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

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

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


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 and an image review. You may need to contact some of the reviewers if their review still appears to be open.

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

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

After a considerable hiatus, I'm back working on the many Yugoslav order of battle articles covering the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. The 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski was seriously deficient in firepower and mobility, was deployed in the mountains along the Italian border, and didn't see a lot of fighting. The 7th Army, of which it was a part, was encircled when the Italians and Germans met across its rear, and the whole army promptly surrendered. This went through GAN in January last year, but I've expanded it a fair bit recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild

  • The links to Overwhelming Force... and The German Invasion... seem to be dead. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Trevor-Roper needs an OCLC, not an ISBN. (Or you have the year wrong.)
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study, by the time the invasion commenced, the 32nd ID had only commenced mobilisation" Minor style point, two times "commenced" in close proximity.
  • "During the night of 10/11 April". The MoS suggests '10–11 April'.

That's all I can come up with. No doubt more experienced eyes will be more helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, noting that this was a very short-lived unit which doesn't seem to have done anything but retreat in chaos as part of its parent army. I have the following minor comments:

  • The TOE of the Yugoslav divisions looks fairly standard for this era (though on the generous side). Am I right in thinking that the reason they were so huge was due more to the number of men in their components rather than the number of components?
  • There were a whole bunch of specialist companies at divisional level, but the fourth infantry regiment, a fourth battalion per regiment (a bit like First AIF brigades), and a fourth battalion per artillery regiment are the main reasons I can see. There was a whole "supplementary" regiment attached to the division which included three battalions, each of which could have up to five companies, so that would have blown the numbers out as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That would explain it, but the article says that there were three battalions per regiment at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Fixed, p. 106 of Terzic is where the difference lies. I have preferred him over Niehorster in this instance, given his higher level of detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks good, and certainly explains the size of the divisions. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we know what happened to the division's soldiers after the end of the campaign? Were they freed, or did they stay POWs? Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • G'day Nick most were released, the Axis decided that Serbs were the biggest threat, and 90% of all Yugoslav POWs held for the duration were Serbs. Added a sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt (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. It is part of a series of articles I've worked on about the French Revolutionary Wars and the Wars of Coalitions. I will appreciate your input! auntieruth (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Ruth. Nice work, as always. I have a few very minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • in the lead, suggest linking "Ottoman Empire" done
  • in the lead, "Feldmarshalleutnant Lieutenant-General": is this right? Or is lieutenant general a translation of Feldmarshalleutnant? done
  • in the Family and education section, this appears to be missing something: "The development of map making, and Carlos Pallavicini was at the forefront of this movement." done
  • "now an Oberst colonel" --> "now an Oberst (colonel)"? done
  • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation. For instance, consider "Fähnrich (ensign)" but also "Oberleutnant (Lieutenant)" done
  • in the infobox, "Lieutenant Field Marshal" seems inconsistent with the lead done
  • I saw some English variation issues, e.g. "defense" but "theatre" done
  • "This over-extension left his Corps' northern..." --> "This over-extension left his corps' northern" (lower case "c" for corps) done
  • "material on the Turk's military situation" --> "material on the Turks' military situation"? Wellllll, German sources, and many English sources, usually refer to the Turk (singular).
  • in the Citations and notes, citations 7 & 8 appear to be the same, and probably should be consolidated as WP:NAMEDREFS done
  • "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, colors, and several guns" --> "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, as well as its colors, and several guns"?
  • "One of history's great Chiefs of Staff": suggest that this assessment might need attribution in text, i.e. "Described as one of history's great Chiefs of Staff by X..." done
  • Archduke Charles is overlinked in the Assessment and legacy section
  • "File:Johann Heinrich von Schmitt.jpg": the current source does not seem to provide information about when the portrait was created. Is there a better source for this?
  • should Smith's Databook appear in the Bibliography? done
  • in the Bibliography, is the an OCLC number for the Egger work? no
  • in the Bibliography, "Napoleon Online.DE": should there be a space between the full stop and "DE"? not really, iot's Napoleon've fixed the link to make it easier
  • same as above for the Wrede work?
  • "Die Österreichischen Generäle 1792–1815" probably should be presented in italics done
  • the promotions box probably needs citations done
  • @AustralianRupert: Thanks for the points. I worked on this more than a year ago and I'm always surprised how much degrading happens....auntieruth (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries, Ruth. Thanks for your efforts. I made a few more minor tweaks here and there. These are my edits: [1]. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

