • Study of the era and a willingness to critically examine its mistakes has led to the development of a strong democracy in today's Germany, but with lingering undercurrents of antisemitism and neo-Nazi thought. A phrase less time-relative than "today's" would be helpful.Green tickY removed the word "today's"

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Replies from Diannaa. Will finish later — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply from Kierzek, as to Weimar Republic add. Kierzek (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've given an extensive enough review to be in a place where I can offer my support, but I can affirm that all of my comments have been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from PM

Wow, great to see a level-4 vital article being nominated. I'm very impressed that this has been taken on. I will post some observations over the next few days once I've read it through a couple more times, but have to say from my initial read that it is already in great shape. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I think there needs to be something in the lead about the way in which Germany dominated its neighbours and erstwhile partners economically in the lead-up to war, as well as the exploitation of puppet states and occupied territories for raw materials, food, manufactured goods and labour.
  • This is something I (White Shadows) agree with for sure. I'm just curious how we think we should word this? I'm thinking something like "The Nazi regime worked to impose economic and military dependency upon its neighbors in the lead-up to the war, and exploited the raw materials, agricultural, industrial, and labour output of occupied territories and allies alike throughout the war." That may be a poorly worded way to get those points across however, which is why I'd like to solicit input before making any article changes on this.
  • I (Kierzek) like the basic ideas conveyed. "The Nazi regime dominated both neighbours through military threats and partners economically in the years leading up to war. After the war commenced, Germany exploited the raw materials, agricultural, industrial, and labour of occupied territories and allies alike."
Green tickY done. - had to split it to fit properly.
  • I note that the lead is already over MOS:LEADLENGTH, but I think five paras is ok for a subject of this importance and complexity.
  • Wholeheartedly agree there!
  • "and his word became above all laws" is a bit inelegant. Perhaps "and his word became the highest law."?

Green tickY done.

  • suggest "and also as the master race"
  • Can I ask where you meant for this to be added? I'll put it in as soon as I can see where it's supposed to go.
  • instead of "and were therefore viewed as the master race"

Green tickY done.

  • given various definitions of what is or isn't included in the Holocaust and the need to include other atrocities besides the Holocaust such as Aktion T4, the murder of Soviet POWs etc, perhaps "were murdered in the Holocaust, war crimes and other crimes against humanity."

Green tickY done.

  • there is a bit of a flow issue and repetition between paras 3 and 4, in terms of the killing of Jews and other undesirables. I think the racism as a regime feature should be in para 3, along with a mention of the early concentration camps, but believe the Holocaust and other killings should be in para 4. This progression would show the increasing brutality of the regime as time went on, from detaining political prisoners to wholesale extermination.Green tickY done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Nazi concentration camps is overlinked, as is Allies of WWII
  • I did a fairly minor c/e
  • suggest "Germany was known as the Weimar Republic during the years 1919 to 1933"

Green tickY done.

  • hyperinflation is overlinked

Green tickY done.

  • I think you could dispense with the note and give the original German for NSDAP in a lang template ie ({{lang-de|Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei}}, NSDAP, Nazi Party) as it is germane to the initialisation of NSDAP, and not providing it begs the questions of what it is an initialisation for

Green tickY done.

  • suggest stating explicitly that the NSDAP was founded in 1920, then say the DAP was founded a year earlier

Green tickY done.

  • I'm sure I'm parsing this too finely, but instead of "removal of the Weimar Republic", suggest "the destruction of the Weimar Republic"

Green tickY done.

  • I think it would be worth adding a bit explaining how the NSDAP were going to improve Germany's international reputation, as it begs the question

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I've made a few of the easier edits right now. I plan on getting to the rest later today when I have more time.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Incorporated suggestions as to NSDAP and DAP, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Nazi seizure of power
  • I think it would flow better if the sentence beginning "Violent suppression..." was the last sentence of that para, as the decree was on the following day, so the SA actions seem out of chronological order
  • Done
  • Worth adding that there was significant intimidation of non-Nazi members of the Reichstag by the SA for the passing of the Enabling Act

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nazification of Germany
  • suggest "Nazi-led coalitions if that is correct
  • Done
  • I was a bit confused with the use of Reichskommissar in regard to the German states. My knowledge of them was that they were civil governors over occupied territories, and I wasn't familiar with the use of the title prior to the war until I did a bit of digging. I was wondering if it might be worth mentioning that this position later became Reichsstatthalter and link?
Maybe I am just overly tired tonight, but I don't see Reichskommissar mentioned. I do know that Reichsstatthalter is an older term and I believe the correct one for use in Germany proper. We could link it to where the words "Reich Commissars" are used. Childers only uses the word "Reich commissars" and talks about them being "dispatched" on 5 March to 9 March 1933 to all German states not already under Nazi control. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Interesting suggestion. I'd like to see what the other editors think about it before I make any changes here, but I'm personally not opposed to doing so.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 17:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Consolidation of power
  • Given it was an attack on the NSDAP's own paramilitary wing, it sort of begs the question of who was responsible for carrying out the Night of the Long Knives. Suggest it is worth introducing the SS and Gestapo here as the main perpetrators.

Green tickY done.

  • Worth including Goebbels title as Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?
  • Done
  • I think it would be useful to state that the Nuremberg Laws denied basic human rights to both Jews and Romani people, and resulted in their exclusion from wider German society, and led in many cases to their pauperisation.
  • The article does state that they were extended to the Romani people later on. If that's not sufficient, I'll include them here as well.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the Jews being dehumanised themselves, more that they became ostracised and dehumanised in the eyes of many German people due to the enforcement of the Nuremberg Laws?

Green tickY done.

  • was state authority really expanded? I thought the Reich became centralised and the states were stripped of their powers?

Green tickY done. Tweak per Childers with cite.

  • I'd say that the Nazi centralization effort of stripping Germany's states of their powers and establishing a unitary state run from Berlin went hand-in-hand with an expansion of state authority. I don't think there's any debate among historians that state authority in Germany was dramatically expanded under the Nazis, to the point that Nazi Germany is often portrayed as one of the ultimate dystopias in world history.
  • I meant the existing Lander (states), not the central government. I don't believe the powers of the Lander were expanded at all, in fact the opposite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You are correct. Do you want something else tweaked? Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • You are correct. The German states were effectively abolished...having more or less been turned into administrative units of Berlin.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Replies from me. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Military build-up
  • suggest "Hitler found Germany without allies" → "Germany was without allies, and its military was drastically..."
  • Done
  • what German claims on the Balkans are we talking about here?
  • Done
  • suggest "95 percent of voters supported Germany's withdrawal" if that is what is meant?
  • Done
  • suggest "war in the east should begin in 1942"
  • Done
  • suggest "In March 1935, Hitler announced the creation of an air force, and that the Reichswehr would be increased to 550,000 men."
  • Done
  • Not just supplies were sent to Spain, but also the aircraft, tanks and their crews. The planes were part of the Condor Legion, as were the tanks, so perhaps just say "The Condor Legion included a range of aircraft and their crews, as well as a tank contingent. The aircraft of the Legion destroyed the city of Guernica in 1937."

Green tickY done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Replies from me. I'm a bit confused about that last point however. Are you looking for this to be added, or as a replacement of existing text?--White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I took care of it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Austria and Czechoslovakia
Green tickY done.
  • all good
Foreign policy
  • I think Germany's pre-war attempts to achieve economic dominance over its (especially southeastern) neighbours should be emphasised prior to this point, perhaps in a separate subsection. Tooze talks a bit about this, and Paul Hehn's 2005 book A Low, Dishonest Decade gives a good overview too.
  • I ordered Tooze on inter-library loan but it still hasn't arrived. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am glad Diannaa you are able to obtain Tooze. I do not have either book available to me. I will work on other ACR points this week. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The book was shipped over two weeks ago but still hasn't arrived. The librarian is following up with the sending library to determine what went wrong. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I found a bit of content on this topic in Tooze but mostly he says that they failed to dominate, so there's not much to say. I added a bit about Romania. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think the key dates of the expansion of the Tripartite Pact should be included here, eg the dates Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania joined
  • Done
Outbreak of war
  • Heydrich was more than head of the Gestapo at this point, he was the head of the SiPo (which included the Gestapo and Kripo) and Sicherheitsdienst, and later in September 1939 he became chief of the Reich Main Security Office

Green tickY done. I tweaked it to state head of the SiPo and SD; and you are correct that he was not chief of the RSHA on 17 Sept. as the RSHA was officially established on 27 September 1939. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • was he referring to Polish Jews at this point, or all Jews in occupied countries?
  • My understanding is that he was referring to all Jews the Nazis could get their hands on.

Green tickY done. He was referring to Polish Jews. Heydrich had already stated on 7 September 1939 that all Polish nobles, clergy, and Jews were to be killed. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Conquest of Europe
  • suggest "Against the advice"

Green tickY done.

  • suggest mentioning Dunkirk at the end of the first para
  • Done
  • link Forced labour under German rule during World War II

Green tickY done.

  • link black market

Green tickY done.

  • mention of the Greek famine is out of chronological order, this was a common problem in occupied countries, so I would just say "Famine was experienced in many occupied countries during the war" rather than picking of two
  • Done
  • suggest linking to London Blitz, Coventry Blitz and Plymouth Blitz instead of the city articles
  • Done
  • move the sentence beginning "German efforts..." to the beginning of the para
  • Done
  • full stop after Greece
  • Done
  • I think that it should be pointed out that Greece and Yugoslavia were broken up between the various Axis powers after their defeat
  • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • suggest "Wwest Ukraine"

Green tickY done.

  • suggest "popularity of the partyNazi Party"

Green tickY done.

  • "Eeastern territorial gains"

Green tickY done.

  • suggest "survived a bomb attackan assassination using a bomb"

Green tickY done, with minor tweak.

It was the last German offensive, but arguably not on the same scale and certainly not the same impact. I will tweak the Ardennes Offensive to say, last major German offensive on the western front. How about that? Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • say who Eva Braun was ie his girlfriend and then wife

Green tickY done.

  • suggest replacing "On 4–8 May 1945" with "Between 4 and 8 May 1945"

Green tickY done.

  • the main template for Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany should be at the beginning of the subsection not in the middle of it

Green tickY done.

  • regarding expulsions of Germanic people, this was widespread, not just in east-central Europe, but also in southeastern Europe ie Danube Swabians from Yugoslavia and Romania. I think if you said "central, eastern and southeastern Europe" that would cover it in a general sense, which is what we are trying to achieve with this article.

Green tickY done. down to Geography, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Replies by me. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • consistency with the italicisation of Anschluss throughout

Green tickY done.

  • the list of invaded countries between 1939 and 1941 is missing Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece (the latter two in conjunction with Italy)
  • Done
  • You might like to add that Germany also annexed part of northern Yugoslavia in April 1941, the current (though awkwardly titled) article covering this is Slovene Lands in World War II, these territories were annexed to two Reichsgaue, Carinthia and Styria
  • Done
  • Done
  • You might like to mention that the Germans facilitated the establishment and then propped up the genocidal quasi-protectorate/puppet state on Yugoslav territory, the Independent State of Croatia, and essentially gave large parts of Yugoslavia to Italian Albania, Hungary and Bulgaria to annex
  • the Independent State of Croatia has been included in the article.

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • the NSDAP didn't "arise" after the outbreak of the Great Depression, it arose from the social and financial upheavals at the end of WWI. It became a mainstream political party at the outbreak of the Great Depression, going from 2.6% of the federal vote in 1928 to 18.25% in 1930. I think it would be worth adding these percentages in at some point, to show it was extremely marginal before the Great Depression.

Green tickY done, with tweak from Evans & Kershaw. Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • hyphenate Jewish-Bolshevik

Green tickY done.

  • worth mentioning that the German system of government was replicated in the occupied territories, which also had overlapping and competing fiefdoms, often split between the military command, civilian leadership, economic leadership and SS and Police leadership.
  • the bit about Rassenschande should be towards the top of the para after fn 211

Green tickY done.

  • Merriam-Webster includes Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, but not Kriegsmarine and Heer, so the former probably don't need to be italicised, but I do see a point about being internally consistent within the article.

I agree and it was discussed, but not all agree on this and its seems to be a matter of local article consensus as I find some articles do and others don't (including GA and Class A as to each way) at this point. Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Heydrich's 8 July 1941 announcement, like the earlier one I queried regarding Poland, was this only in the Soviet Union, or was it everywhere including Germany? It reads like the latter, but I don't believe that is right.

Green tickY done. He was talking about Poland and especially the newly invaded USSR; so, I changed it to "eastern conquered territories". Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • the bit on Blitzkrieg doesn't really reflect the current academic consensus on whether there really was such a concept in the Wehrmacht. Needs to be harmonised with the Blitzkrieg article, particularly Glantz and notes a and b. Also it was tanks and motorised infantry that did the initial attacks.
  • the Military and paramilitary subsection doesn't really fit under the Politics section, perhaps it should have its own section?
  • Done
  • when talking about the Einsatzgruppen, I suggest stating that they killed more than two million rather than millions, Hilberg is the source for the two million.

Green tickY done.

  • I think this section needs more about the extent of Nazi sympathies and Nazi Party membership among Wehrmacht higher commanders
  • I think the bit about the SA needs to make clear that the SA was decapitated soon after the Nazi seizure of power

Green tickY done.

  • The Night of the Long Knives is covered earlier in the article already. Does it really need to be repeated?

Green tickY done.

  • the photo caption with the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler needs to be adjusted to reflect that in 1938 it was not a Panzer division, but was just a motorised infantry regiment

Green tickY done. I believe stating the official name from 1934, forward, is sufficient for the general readers. Okay? Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • the SA and SS section needs to differentiate between the Allgemeine-SS which had over a quarter of a million members in 1938 and the Waffen-SS which did the fighting alongside the Wehrmacht

That is an overall number. What you may be forgetting is the Leibstandarte and SS-VT were already formed and had members by that time. The Waffen-SS grew out of the SS-VT and did not exist in 1938. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • suggest "Himmler initially envisioned the SS"

Green tickY done.

  • suggest "and losses of Waffen-SS troops"

Green tickY done.

  • "Reinhard Heydrich" should just be Heydrich at this stage per MOS:SURNAME

Green tickY done.

  • the Einsatzgruppen info at the end of the section is a repetition of earlier info, perhaps capture any unique info and move it all up to first mention

That addition was done per the request of another reviewer herein and does discuss two different aspects. I moved it up, to group them together, see if that is more in line with your thought. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "From 1935 forward, the SS spearheaded the persecution of Jews" is this right? Which part? Are we talking about the Allgemeine-SS or the SD, Gestapo and other police here?

All of the SS branches were involved, some more than others (this includes the Orpo, which were under SS control, but not an official branch of the SS). Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • suggest "created a scheme for deficit financing in May 1933"
  • Done
  • "The number of women in paid employment"
  • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Racial policy and eugenics
  • link National Socialist German Students' League
  • suggest "Jews were harassed...", given Jews were not citizens after a certain point
  • I can give you chapter and verse on killing of Roma in occupied Yugoslavia, but given that it was mostly done by the Ustashas rather than the Germans, I don't think it is directly relevant to an article on Nazi Germany. I would remove the Serbia and NDH examples, or if you still want to keep the NDH one, state that estimates are that the Ustashas killed 20,000 out of the estimated 25,000 Roma within the borders of the NDH. If you still want to do that, the citation for those figures is Tomasevich 2001, pp 608–610.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • the section on Aktion T4 is also about other persecuted groups, so I'd suggest using the header "Other persecuted groups" rather than just "People with disabilities". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Green tickY done. With that said, I don't totally agree with the sub-heading change as the main focus was people with real or perceived disabilities; mental, physical and social. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • was the Eastern Front campaign really about the Jews as the great enemy of the German people? I thought it was about Lebensraum, and Generalplan Ost was how Lebensraum would be created once military conquest had been achieved?
  • The Generalplan Ost section needs a few tweaks, as it appears to conflate Generalplan Ost with the Final Solution. My understanding of Generalplan Ost was that it was about ethnic cleansing Slavs and other non-Aryans (which included Jews) from eastern Europe to make way for German settlers, but this section is currently emphasising actions against Jews in its first sentences. Clearly there were a lot of Jews in eastern Europe and the SS were targeting them regardless, but I would have thought a fair summary of Generalplan Ost was more along the lines of what my understanding is, of being focussed on ethnic cleansing of all non-Aryans? According to my reading of the Generalplan Ost article, Browning states that two days after Barbarossa was launched the Jews were even removed from Generalplan Ost and were dealt with separately. Probably worth checking Browning on this, but I think that given persecution of Jews already has a section plus there is the section on the Holocaust, this section should be about the ethnic cleansing of all non-Aryans from eastern Europe. I'll defer to anyone who knows this stuff better than me (which isn't saying much), but I think this section needs greater focus. Perhaps it could be written in a chronological way to address how the Nazis treated non-Aryans in eastern Europe from 1939 on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Holocaust and Final Solution subsection seems very light-on.
  • I wonder if the Oppression of ethnic Poles info sits better within the GeneralPlan Ost subsection, which talks about what was done to the Poles?

I don't believe so; given what the Poles went through and the losses the nation suffered, I believe they should have their own sub-section. And General Plan Ost covered a wider range of so-called non-Aryans, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggest "During the course of the war, the Nazis captured 5.75 million Soviet prisoners of war (POWs), more than were captured by the Germans from all the other Allied powers combined."

Green tickY done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

I'm not familiar with the literature dealing with Nazi Germany per se, but here are some comments.

  • During the course of the war, the Nazis captured more Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) than all the other Allied powers combined, with an estimated total of some 5.75 million. This doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is.
  • Rephrased
  • By 1943 the Waffen-SS could not longer claim to be an elite fighting force.[231] In addition, a third of the Einsatzgruppen members that were responsible for mass murder, were recruited from Waffen-SS personnel.[232] The formations also committed many war crimes against civilians and allied servicemen.[233] It's not clear how the Waffen-SS participation in war crimes is "in addition" to its non-eliteness, and it's unclear that the Waffen-SS units themselves (not just the Einsatzgruppen) committed many war crimes and massacres. Given the small size of the Einsatzgruppen, very few Waffen-SS personnel participated in it; has Waffen-SS participation in the Einsatzgruppen been emphasized in the literature on Waffen-SS criminality? (Tens of thousands were transferred to the SS-Totenkopfverbande and served at various concentration camps, including several thousand at Auschwitz).
One has to read the short overview in context; the one point did not have to do with the other point, but I did tweak it. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The Holocaust section
  • It seems odd that this section is significantly shorter than the "Persecution of Jews" section. Is that reflected in RS coverage?
  • I think it's more from 1) Space constraints, and 2) That many of the details covered in "Persecution of Jews" doesn't need to be repeated in this section. We can obviously add more if this is a problem.
  • From the first sentence in this section, it seems like this is actually covering the Final Solution and its implementation, rather than the Holocaust as a whole.
  • Section is supposed to cover both topics. I've also added the words "and Final Solution" to the section title to make that clear, but that may be a change that requires consensus.
  • Around the time of the failed offensive against Moscow in December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately. It's not clear that the Einsatzgruppen and others were already murdering Jewish men, women, and children in the Soviet occupied territories. Also, as stated later in this paragraph, the implementation of the Final Solution was not "immediate"; some Jews were kept alive for labor, some of the occupied countries initially refused to deport their Jews, and the Operation Reinhard camps were operational until early/mid 1942.
  • This should be addressed now, but please let me know if you'd like further changes.
  • Twelve million were put into forced labour. Twelve million who? This isn't referring to twelve million Jews, but unclear from context. Perhaps move to the forced labor section if that's what this is referring to
  • Done.
  • Initially the victims were killed with gas vans or by Einsatzgruppen firing squads, but these methods proved impractical for an operation of this scale. It should be made clear that shooting > gas vans > stationary gas chambers, as a general chronological progression. The Einsatzgruppen also used gas vans, and many Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units participated in shooting.
Green tickY done. General chronological progression, noted. Small stationary gas chambers were already in use by 1939 and the gas vans came into use, thereafter. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • By 1941 extermination camps equipped with gas chambers were established at Auschwitz, Chełmno, Sobibor, Treblinka, and elsewhere. The Operation Reinhard camps were not established until 1942
  • Fixed
  • Might be worth mentioning that about half of Jews killed were Polish Jews, and most of those were dead by the end of 1942.
  • If we begin to break down Jews by nationality won't we run into POV issues related to focusing on Jews from one country but not another?
  • most German citizens disapproved Evans is quoted as writing that "on the whole, German citizens did not approve". To me, these are not semantically equivalent. Not approving of something is not the same as disapproving of it (one might be neutral or ambivalent), and "on the whole" does not necessarily mean most, just a majority or consensus view. If there is concern about repeating a quote, surely another one could be found.
  • Good point. Perhaps rephrase this to say "most German citizens did not approve"?