  • The article is titled Johann Heinrich von Schmitt, but there is no mention of him ever being known as "Johann". Also, there is a key difference between "Schmitt" and "von Schmitt". If his father had the nobiliary particle I assume he would have inherited it as well. Why this discrepancy? added the von He would have been called heinrich by his friends, but I don't think I use his first name anywhere else.
  • The first sentence should explain who he was before it says what he accomplished i.e. "Heinrich Schmitt (1743 – 11 November 1805) was an Austrian military officer who..." done
  • In 1799, his reputation was tarnished by the assassination of the French delegates to the Congress of Rastatt in 1799... This should clarify that his reputation was tarnished because he was rumored to be involved. As of now it stands ambiguous; when I first read it I was wondering whether he had been assigned to protect them and had failed to fulfill that supposed duty. Very little research done on the assassination. He wasn't assigned to protect them, but the treaties had obviously guaranteed their safety.
  • The first paragraph under "Family and education" should make it explicit that his father was in the employ of the Hapsburg Monarchy. linked
  • planned the basis of the famous 1796 campaign --> The word "famous" is potentially problematic. Considered "famous" by who? Also, what is the relevance of its fame to Schmitt? Hitler "famously" initiated a world war in Europe, but we don't need to say that it was "famous". If the military skill displayed by Schmitt and the Hapsburg forces was celebrated by other strategists or by historians than a separate sourced sentence should be made explaining as much. yes, good point....
  • The official investigation into the assassination placed enormous pressure on Schmitt... Did the authorities ever conclusively exonerate him, or was there simply just not enough evidence to find fault in him? No investigation definitively figured out what happened. Changed some of the wording....
  • Heinrich Schmitt was, in his time, recognized as one of the best and most distinguished officers of the Imperial Austrian army. Recognized by who? changed

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with all the responses to my comments except I still believe some of the "Assessment and legacy" statements aren't qualified. If it's all the opinion of Digby Smith, this should be made obvious. Also, in what context was he considered the most experienced Austrian leader. Among the military officers of his time? Amongst all Austrians of all time? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Very reasonable point. I've adjusted the text. Thanks, @Indy beetle:! auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the alterations made and the addressing of my comments and I support this article's promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Johann_Heinrich_von_Schmitt.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Battle_of_durenstein_1805.png: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Arab–Khazar wars