Comment from White Shadows

The length of this review is getting to the point where I think it may be wise to break things down into points which have yet to be addressed, and those which are still outstanding. The other noms and myself have been bouncing around addressing points here and there that I'm afraid we may accidentally still miss an outstanding issue here or there.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as individual reviewers use separate sections, keep track and don't support until they are satisfied, you should be ok IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

I don't know if I'll have time to go through this systematically so will probably concentrate on the lead and various other sections as they catch my eye. To begin...


  • "Propaganda became less effective towards the end of the war, as people were able to obtain information outside of official channels." -- I think the question then arises, "how" did they obtain this info? BTW, I think we can safely lose the "of" in "outside of"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CPA-5

I am glad to see this page got that far, hopefully it would get FAC soon too. Anyway here are my comments, hopefully it is usefull. CPA-5 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • See some American English words like.
  • organization (Okey this one can be used as Britsh too but there are two different organisations one called organization and the other one called organisation.) (Background section)
  • "especially its paramilitary organization Sturmabteilung" and "disrupting the meetings of rival organizations and attacking their members (as well as Jewish people)"
Green tickY done.
  • labor (Persecution of Roma section)
  • "Following the invasion of Poland, 2,500 Roma and Sinti people were deported from Germany to the General Government where they were imprisoned in labor camps."
Green tickY done.
  • outmaneuvering (Conquest of Europe section)
  • "After outmaneuvering the Allies in Belgium and forcing the evacuation of many British and French troops at Dunkirk,"
Green tickY done.
  • marginalized (Same as the organization the whole page use -ise instead -ize at the end of such words.) (Ideology section)
  • "The NSDAP remained small and marginalized, managing 2.6% of the federal vote in 1928, prior to the on-set of the Great Depression in 1929.")
Green tickY done.
  • advised (Conquest of Europe section)
  • "Grand Admiral Erich Raeder had advised Hitler in June that air superiority was a pre-condition for a successful invasion of Britain,"

Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not be the same here; it would not be -ice. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh my bad I now realised it is already in it's correct spot. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • defense (Wehrmacht section)
  • "The unified armed forces of Germany from 1935 to 1945 were called the Wehrmacht (defense force)."
Green tickY done.

I can hunt for those, as we are using British English. With that said, it would safe time if you could list where. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Kierzek: Here you have them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Nazi government declared a "Day of National Labor" for May Day 1933, and invited many trade union delegates to Berlin for celebrations." should it not be "The Nazi Government declared a "Day of National Labor" for May Day 1933, and invited many trade union delegates to Berlin for celebrations."?
  • "the Czechoslovak government" --> "the Czechoslovak Government"
  • "He permanently postponed the invasion, a plan which the commanders of the German army had never taken entirely seriously." --> "He permanently postponed the invasion, a plan which the commanders of the German Army had never taken entirely seriously."
  • "The West German government estimated a death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labour in the Soviet Union." --> "The West German Government estimated a death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labour in the Soviet Union."
  • "which involved using quick coordinated assaults" --> "which involved using quick co-ordinated assaults"
  • " In 1943 alone, 9,000,000 tons of cereals, 2,000,000 tonnes (2,000,000 long tons; 2,200,000 short tons) of fodder,"? Do you mean short tons, long tons or tonnes?
  • "and for the most part did not coordinate their activities." --> "and for the most part did not co-ordinate their activities."
  • Dates of the battles please?
  • "After the successful Battle of Smolensk,"
Green tickY done.
  • "the failed German offensive at the Battle of Kursk."
Green tickY done.

Comments by Robinvp11

I commend your hard work on a topic so many people have opinions on, so I thought I'd limit myself to the Lead and Background :)

  • Germany conquered most of Europe by 1940;
Not really accurate, even for Western Europe (until 1942, most of France was ruled by Vichy) and its relevant because helping out Musssolini in South-Eastern Europe delayed the invasion of Russia in 1941. Maybe controlled much of Europe by early 1941 - that includes Hungary and Romania, conquest of Yugoslavia etc.

Tweaked it to fit the surrounding sentences to: "By early 1941, Germany controlled much of Europe." Kierzek (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Nazis, who suffered major military defeats in 1943.
Should mention the entry of the US into the war (Lend-Lease was a major factor in Russian effectiveness), Stalingrad is probably accepted as the turning point and while the Germans lost the initiative in 1943, it was Operation Bagration in 1944 that broke Army Group Centre and the Wehrmacht.
Suggested wording; 'While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, Russian resistance and the entry of the US into the war meant that in the East, the Wehrmacht was forced onto the defensive in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border.'
What about this: "While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, the Soviet resurgence, and the entry of the US into the war meant that in the East, the Wehrmacht was forced onto the defensive in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border after suffering major military defeats." Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, Soviet resurgence and the entry of the US into the war meant the Wehrmacht lost the initiative on the Eastern Front in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border." ('defeat' is superfluous). But its your article - I'm always condensing my own editing (simpler is better) so its a suggestion.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Green tickY done.
  • After the Allied invasion of France, Germany was conquered by the Soviet Union from the east and the other Allies from the west and capitulated in May 1945.
Per Overmans, 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front; the current wording doesn't really convey that.
  • Hitler's refusal to admit defeat led to massive destruction of German infrastructure and additional war-related deaths in the closing months of the war.
Again, per Overmans, 30% of total German military deaths occurred between January to April 1945 (civilian deaths were even more skewed); even though it ended in early May, 1945 was still the bloodiest single year of the war, which is something many are unaware of.
  • The victorious Allies initiated a policy of denazification and put many of the surviving Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials.
Accurate to say many of the senior leadership were tried but denazification was quickly dropped; those involved in the Wannsee conference who survived the war mostly continued their careers, while even those directly implicated in atrocities in the West (Barbie, Priebke) were incorporated into the post-1945 intelligence systems. Again, worth stating because it is still with us in the 'honourable Wehrmacht soldiers, nasty Nazis' idea (eg Generals' speech in Band of Brothers), and why Austria nearly elected a modern Nazi as President in 2016.
  • Should mention the post-1945 ethnic cleansing in Europe which was a direct result of the Nazi regime eg the removal of Germans from the Sudetenland and East Prussia. It is the most visible consequence of the Nazi regime that remains with us today.
  • Background; I don't want to overdo it :) so these are just thoughts (I'll happily provide wording if you want)
  • Severe setbacks to the German economy began after the war ended, partly because of reparations payments required under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The government printed money to make the payments and to repay the country's war debt, but the resulting hyperinflation led to inflated prices for consumer goods, economic chaos, and food riots.[3] When the government defaulted on their reparations payments in January 1923, French troops occupied German industrial areas along the Ruhr and widespread civil unrest followed.
I don't think this accurately depicts the origins of hyper-inflation, since there is substantial evidence that it was planned, in the early stages as least. More importantly, it doesn't cover the impact (the consolidation of German industry into huge conglomerates, an entire section of the middle-class ruined overnight by the loss of their pensions and war bond investments, many of whose children ended up as Nazis eg Himmler).
Well, as to the "origins of hyper-inflation" that is what Evans states per cited pages and also the wording was tweaked to the present form to meet what Peacemaker (see above), wanted. As far as the rest, that will have to be looked at for citing. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, it's more about impact (and I think that's a general point); this might not be what you want to use as a reference but its a clear guide to that;

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • When the stock market in the United States crashed on 24 October 1929, the effect in Germany was dire.
Doesn't explain why ie the 20s boom in Germany and Austria was financed by short-term US funds, which were withdrawn when Wall Street crashed and several large Austrian and German banks failed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, quick overview of why the Crash was so catastrophic for Germany (much worse than either Britain or France);

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I rather not cite to a website. Sorry, I have not been able to do more as of late, but my real life time is very, very limited right now. Kierzek (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It will keep :). I included the website, not for citing per se but as an easy way to explain why its worth clarifying, plus its much easier to find a RS if you know what you're after.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

James Crichton (soldier)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

James Crichton (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

James Crichton was the last soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, for his actions during the Hundred Days Offensive. The article went through a GA review earlier this year. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • "Nicknamed Scotty, he joined the British Army by enlisting in the Royal Scots Regiment at the age of 18" -- Are nicknames usually italicised? I would've expected either quote marks or nothing at all... Also, did one directly enlist in a British Army regiment back then? Or did he enlist in the army and was allotted to the regiment?
      • Put the nickname into quotes instead. Will look into enlistment. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, the source refers to him "enlisting" with the Royal Scots. Zawed (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I take it none of the sources elaborate on his experiences during the Boer War?
      • No they don't unfortunately - the medal set link (cite 11) shows the campaign medal with five clasps so he obviously served for a while. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "Promoted to corporal" -- I'm guessing that although we can assume he joined the NZMF as a private, the sources don't say so explicitly?
      • Yes, presumably he was a private at time of enlistment but the sources don't explicitly state this. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "Crichton harboured a desire to serve with the infantry" -- "harboured a desire" reads a little oddly to me, do the sources support "expressed a desire", or something else?
      • Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "He later stated that he had been selected for officer training, but a senior officer in the Auckland Infantry Regiment offered to arrange his transfer if permission was obtained." -- Do we mean selected for officer training in his bakery mustering? I assume so but we should probably spell out...
      • Have clarified that the officer training would have been with the NZASC. 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Zawed (talk)
    • "Crichton was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his subsequent deeds." -- I realise the citation tells us everything but perhaps we could paraphrase that into a sentence in place of the somewhat bland "subsequent deeds"...
      • Have expanded on the VC action. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "Crichton resumed his pre-war profession as a cable splicer" -- It seems a bit odd we didn't learn of this pre-war profession in the pre-war section of the article...
      • No, it is there, last sentence of the early life section. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "worked on merchant ships travelling between New Zealand and England" -- Again I assume nothing in the sources on his specific role or duties?
      • Unfortunately not. I searched the NZ equivalent of Trove but nothing explicitly stated. There was a mention that he couldn't attend a reception for VC winner Chive Hulme in 1941 due to being overseas on service. I will check out the archives at the local library for an obit, that may mention it. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Nothing found in the obit RE WWII service. Zawed (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Detail-wise I feel there are some gaps for A-Class, per comments above -- hoping there might be some more info out there.
  • Images -- Licensing of works from IWM and Auckland War Memorial Museum looks satisfactory.
  • Sources -- Appear reliable and formatted correctly.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review Ian, have responded above and with article edits. There is one bit of homework for me RE his WWII service. Zawed (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • in the infobox, it lists his years of service as 1899-1904, however, in the prose it says he joined the Royal Scots at the age of 18. He would have been 18 over the period 15 July 1897 to 14 July 1898, so this seems to contradict the infobox. Additionally, the body of the article implies he served in the British Army for seven years, not five ("at the age of 18. Two years later, he transferred to the Cameron Highlanders. He remained with the Highlanders for five years...)
  • (NZEF) in October 1914..: remove the second full stop
    • Another editor has dealt with this. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • He served in the Gallipoli Campaign: I assume with the New Zealand and Australian Division at Anzac Cove?
  • In May 1918: we seem to jump from mid-1916 to early 1918 between the first and second paragraphs. Is there anything that could be said about Crichton's service in this period? I understand that he was in a support role, and that such service tends to be glossed over, but even a single sentence might work. For instance, "After their arrival in Europe in [DATE], Crichton's unit was employed behind the lines in support of the New Zealand Division, moving many times throughout the next two years to various locations around France and Belgium"... Of course, this requires a source that actually says this, so if it doesn't exist, obviously it can't be said, but I wonder if you could look for something like this to fill in the gap here.
  • he would be reduced in rank if he was to proceed with the transfer --> "he would be reduced in rank if he proceeded with the transfer}}?
  • Revised as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Auckland Infantry Regiment appears to be overlinked
    • Whoops, have removed dupe link. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • He later stated that he had been selected for officer training with the NZASC: this seems a rather passive way of wording this. Is there reason to doubt it is true? If not, I'd suggest maybe rewording, thusly: "He had been selected for officer training with the NZASC, but he turned this down when a senior..."
  • During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: was this action part of a named battle? If so, I think we should mention it here?
  • During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: suggest flipping this --> "On 30 September 1918, during the Hundred Days Offensive"
    • Have flipped as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation, compare "Post Office and Telegraph Department" v. "New Zealand Post & Telegraph Department" (specifically "and/&" and "Post" v "Post Office" -- did it change its official title?)
  • Crichton died at Auckland Hospital on 22 September 1961: do we know what he died from?
  • are there any more details about his family, e.g. wife's name, when and where they married etc?
  • as the "VC" section is very small, I'd suggest just merging it into the the Later life section
    • @Zawed: G'day, Zawed, not sure if you have seen these comments or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 11 November 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)

  • 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)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Do we know exactly which Waffen-SS unit Pestek was in?
Unfortunately, the unit name/designation is not to be found in any of the sources.
Pity. Is there any info on when he enlisted? Or if he was a Party member?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of the sources give dates. (OR alert) He must have joined the SS after April 1941, because the SS did not accept recruits under 17. Given what we know about him I find it highly unlikely that he was a party member, but there's no information on that either. Catrìona (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I was forgetting how young he was. I was just kinda curious because there weren't many Waffen-SS units on anti-partisan ops during Barbarossa in that area. My best guess would be the SS Cavalry Brigade or the 1st SS Infantry Brigade, but that's entirely speculation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Explain what BII-d is
Clarified "BIId section". I also added an aerial photograph/map.
  • I can't see anything else worth commenting on, but I'll make another pass later before I support. Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 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)

  • 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)

Support Comments

  • underwent a lengthy refit between 1982 and 1986, being sent to the Persian Gulf in 1990 Needs a transitional word after 1986, instead of "being". Something like "and was then"
  • Added 'before'.
  • before the ships began to be built, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy Admiral Sergey Gorshkov changed Might be better phrased as "before the ships began to be built, Admiral Sergey Gorshkov, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy, changed" with links to commander in chief and Admiral
  • Done
  • As a Kresta II-class cruiser, Admiral Oktyabrsky Reads oddly to me. Either rework it as a class description "The Kresta II-class cruisers were..." or particularize it to the ship as "Admiral Oktyabrsky was..." I generally do the description as a class thing as it's easier when you intend to do all the ships in the class, and then just mention any specific info related to the individual ship, which might be speed during sea trials or whatever. But that's just me and definitely not a requirement.
  • Done the first option.
  • 1,754.86 nmi (3,250.00 km; 2,019.46 mi) Round to the nearest whole number.
  • Done
  • two RBU-6000 12-barrel and two RBU-1000 6-barrel Having all the digits in close conjunction might be confusing. Suggest moving the barrel count in front of the designation.
  • Done
  • early warning air search radar hyphenate early warning. Air search is kinda redundant because all early-warning radars are air search by their nature.
  • Done
  • For anti-submarine warfare she had improved "an" improved
  • Done
  • hyphenate hull-mounted
  • Done
  • named for Soviet World War II "the" Soviet
  • Done
  • Add a link for Captain 2nd Rank, General Secretary, etc., Defense Minister
  • Done.
  • You need to watch more carefully for missing articles like "the" and "a". I added a couple to the 1970s paragraph. But some are still needed here: destroyer Sposobny, frigate Razyashchiy
  • Done
  • Move the link for sister ship to the first use and you needn't use the full term after the first use. And add "her" to sister or sister ship when using either term.
  • Done
  • I'd recommend adding the country and linking to it when referring to obscure cities like Berbera and Aden
  • Done, partially, but I'd rather not link country per WP:OVERLINK as the existence of Somalia and Yemen is now well known due to recent events.
  • You have a far higher opinion of the geographical literacy of our readers than I do, my friend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tell the reader when the Soviet Union dissolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • as the Construction section is very small, I suggest combining it with the career section, in a manner similar to how it is presented in French battleship Courbet (1911)
  • Done
  • Brigade of the fleet's -- "Brigade of the Pacific Fleet's" (and move link to here)
  • Done
  • she discovered seven United States --> "she detected seven United States"?
  • Done
  • Between August 1990 and February 1991 she operated in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War: is it possible to expand upon what the ship did during its deployment?
  • Regrettably, there is no information on this in my sources.
  • Is there anything about the generic position of the Soviet Union WRT the conflict? I guess, my concern here is that this is the closest the ship came to war service so it seems pretty important to provide some context. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This image caption claims that it was part of the routine Soviet naval presence in the Gulf after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, but I can't find anything to back that up. Kges1901 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Pages 39–40 of this document provide some context: Muraviev, Alexey (2007). The Russian Pacific Fleet: From the Crimean War to Perestroika (PDF). Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs, No. 20. Canberra: Sea Power Centre – Australia, Department of Defence. ISBN 978-0-642-29667-2. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Rupert. Unfortunately I cannot expand on this further as Muraviev's sources are offline, and I do not think I can obtain them in America. What I have found on the runet about Admiral Oktyabrsky's service in the Gulf sheds no light on why she was there. I have added context and the citation. Kges1901 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, that looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • to the Russian Navy, though her career...: suggest splitting this sentence after "Navy"
  • Done
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Gardiner wok should have an endash
  • Done

« 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)

  • 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)

Comments by PM

This article is in great shape, although it is too long at over 11,000 words. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, suggest "Renamed Yugoslavia, the ship was destroyed by an Italian mine in the Raid on Pola a day later"
  • suggest "and provided the Austro-Hungarian Navy with an attemptopportunity to evenaddress the disparity"
  • suggest "that the prospectdifficulty"
  • link Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino at first mention in the body
  • link Diet of Hungary at first mention in the body
  • suggest breaking the sentence beginning "István Tisza..." as it is too long
  • suggest "Šusteršič, the leader of the Slovene bloc," as he has already been introduced
  • when you say "German politicians", do you mean Austrian ones?
  • Yes. Politicians from the German-speaking part of Austria were regularly just referred to as "Germans". Phrases like "the German block" or "the German delegates" are commonly used in works covering this topic.
  • I don't think you need "ammunition and shells", ammunition covers it
  • suggest "the layout of the Tegetthoff-class" as it isn't clear which one you are referring to
  • I suggest moving the first two paras of the Design section to an Assessment section at the end
  • Popper's idea with the reinforced bottom was to protect against mines, but then you refer to a torpedo. I don't follow. A reinforced bottom wouldn't help against torpedoes would it?

The general idea was to protect against explosions, which the hull failed to do. I can clarify that by adding the word "explosions" or saying "mines and torpedoes" if you'd like.

  • "the latter by a mine"
  • "which turned 90° compared to the other three ships in the class" this begs the question about how far the other rangefinders turned
  • I couldn't find the crew info in the body
  • drop the hyphen from "more-compact" and "most-important"
  • there is a bit of ENGVAR action going on, centimetre and armor, for example
  • "The sinking of Szent István revealed..." bit could go in the Assessment section
  • the sentence beginning "When in the spring of 1909..." doesn't have an object. Suggest deleting "When"

down to Construction, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • All of this should be addressed with the exception of the 90 degree issue. I'll have to do research on that. Please let me know if you have any issues or outstanding questions. Looking forward to the rest of the review!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rangefinder issue has been reworded.
  • German Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz should just be Tirpitz
  • Done
  • given this has already been mentioned, suggest "when Montecuccoli sent the officer to obtain recommendations..."
  • Done
  • suggest "already contentious naval arms race. however"
  • Done
  • "in theat Pola"
  • Done
  • suggest "growing Austrian Navy League"
  • Done
  • should it be "The title ship of the class" or "The lead ship/namesake of the class"?
  • Viribus Unitis was the lead ship of the class. Tegetthoff would be classified as the title ship of the class.
  • link Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, I know he's already linked in the table, but it is useful for the reader, who may just skim over the table
  • Done
  • my understanding is that it is field marshal, not field marshall. Unless that a US spelling?
  • Typo. Fixed!
  • suggest "choosing to name the first ship using his own personal motto..."
  • Done
  • the Footnotes all need citations
  • I always have trouble attaching citations to footnotes. Whenever I try to do so, it bugs out the footnote. Do you know why that happens?
  • I don't use the efn template, instead I use the refn template, which, combined with the group=lower-alpha field creates Notes/Footnotes that can contain citations. Have a look at the Notes in 250t-class torpedo boat to see how it works. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is going to take me a very long time to rework the footnotes in that format, and then find the appropriate citations for each of I added the footnotes at random intervals during my research and writing. I don't have the exact page numbers of even the exact source for any of them. I'll have to go through all of my works to locate them.
  • suggest moving the sentence beginning "Prinz Eugen was commissioned... be moved to the end of the para, as it is currently out of sequence, and we are first told of the assassination, then learn that FF refused to attend a launch
  • If I move it to the end of the paragraph, the section will be broken up awkwardly because the end of that paragraph as well as the following paragraph deals with Szent István. Moving the bit about Prinz Eugen in-between would break that all up awkwardly.
  • suggest "tountil 17 January 1914"
  • Done
  • "Hungarian Prime Minister István Tisza", as he has already been introduced (although not as PM)
  • I think the man you mean is János Teleszky
  • Done

down to History. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think they were "missions", more "voyages" or "cruises"
  • Fixed
  • you can drop pre-dreadnought battleship from Zrínyi, as you'ver already introduced her
  • Done
  • Malta is not in the eastern Med or Levant
  • Good catch. Fixed.
  • link smallpox and meningitis
  • Done
  • "Archduke Franz Ferdinand" could just be "the Archduke" at this stage, I suggest going through and using "the Archduke" for him at every mention after he is introduced, as I can't see any other archduke's being mentioned
  • Do you think it would be acceptable to refer to him as just "Franz Ferdinand" rather than "the Archduke"?
  • "exactly one month before Archduke Franz Ferdinand..." is presaging future events, I'd just remove it and let events unfold as they do, chronologically
  • state Admiral Spaun was a scout cruiser here
  • Done
  • link mobilization
  • Done
  • "light cruiser SMS Breslau" as she has been introduced already
  • Done
  • delete "scout cruiser" from Admiral Spaun
  • Done

down to 1914–1915. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • link Foreign Ministry of Austria-Hungary
  • Done
  • drop the hyphen from "Tegetthoff-class" as it is not being used as an adjective here, there is a later example of Radetzky-class and Tegetthoff-class as well
  • So the hyphen needs to be removed everywhere?
  • If you are referring to the "Tegetthoff-class ships" or similar, where it is followed by a noun (ie ships), it should be hyphenated as a compound adjective, but if you are just referring to the "Tegetthoff class" without a noun following, class is the noun and Tegetthoff is the adjective and they shouldn't be hyphenated. English grammar, it screws with your sanity... Maybe Parsecboy can explain it better than me? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's exactly right. When "Tegetthoff" is the adjective that describes the noun "class", you don't need a hyphen. The hyphen is only needed when "Tegetthoff class" is the adjective that describes "ships". Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So just to clarify, we're going to remove the hyphens (for the most part), and that also applies to other classes mentioned in the text as well, right? Just want to make sure I properly address this!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • move link to Emperor Karl I to first mention
  • Done
  • Maximilian Njegovan should just be Njegovan at this stage
  • Done
  • prose difficulties
  • Fixed
  • consistency between Allied Powers and Allied powers and U-Boats and U-boats
  • drop the hyphen from per-hour
  • Done
  • "Furthermore, the newly formed state had also not yet publicly dethroned" dethroned is not the word here, that would require them to remove him from power. This is more of a lack of public rejection
  • Looks like someone beat me to fixing this.
  • "the transfer being still unknown to Italy" as it was obviously known within the A-H Empire
  • Done
  • "until 1920 whenthat"
  • Done
  • "off of Toulon"
  • Done
  • Aus meiner Dienstzeit needs an OCLC, which can be found here
  • Done. Thanks!
  • United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN, which can also be found at Worldcat
  • Done
  • Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand von Österreich-Este needs an OCLC, see Worldcat
  • Done
  • Warship International needs an ISSN
  • Done
  • Marine—Gestern, Heute also needs an OCLC
  • Done
  • I assume that Aichelburg would be consulted before a FAC nom?
  • If I can possibly get a hold of it, I will include it for sure. I have a virtual library of books on this subject now...I personally own over a dozen books, journals, articles, magazines, and other sources that cover the Tegetthoff class, but I have never been able to get a copy of this despite months of searching.
  • My comment about the size of the article will especially apply at FAC. Basically it is too long, and parts need to be branched off it to bring it down to a readable size. I won't oppose here on that basis, but I might at FAC, as might others.
  • I know it's very long...I'm not sure how to branch off the article however, and it kills me to cut information out. If you've got any suggestions (even very broad ones) to throw around I'd love to hear them because I don't want the length of all things to potentially kill an FAC.
  • FWIW, I'd spin off Austro-Italian naval arms race including the table for starters, leaving just a basic one para summary. The Funding section could be seriously reduced in size to just summarise the various machinations, the level of detail is just too granular. But in general, a more summary style should be taken across the whole article, rather than including every little detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do plan on creating a separate article for the Austro-Italian naval arms race similar to what I did over at Austro-Italian ironclad arms's just such a large topic that I haven't been able to get around to it, and my editing has fallen off a cliff this month due to work and other real life commitments. That said, I do intend to create the article and I'll definitely take your advice of moving large parts of this over to said article when it's created. That will have to take place before I take this to FAC.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. I'll respond to the queries as we go. Great job with this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, I took a quick look. I have a couple of really minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • please check the English variation. I see US "armor" but also British "millimetre";
  • This should be fixed.
  • suggest cropping "File:Ramberg - Bombarding of Ancona, 1915, HGM, 2017-03-08.jpg" to remove the frame. That will focus the eye more on the image
  • I've wanted to do that for a while now, but I wasn't sure I was allowed to edit the photo as such.
  • I think it should be okay if you upload a new version with "(cropped)" or something similar in the name. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • in the References, check the punctuation in Morton (specifically the space before the colon and the hyphen, which should be an endash)
  • I'm not following here.
  • I have tweaked these for you now with this edit: [14] AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • same as above for Stevenson
  • is there a page range for Sieche's chapter in Gardiner?
  • Yes there is. Let me haul the book out of my closet and check what those page ranges are.
  • suggest adding a translation for Kiszling's title
  • How would that go about for the book template? Is there a section that can be added for translating a title?
  • G'day, yes, there is a field called "|trans-title=" which can be added to the cite book template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • same as above for the Conrad and Koudelka works
  • same as above for the work in the Further reading section
  • check the titles for hyphen/endash errors
  • "New York, NY" --> I think by convention we have in past just used "New York" here
  • Would this entail removing the state abbreviations from other cities as well? I kept "NY" in there for consistency's sake
  • No, just "New York". Its a minor point, thouh, so I won't die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • some of the ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated, for example compare Greger with Halpern 1971
  • inconsistent style, compare "Hore, Battleships, p. 180." and " with "Sondhaus 1994, pp. 274–275",
  • This was done because Hore had two works published the same year. "Battleships" refers to the work on that subject, while he also had something published related to Ironclads. Since this article doesn't use the second citation, I'll change that back to "2006".
  • No worries, I sometimes use "2006a" and "2006b" in those instances. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On 29 October the: probably needs an introductory comma (there are a few other examples where this might be required)
  • I haven't read the article top to bottom yet, sorry

Follow on comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • are the citations in the lead necessary? Usually, unless something is a quote, or particularly controversial, citations aren't really needed in the lead as everything should be referenced in the body
  • is the table of comparative naval strength necessary for this article? I can see why it would be important in an article on the Austro-Italian naval arms race, but it is probably a bit much for this article, IMO
  • there are still some vestiges of British English variation, for instance "draught", "calibre" and "harbour"
  • In order to guarantee funding for the ships: this sentence is quite long, suggest splitting. Perhaps this might work: "The Rothschild family in Austria owned the Witkowitz Ironworks and the Creditanstalt Bank, and had significant assets in both the Škoda Works and the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino. To guarantee funding from the family, Archduke Franz Ferdinand personally courted Albert Salomon Anselm von Rothschild in order to obtain his family's monetary support until the government could buy the ships"?
  • 30 Italian soldiers and 38 civilians were killed, while an additional 150 were wounded in the attack: per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral
  • same as above for 89 sailors and officers died in the sinking, 41 of them from Hungary
  • same as above for 66 Allied planes dropped over 200 bombs...
  • was done with little: seems a little awkward in terms of wording
  • While this was going on the... --> "Meanwhile,"?
  • ...was in the process of tearing itself apart along ethnic and nationalist lines --> "...was on the verge of splitting along ethnic and nationalist lines"?
  • The Italians did not know that the Austrian government had handed over Viribus Unitis, along with most of the Austro-Hungarian fleet, to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs: this is probably unnecessary as the first part of the paragraph already says "the transfer being still unknown to Italy"
  • Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum to hand over the former Austro-Hungarian warships, the National Council agreed to hand over the ships beginning on 10 November 1918 --> "Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum, the National Council agreed to hand over the form Austro-Hungarian warships beginning on 10 November 1918}}?
  • in the lead there are a lot of overlinked terms, for instance; Fiume, Pola, Bombardment of Ancona, Austro-Hungarian Navy, Otrango Barrage, and many of the ship names (these should all probably only be linked once)
  • in the body, Reichsrat and World War II are overlinked
  • "Sieche, Zeittafel, p. 137" --> "Sieche 1985, p. 137"
  • same as above for "Sieche, Zeittafel, pp. 138–140"
  • in the References, the entry for Prasky: No. 2 (1 6) -- is this "16", or is ther something missing between the 1 and the 6?
  • the sources on face value look reliable to me, although I wasn't able to check the non English language ones and wasn't sure about a few the website. With your knowledge of the sources, could you please explain how the websites and foreign language sources cited meet the RS requirements?

« Return to A-Class review list

Jacobite rising of 1745

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Robinvp11 (talk)

Jacobite rising of 1745 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this has been extensively updated, to include a wide variety of recent sources, plus inclusion of the impact of the 1745 rebellion, both then and now. The article is intended to provide an overview of the campaign rather than the individual battles and why it was both the most successful yet also the last Jacobite rising. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild

I comment here with some reluctance, as I dislike the thought of saying negative things about an article which has a lot going for it and whose nominator has clearly put a large amount of effort in. Nevertheless, it is my view that this article has some issues. I had a discussion regarding some of them with the nominator earlier in the month. A number of my concerns at the time have been addressed and as there have been no comments here for over three months I thought that I would summarise. Please note that this is not a full assessment, merely a pointing out of some of the more salient issues.

  • There are 13 paragraphs which do not end in references.
Green tickY Done
  • All of the "Notes" bar the first state facts which need sourcing.
Green tickY Done
  • No images have alt text.
What is that? :)
See MOS:ALT. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). You add "|alt=descriptive text" to the image template. An example diff.
  • The French navy's plans and preparations to launch an invasion in 1745 do not seem to be mentioned.
I've left it out because its debatable whether it was ever serious; during 1745 and 1746, Saxe was completing the conquest of the Austrian Netherlands, something of far greater long-term significance to France. Simply capturing ports in Northern Flanders tied up the Royal Navy and French naval resources in early 1746 (ie before Culloden) were totally focused on Anville's expedition to retake Arcadia.
If the French didn't take it seriously then this can be mentioned and dismissed in a short sentence or two. The first RS I consulted - (Rodger, N.A.M. (2004). The Command of the Ocean. London: Penguin. ISBN 0713884118. pp. 245-46, which I personally consider a very RS) seems to give it some weight, see here. In which case there is a difference of opinions between RSs, which again needs a brief mention.
Ok, let me take a look at the wording. FYI, I'm not doubting Rodgers but the closer you get to someone who's actually in the French navy (eg de Forbin in 1708), the less keen they are on the idea. Alberoni figured out in 1719 you didn't have to actually go anywhere to tie up the RN, but many French statesmen thought 'Oh, its just a few miles over the water' and wrote lots of letters talking about it - so you can find plenty of evidence but its like asking Donald Trump his favourite place to eat in Mexico City. Or similar.
Fine, it's your article. Just for info, Rodger's work is probably currently the definitive history of the British navies of the period, although obviously it is a general history, and he is well aware of both of those points; which is not to pre-judge your conclusions.
  • Nit picking - the statue in Derby: the furthest point reached was 5 miles south of Derby at Swarkstone Bridge; the caption gives the impression that the statue marks the actual furthest point reached.
Green tickY Changed to 'reached Derby.'
  • Sources: Blaikie and Groves were published too early for ISBNs. They either need OCLCs or "first published" dates.
Green tickY Updated.

If these concerns, or most of them, could be addressed then I would be happy to do a full assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologies, I thought I'd withdrawn this but obviously not :). I appreciate your investment of time, it wasn't my intention to ignore you but let's continue so we don't lose the investment.
  • In principle, people shouldn't be 'reluctant' to say negative things; that's what the review process is for, its how you say them that matters :). TBF, there are a number of A-listed articles I looked at which seem to have been reviewed by the editor's mother and would benefit from a more rigorous approach. Even when I don't agree, it sparks new thinking and vastly improved another article.
  • As mentioned in a previous discussion, I've been given four or five different versions of Wikipedia Sourcing policy. Re 'every paragraph should end in a reference;' I'll do it, no problem but I'm genuinely struggling to understand where this comes from (its not in the list of requirements for B article assessments) but more importantly, the purpose.
  • It's not a measure of whether an article is well-sourced; I've used a wide variety and avoided general histories in favour of specific sources. It's not a measure of whether something is debatable; one of the paras missing a reference is the statement Charles died in 1788. As I said, I'll do it (some of these simply mean moving the wording around) but I'd like to understand why.
  • Let me do these and I'll revert. Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Good work. Thank you. I shall put this down for a full assessment as soon as I have the time. Hopefully I should be able to complete that over the next week or so. Note my two comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Robinvp11: I note that the article is still being fairly heavily revised. A brief skim suggests that this is improving it, so that is fine. But I don't want to start assessing an article when I may have to do it again a week later because it has changed. While I appreciate that work on an article never truly ceases, could you ping me once you feel that you have done the bulk of the work and I shall then set to. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Its finished, I just need to put in the Alt stuff on the photos.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Start of assessment

I have done some copy editing. I think that it is uncontroversial, but could you check it, and if you are unhappy with anything flag it up here.

  • "The 1688 Glorious Revolution replaced James II and VII with his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III and II." Suggest inserting 'king of England, Scotland and Ireland after "James II and VII" so we know what we are talking about from the start.
Green tickY Amended wording (inserting this makes titles of Mary and William redundant).
  • "a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones". Link "Catholics".
Green tickY Done
  • "Since neither Mary nor her sister Anne had surviving children, the 1701 Act of Settlement ensured a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones" These two clauses do not follow. I suspect that you mean 'The 1701 Act of Settlement ensured a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones. Since neither Mary nor her sister Anne had surviving children, when Anne became the last Stuart monarch in 1702, her heir was...'

Green tickY Amended wording; see what you think.

  • "the pro-Hanoverian Whigs controlled government for the next 30 years". 'the government'.
Green tickY
  • "The Spanish-sponsored 1719 Rising in Scotland was judged to have done more damage to the Jacobite cause than otherwise". This needs a cite, or changing to '.. was judged by the Duke of Ormonde to have done more damage...'

Green tickY Amended wording;

Green tickY

  • "an alliance of Tories and pro-war Patriot Whigs", Link "Tories".

Green tickY

  • "an alliance of Tories and pro-war Patriot Whigs who promptly did a deal to keep their partners out of government." It is not clear (to me) which group did the deal and which was kept out of government.

Green tickY Amended wording;

  • "Cardinal Fleury, Chief Minister from 1726 to 1743". 'chief minister'.

Green tickY

  • "Many French statesmen felt Britain was the chief beneficiary of the 1716 Alliance, but Cardinal Fleury, Chief Minister from 1726 to 1743, viewed Jacobite claims with scepticism.[15] However, by the time he died in January 1743 and Louis XV took control of government, hostilities between the two countries appeared imminent." This doesn't really flow. Consider a rewrite. (Let me know if you think that it does and I'll be more specific.
Green tickY Amended wording;

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "Episcopalianism became a mark of Scottish Jacobite commitment, with the majority of the Rebellion's leaders and participants coming from this section of society." Which section? The article hasn't discussed any sections. Or are followers of the Church of Scotland intended to constitute a "section" of society? Possibly a different word choice needed?
Green tickY word change
Robinvp11, looking good. A few minor things I would pick on, but let's get to the end of the article and I'll try to hoover them all up in one go. Good work, carry on. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Charles in Scotland
  • "Louis notified James and his uncle Philip V of Spain ". Louis' uncle or James'?
Green tickY Amended the wording
  • "Louis cancelled the invasion at the end of March, declared war on Britain in October and focused on campaigns in Europe". I have a RS which states that France declared war in February 1744. Could you check your source?
Green tickY Changed to March from October; Riding and Ward both say end of March, might be OS v NS?
  • "Despite these precautions, the plan was leaked and when a French squadron left Brest on 26 January, the Royal Navy refused to follow." Could you go back to your source, Cruickshanks, reread pages 56-64, especially page 63, and see if you want to revise the last part of this.
Green tickY Amended; I've removed Cruickshanks (its so hard to get hold of a copy and I returned it long ago). Disputes seem to be on whether Norris was there by accident or design, ditto Roquefeuil.
  • "Storms then sank 12 French warships". From the Brest or the Dunkirk squadrons? Did the Dunkirk squadron ever leave port?
Green tickY I've changed the wording; again, its not clear and I don't want to run down too many rabbit holes. One source claims the Dunkirk transports left harbour 'several days before' but I don't believe for a second a group of flat-bottomed ships full of men sat offshore in a gale waiting for Roquefeuil to show up.
  • "The rebellion now gained momentum; in mid-October, the Jacobites received a shipment of French money and weapons along with an envoy, the Marquis d'Eguilles, while the Duke of Cumberland returned to London from Flanders with 12,000 troops." Suggest a nnew sentence from "while the Duke...". This is unconnected to the rest of the sentence, especially the opening clause.
Green tickY I've changed the wording;
  • "to discuss the invasion of England." It seems strange to break the paragraph here.
Green tickY I've changed the wording;

I will pause here to give you a chance to respond to the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Again some minor queries, but I will again park those for now and crack on with Invasion of England when I find the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Invasion of England
  • "Regardless, without artillery the Jacobites could only take it by an extended siege but it surrendered on 15 November," This sentence seems a little confused. I am not sure what "Regardless" is doing. Why state that "without artillery the Jacobites could only take it by an extended siege" immediately before stating that it fell in less than a week? "Cumberland wanted to execute those responsible when he retook Carlisle in December." seems like an out of chronological add on to me: who was responsible; what had they done; were they axecuted, punished in any way. I appreciate that summary style by definition omits information, but this extended sentence could do with a review.
  • Green tickY Amended wording (plus expanded on Cumberland in section above)
  • "Here they received the first significant intake of 200-300 English recruits" Suggest 'Here they received the first significant intake of English recruits - 200-300 men' or similar.
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "and despite large crowds, only Manchester provided a significant number of recruits" This implies that the large crowds were in Manchester. Perhaps 'and despite large crowds gathering at many places along their route, only Manchester had provided...'
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "Murray argued they had gone as far as possible and now risked being caught between Cumberland and Wade, each army being twice their size." Wade and his army have been introduced. This is the first mention of Cumberland (barring the leap forward in time reference re Carlisle). Who is he? Where is he? What army does he have? Pick at least two from three.
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "this meant he had lied when claiming otherwise and fatally damaged his relationship with the Scots." Perhaps '... and this revelation fatally damaged...'? I am not happy with "fatally"; 'seriously'?
  • Green tickY Amended wording to 'irretrievably'; one of the things that is different between then and now was the importance assigned to oaths (six of the seven Bishops in 1688 refused to swear allegiance to William) and a 'gentleman's word' and the impact was very very serious as a result.
  • "and is supported by many modern historians". Suggestion only 'and its wisdom is supported...'?
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "the Council now learned that Scots and Irish regulars" assuming this is written in UK English that should be learnt.
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "The lightly-equipped Jacobite army moved faster than its opponents but that was a disadvantage in actual combat" Why? ANd why does this end in a semi colon? I don't see how the two parts are linked.
  • Green tickY Amended wording

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Road to Culloden
  • "but there were too many other factors to change the outcome." Can this be sourced, or is it OR?
  • Green tickY Source added (and wording)
  • "Cumberland's troops spent their time in Aberdeen being intensively drilled in countering the Highland tactic of using their initial charge to break the enemy line. When successful, it resulted in..." A natural reading of this is that when Cumberland's troops' training was successful, it resulted in... Which is not what you are trying to convey.
  • Green tickY Amended wording

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "earned him the nickname 'Butcher'" Awarded by a particular group, or known as such by all parties.
  • Green tickY
  • "After the death of his father James in 1766, Pope Clement XIII refused to recognise him as Charles III, despite the urgings of his brother Henry." Reword; currently it doesn't make sense. In particular it is not clear who "his" and "him" and "his" (again) refer to.
  • Green tickY amended wording

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "The Jacobite Army is often portrayed as largely composed of Gaelic-speaking Highlanders; while predominantly Scottish, it also contained significant numbers of French and Irish regulars, as well as the English Manchester Regiment. Many were Highlanders but some of the most effective units came from the Lowlands, thus making it a Scottish force, not simply Highland." Optional. Would it be possible to reword this so that it flows: Highland; Scottish; English (Manchester Regiment); Irish and French?
  • Green tickY Amended wording, see what you think.
  • "After 1745, Highlanders were converted into a noble warrior race". Er, no they weren't. You are talking about a perception, and/or self perception, or anything other than them being literally "converted".
  • Green tickY Amended.
  • "the military aspects of clanship itself had been in decline for many years," Could you be a bit more specific? Is "many years" 5-7, ot 100-150?
  • Green tickY Amended wording, see what you think.
  • "the study of Scottish history itself virtually disappearing from universities until the 1950s." Would it be possible, and useful, (and sourcable) to change this to 'the study of Scottish history itself virtually disappearing from universities from the post-Rising period until the 1950s.'?
  • Green tickY To disappear, it would have needed to be first taught, so I've amended the wording.
  • "The creation of a distinctive Scottish literary tradition began as a reaction to Union" Are you seriously arguing that prior to 1706/7 there was no "distinctive Scottish literary tradition"? Scottish literature argues otherwise. Eg "The first surviving major text in Scots literature is John Barbour's Brus (1375)".
  • Green tickY That's not what I was suggesting but I've amended the wording.
  • "This was continued by Robert Burns". It is not clear to me what the "this" is that "was continued".
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "This allowed Cumberland's nephew George IV to be painted in 1822 wearing Highland dress of his own design." It is not clear to me what the "this" is that "allowed..."
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • "It culminated in the Victorian inventions of..." It is not clear to me what the "it" is that "culminated in..."
  • Green tickY Amended wording
  • " the adoption by a largely Protestant nation of romantic Catholic icons..." I query the use of "romantic". It sounds like editorialising to me, unless you can show that it is the consensus of reliable sources.
  • Green tickY 'Romantic Catholic icons' is an exact quote from the source but I can live without it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture
  • "In 1969, an episode of the BBC TV science-fiction series Doctor Who featured the 1745 Rising" If the bar for inclusion in this section is to have featured in a single episode of a TV series 50 years ago then you are going to have a very long list. Get rid of it. Ditto the Gabaldon claim. Likewise the mention of a single song composed in the 1980s in Argentina.
  • "While not strictly related to the '45 Rising" So why mention it?
  • Why is the 1964 film selected for mention, and not, for example the 1923 or 1948 ones?
  • "one collection being the 1960 album". 58 years ago equals popular culture?
  • There is a lot to be said about the '45 in popular culture, but you need to dig out some learned papers on this and give a balanced summary of the RS's views. Not present a rag bag of unsourced items going back over 50 years.
  • Green tickY TBH, very little of this is mine, so most of it can be removed plus I also feel I've covered a lot of the Legacy in Aftermath.
  • ? I'm genuinely stuck as to what you consider a Source for these; the Broster plays linked to the BBC website showing it was int he Schedule, the David Niven quote was linked to the newspaper article in which it appears. Ideas?
I am not questioning their sources (which seem adequate), I am questioning whether they should be there at all. If you are happy to take them out then I am satisfied. As to what should be in this section, Catriona's comments below seem to me to offer a good starting point. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of Citation needed insertions, which on closer investigation have been done by a Bot.
Green tickY I've removed this and moved references into Legacy section (which includes addition re Catriona's suggestion).

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Cite 7. ISBNs had not been invented in 1916.
  • Green tickY I've cited the first publication date, then the most current edition, which do; that makes it easier to find it;
  • Check your list of sources and remove those which are not cited in the article.
  • Green tickY Also added
  • Those left each need either an ISBN, OCLC, ISSN, JSTOR or similar.
  • Similarly, when a source is mentioned under "References" it needs one of these.
  • Sources either all need a publisher location, or none do. I suggest removing it from the 3 which do.
  • Cite 76. All number ranges, including page ranges should use an en dash, not a hyphen.
  • McInally. Only books, etc are in italics. Articles or chapters within books or journals are given in normal type but within inverted commas - "".

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

: Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.

  • What are pensionaries?
Green tickY I've shortened it and taken this out
  • What was the Cornbury conspiracy?
Green tickY I removed this and changed the structure; there's no wikipedia article to link to and it doesn't merit extending the article.
  • it was the last Jacobite rebellion, despite being the most successful The 1745 uprising doesn't seem very successful to me.
Green tickY 'Most successful' is not the same as 'successful' :) but I've reworded this paragraph.
  • "between 1740-1744" "between 1740 and 1744"
Green tickY Done
  • "in England, where the established Church was Episcopalian" No need for a capital C. I'm not sure that the uninformed reader will realise that the "established church" is the Church of England. Or what "Episcopalian" means (link it here instead of down below).
Green tickY Reworded this paragraph to make it tighter (the benefit of someone else looking at it :)).
  • "in Scotland, where the kirk was Calvinist and Presbyterian" "church". This is the Church of Scotland, right?
Green tickY As above.
  • "1707 Acts of Union" Act or Acts?
Green tickY Acts (I've included the link - it covers the English enabling act of 1706 and the Scots of 1707);
  • "See also: Siege of Carlisle (December 1745)" We don't usually put See also in the middle of the text. Hatnotes are placed at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout.
Green tickY done
  • Link David Niven, Dr Who
  • Many unreferenced paragraphs. The Notes also require references.
Green tickY Done, except for the Literary ones (which I didn't add, so finding the references take a few)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

: Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it!

  • This isn't an issue with the A-class criteria, but if you were to take this to WP:GAN, you would need to tweak the layout of images to conform to MOS:IMAGELOC, in particular avoiding "sandwiching"—images on two sides with text in the middle.
  • Charles journeyed to Paris Suggest "traveled to Paris"
Green tickY Done
  • Murray of Broughton Usually, the best practice to introduce people by their full name, ie Sir John Murray of Broughton
Green tickY Done; I've shifted the wording to flow better;
  • Charles gambled once in Scotland "Charles gambled that once he was in Scotland..."
Green tickY Done; changed the last bit slightly.
  • victory at Fontenoy in April wlink this entire phrase so its obvious the link is to a battle, not the place
Green tickY Done; minor re-wording .
  • MacDonald of Boisdale, MacDonald of Sleat it would be more relevant to link the clans, rather than the places, if there is no article on the individuals
  • Enough were eventually persuaded, including the influential Donald Cameron of Lochiel, but the choice was rarely simple. You might expand on how religious loyalties (clans that had converted to Prostantism vs. those that remained Catholic) and pragmatic factors (Gaelic poet Donnchadh Bàn Mac an t-Saoir, for instance, famously supported the Jacobites despite having fought for the Hanoverians) affected Gaelic leaders' siding with or against the rising.
Red XN The religious question is a long discussion; we can say Catholics mostly supported the Stuarts but the Presbyterian Macleans were out in 1689 and 1715 due to the Campbell acquisition of Mull. I think its covered sufficiently in the previous section (ie the link with Non-Juring Episcopalianism).
I don't know enough about the links between Gaelic leaders and Jacobites to comment usefully but if you have some sources to recommend, I'm interested :) In addition, many of Lochiel's tenants were threatened with eviction by Archibald Cameron if they didn't join, which led to his betrayal and execution in 1753. The question of motivation is potentially a big rabbit hole and I wanted to expand on this in the article on Jacobitism.
This question has been discussed at considerable length in this JSTOR paper. 5Catrìona (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This is something I've looked at when researching the Jacobite Army: establishing motivation can often be particularly difficult due to the context in which it was reported. As an example, one incident usually taken as evidence that some Highlanders were dragged along by force (the recruiting activities of Keppoch in Bunrannoch parish) were recorded partly in the context of trying to prove some participants innocent of rebellion. By contrast, a large number of Keppoch's own regiment argued with him and went home en masse - hardly the actions of tenants living in fear of their landlord. It's complicated, either way. Svejk74 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • a slur that was to have disastrous results Rephrase: not NPOV. For the Hanoverians, the result was good!
Green tickY Done; I got lazy :)
  • many others[who?] stayed on the sidelines as a result
Green tickY Added, thanks.
  • On 17 September, Charles entered Edinburgh unopposed, although the Castle itself remained in government hands and the next day, he proclaimed his father King of Scotland Split: ...although the Castle itself remained in government hands. The next day, he proclaimed his father King of Scotland.
Green tickY Split and expanded slightly; see what you think.
  • Sir John Cope Usually, one wouldn't repeat honorifics or first names, how about "Cope's forces"?
Green tickY Rewritten the sentence, see what you think
  • Marquis d'Eguilles (red)link?
I'll do a quick one
  • Scottish incursions into England historically crossed the border at Berwick-upon-Tweed Suggest: Previous Scottish invasions of England had crossed the border at...
Green tickY Rewritten the sentence, see what you think;
  • to maximise the chances of these conditions being met, Murray selected a route through Carlisle and the traditional heartland of Jacobite support in North-West England Either clarify how this is relevant to the potential French support, or cut "to maximise the chances of these conditions being met".
Green tickY Rewritten the sentence, see what you think;

Skipping ahead a bit:

  • Overall, I've checked the campaign box and most of these events are not even mentioned here. Is there a reason for that?
  • Green tickY This wasn't done by me; I assume you're referring to the detailed box and many of these are minor skirmishes with little bearing on the campaign so I'd remove them but...Thoughts? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think your policy of not expanding on the battles works well, except for Culloden. I think it is important enough to devote a paragraph to the tactics/what happened. You should also mention that it is still the last pitched battle to be fought on British soil.
  • Green tickY Now done Robinvp11 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The popular culture section should mention Gaelic poetry. The Jacobite risings were the main theme of 18th century Gaelic poetry, and appeared in the work of most of the notable poets William Ross, Rob Donn, and most famously Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair. This is discussed a bit in the above paper. Also, per WP:MILPOP, make sure that you have a solid secondary source for all of the pop culture references.
  • Green tickY I read the article by Stewart; thanks for that, it was really interesting. His purpose seems to be proving the validity of Gaelic poetry as a reliable source by discounting 'Forcing Out.' I don't really follow his logic :) but it's useful in other ways and I've included a reference to the article in 'Charles in Scotland.' Let me come up with some wording, which I think belongs in the Legacy segment. I need to internalise the article a bit but I'll let you know when its done and then feel free to amend (always easier to edit, versus create).

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Have a look, let me know 12:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

More later. Catrìona (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Svejk74

It's been suggested I add comments here rather than on the talk page of the article itself. I still wonder if my points have much applicability as far as the general reader is concerned, but in the interests of keeping everything in one place I'll add them to this discussion.

I do think the article is vastly improved, but there are a couple of areas that I think deserve some expansion:

  • I don't think it's accurate to simply say that English Jacobite support had largely collapsed after 1715 and that, as a political idea, it was largely an expression of Tory frustrations at being out of power. As Monod (Jacobitism and the English People, p.330) put it the failure of the rebellion to attract support "is more complicated" than merely being evidence of "the debility of Jacobitism". While not the party mainstream, there was still a group of more strongly Jacobite Tories who were (as the article actually notes) lobbying for French military support and were horrified by what they saw as a reckless and premature action by Charles. The recusant northern gentry, as Monod also notes, still existed but were deliberately left alone by Charles as he was conscious "they had not recovered from the devastation wrought upon them after 1715". There was also an element of Anglican Jacobite gentry who wished Charles well, but were simply afraid of getting involved; this is in addition to the population of towns like Lichfield. My point, like Monod's, is that there was more to the situation than just stating that Jacobitism was moribund and exaggerated by Stuart agents.
  • Green tickY Let me come up with some wording - valid point.
  • Similarly on reflection, and partly reminded by something I was looking at for the article on Sheridan, I would say that Irish Jacobitism was not entirely about Catholic rights; Sheridan's family were one of a number of Ormondist Tory Protestants. While they might have been a minority element, it does demonstrate that Jacobite support was not homogenous.
  • I agree and the wording does include land rights but let me think about it. A query (simple curiosity) is what you mean by Ormondist Tory Protestants? I just finished re-reading 'Memoirs of a Georgian Rake' by William Hickey, one of many minor Irish gentry, Edmund Burke being another, where the sons became Protestants but the daughters went to convents in France. So which bit is the practice of occasional conformity, versus genuine belief?
Well, "Ormondist Tory" is O Ciardha's wording rather than mine, but I took it to mean those elements of the Anglican 'Ascendancy' class (as opposed to the Catholic landowners and Old English) whose families had supported the Stuart interest at the Boyne and Aughrim. You could use the phrase 'High Anglican Stuart Loyalists' as well, I suppose. There were still a few of them around in the 18th century - O Ciardha points out that they mixed little if at all with Catholic Jacobites and mentions one of the Crosbies of Ardfert as an especially active example; interestingly the last Crosbie baronet Sir Edward was executed as a United Irishman.Svejk74 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - given the mutation of former Jacobite societies into the United Irishmen, that makes sense. I think there's too much emphasis on religion as a key driver of Irish Jacobite opposition; the issue was its impact on ability to own land and hold government positions. When Rinuccini was appointed Papal Nuncio to Ireland in 1644, he failed to appreciate fundamental differences between Rome and Irish Catholicism, one being hostility to elaborate rituals such as foot washing and greater tolerance for Protestants. De Valera has a lot to answer for.
Interestingly (for me :)), when I lived in Thailand 1988-1993, it was common practice for ethnic Chinese Thai to send one of their sons to university in China, very similar to occasional conformity.Robinvp11 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Svejk74 (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Another observation, on re-reading the article. "Restoring the Stuarts would be of little benefit to France but an ongoing, inexpensive Jacobite insurgency to absorb British resources might, although potentially devastating for the Scots" is now the first mention of the Scots or Scotland in the body of the article. A reader without background knowledge might question why it would be devastating for the Scots particularly, so a sentence or so prior to then to explain the reasons why Scotland had become the centre of Stuart hopes might be helpful.Svejk74 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Green tickY done, see what you think.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Svejk74 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; btw, not sure if you've seen it already but the Jean McCann PHD on 'The Organisation of the Jacobite Army' is worth a look. Very detailed on recruitment etc.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

GL Mk. I radar

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

GL Mk. I radar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The GL series are not well known but are important stepping stones in the development of radar. That this particular model also caused the entire UK to run out of chicken wire is also somewhat amusing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day Maury Markowitz, this appears to have not been listed here correctly, have done so now. Coords should take this late listing into account when looking at older noms. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No DABs, external links OK
  • No conversion for 50 metre wavelength
These are not measurements, they are always in meters.
  • Use a hyphen for compound adjectives like 3-inch CRT. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template to have it handled automatically. I've done one for you already.
  • wavelengths between 3.4 and 5.5 m Needs a conversion
  • Redundant conversion of 14,000 yds. Convert on first use only.
  • display, who's operator fix this
  • Link dipole, wavelength
  • Down to Mk. II arrives, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • All done. Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, supporting on prose--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Source link to GL Mk. II radar transmitter.jpg is broken, or, more exactly, leads to a blank page in my browser. And why is it used twice in the article?
I wanted an image at the top, and one in the description for people to refer to. I'd love to have different ones but finding images of this kit is surprisingly difficult.
Fair enough, but I'm more concerned about the sourcing as it's quite plausibly a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit. I certainly couldn't find it on the Imperial War Museum website. Pinging Nikkimaria for a second opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we'd need a source to confirm that licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The only thing holding this from being promoted is this image with dubious sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that "a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit" was, by definition, ultimately part of the Crown Copyright. This photo was taken during WWII and was published at least as early as 1953 as it is appears to be scan of the same image found in the book "Army Radar" (the original, not the more recent one). That appears to meet both of the either/or requirements to be PD under UK law. So can someone be very specific what the issue is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, a picture taken by a service member for himself doesn't fall under Crown Copyright, AFAIK. But all that's irrelevant if the picture appeared in Army Radar which was published by the Crown. You need to update the summary and sourcing saying as much. And give the page number on which it appeared in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we're good here. The UK National Archives states that any Crown image enters PD 50 years after creation. This image was taken circa 1942 and thus fell into that category long ago. The MoD states that images taken by service members are Crown, as I had been led to believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to get what they mean by "staff" clarified at some point, but it's irrelevant to this image. Update the sourcing and we'll be done here. By which, I mean the publishing info, not the link of the scanned image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • fn 4,5: Is the ARRL Antenna Book a book? If so, could publication information be added (and the external links removed)?
  • fn 16: Add journal name
  • fn 17: Add ISBN
Added something actually useful instead.
  • fn 19, 23: Add access date

All sources are of high quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

  • "center" should be "centre", "defense" should be "defence"
  • "The first GL set was a elementary design" an elementary design
  • "This was sent to a second display, who's operator attempted to keep the antennas pointed at the target." whose operator
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, I see this has been open for quite sometime, with a few reviews, but no responses, so I am uncertain if further reviews are desired. Nevertheless, I took a quick look. Overall, it looks pretty good to me, and should be able to be promoted if the above comments are dealt with. The main issue I see is that there are a few uncited sentences/paragraphs: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Larger CRTs would improve the accuracy, but in this case a 12-inch (0.30 m) CRT would be required, beyond the state of the art for the mid-1930s.
  • 1,679 GL Mark II sets were produced between June 1940 and August 1943. Additionally, I seem to recall somewhere in the MOS it says we shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • the entire paragraph ending: In the immediate post-war era, these were in turn replaced by the smaller and lighter AA No. 3 Mk. 7 radar, which remained in use until AA guns were removed from service in the late 1950s.
    • @Maury Markowitz: G'day, Maury, just checking in about these points about citations above, as they do not appear to have been covered off on, unless I've missed something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've added my support now as the main issues have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I have a couple of other minor comments/suggestions, which are largely peripherial and not necessarily impediments to successful promotion: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • is there a page number or page range that could be added for the Butement citation?
  • is there an ISSN for the Lorber article?
  • the Lorber source is missing the name of the journal that it appears in (i.e Royal Canadian Air Force Journal)
No ISSN, not that I would bother, but the journal has been added.
"1927-7601" per [15]. I will leave it up to you to decide if you want to add it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in the citation formats, for instance the refs to the Butement (citation # 1), ARRL Antenna Book (citation # 4), Galati (citation # 17) & Assad (citation # 31) use a format that is differnt to the majority of other citations (e.g. Austin (#32), Burns (# 33) for instance)
This is deliberate. Citations used only once or in close prox I put inline.
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • is there an OCLC number for the Sayer work?
They didn't exist in the 1950s AFAIK.
Added it for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Army Radar - historical monograph --> "Army Radar – Historical Monograph" (title case capitalisation)?

Sorry for the tardy replies everything above should be done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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