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Arab–Khazar wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I've been working on this article since 2012, and have now finally managed to complete it after finding a copy of Dunlop's 1954 history of the Khazars, which is still the standard reference for the field. I feel the article is complete and comprehensive, providing both a detailed description of the conflict as well as placing it in context. Any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, most welcome, as I intend to eventually bring this to FA. Constantine 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating topic of which I know very little and I enjoyed the education; I'd like others to read it as well and my comments are designed to ensure that.
I find it hard to leave out facts I find fascinating but may not add value for the general reader, so this is like giving myself feedback :)). I do a job where I think a lot about the user experience so my bias is 'Will people using Wikipedia read and understand it?'
In General; I found it hard to read, especially the Background and Motives. Suggestions;
Editing; Too much information eg the paragraph that starts Some Byzantinists, notably Dimitri Obolensky... I get the point but as a newbie to the topic, its confusing.
So (for example), I would redo this by saying 'While there are different opinions, it is generally accepted that the northward expansion of the Arabs beyond the Caucasus...' A lot of this could be shorter.
Chunking; break it down eg it would be useful to have a separate segment on the different military practices (for example);
Pictures; it needs more! I found the amount of uninterrupted text intimidating :) More (and detailed) maps;
Quotes; too many quotes that don't really add much for me or could be shortened eg According to Georgian sources, the khagan desired to marry the beautiful Shushan, daughter of Prince Archil of Kakheti (r. 736–786), and he sent his general Buljan to invade Iberia and capture her. Most of the central region of K'art'li was occupied, and Prince Juansher (r. 786–807) was taken off into captivity for a few years, but rather than be taken off captive, Shushan committed suicide and the furious khagan had Buljan executed.[100] Arab chroniclers, on the other hand, attribute this to the plans of the Abbasid governor al-Fadl ibn Yahya (one of the famous Barmakids) to marry one of the khagan's daughters, who died on her journey south, while a different story is reported by al-Tabari, whereby the Khazars were invited to attack by a local Arab magnate in retaliation against the execution of his father, the governor of Derbent, by the general Sa'id ibn Salm. According to the Arab sources, the Khazars then raided as far as the Araxes, necessitating the dispatch of troops under Yazid ibn Mazyad, as the new governor of Transcaucasia, with more forces under Khazim ibn Khuzayma in reserve.[87][99][101]
This provides two different versions (ie Georgian and Arab) and at the end I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from this.
Specific Points;
Lead paragraph is too long; my understanding is it should be 7-8 lines max. (Wrong :)).
I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs (plus - just my curiosity :)) what does 'Arab' mean in this context? ie I thought a lot of the Steppe peoples were Turkic.
As someone who grew up in the Middle East, still works in Lebanon etc and whose family comes from Belfast :), I have some understanding of the length of memory in these places (people in Jhelum still talk of Alexander as if he left the day before) - so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?
If it's helpful, I'd be glad to edit a paragraph and show you what I mean. As I said, it is a great topic and I enjoyed learning about it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Robinvp11, and thanks for taking the time to review this article! Regarding your comments, I have already made a major rewriting and restructuring of the "Background" section as I was also not really satisfied with it. It now is, to my mind, more logically structured in coherent thematic sections (which also deals with the "Chunking" concern). Feel free, however, to either suggest emendations or tinker around yourself to improve prose.
  • On the degree of detail, I try to keep it to a tolerable level, without sacrificing accuracy; for instance, Obolensky is known as the foremost proponent of this idea, and for anyone who wants to know more, his name should be mentioned. Due to the relative eminence of Byzantine studies compared to Khazar ones, the Byzantinist viewpoint has been pretty prevalent in the relevant literature, and thus needs to be examined. For the average reader, this may be useless, but I do not feel it is really a burden (if one feels compelled to delve into every link included in the article, then that is not the "average reader"). In the article I have for instance mostly abstained from analyzing the primary sources as Blankinship and Dunlop do, precisely to avoid tiring the reader; in only a few areas have I felt compelled to include the alternative or disputed facts or dates, where they impact directly on the larger narrative. One such case is precisely what you mention as a problem regarding the Abbasid-era raids. There are two divergent narratives for the same event, and I am obliged to mention them both without indicating a preference, if no such preference is stated in my sources (per WP:NOR). If that is confusing, I cannot really help it, because history is almost never neat and tidy...
  • On pictures, I also like a well-illustrated article, but there is preciously little to use; a relatively obscure 8th-century conflict between non-Westerners does not generate much in terms of illustrations. On the maps, I have worked on a new and more detailed map (now in the infobox), but anything more is beyond my source material; unless someone happens to have some Russian or Iranian encyclopedia of the Caucasus or something similar, I've hit a barrier here. Ditto for photographs or medieval drawings: what little there is on Commons I've used, and I am looking for more online, but it is a) a little like searching for a needle in a haystack and b) even when I find something, its copyright is often prohibitive or unclear.
  • The lead should be commensurate to the length of the article and be just as long as needed to summarize it adequately. There is no hard limit either way; MOS:LEADLENGTH has some suggestions, but they are not at 7-8 lines level, certainly not for an article of this size.
  • "I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs" I've already tried to make this clearer in the reworked Background section. For more one would have to follow the links to the respective articles.
  • "so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?" I have not found any indication in the sources that this is much of an issue today; it may linger in some folk memory, but as the article states, such events were inevitably described in pre-existing terms ("Gog and Magog") etc, so there is probably little that would be specific to this conflict. Likewise the political, economic, etc effects have mostly vanished since with the waves of other conquerors that passed over that region. It is likely that there are studies on this (I guess in Russian, Arabic or Azeri) but I couldn't really find any indication of it in the sources I know; Kemper for instance lists several Russian-languagestudies, but these appear to be generalist works or otherwise to focus on far more recent history of the region or aspects of it unrelated to the present one. The one discernible long-term impact is already stated clearly in the article: the early Arab expansion (and the expansion of Islam) was halted for centuries at Derbent.
  • Looking forward to any further feedback and suggestions. As stated, feel free to work around with the text yourself. Cheers, Constantine 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Robinvp11: re. "7-8 lines"—not sure where that comes from? WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a lead of "3 to 4 paragraphs2 for articles of over 30,000 characters in length: this is >40,000. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, I was writing too fast and thinking about something else. Sorry :)

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the subject matter expert :) so its up to you to decide what to include - I'm thinking in terms of the reader, plus I'm a huge fan of Oscar Wilde 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.' I'll have a look round for pictures - its about making the article more accessible and pictures play a large role in that so even modern pictures of the terrain help. Let me take a look. 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robinvp11, as mentioned above, feel free to make whatever additions or improvements you see fit. Constantine 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

Wow, this is massive and very interesting. I'm reading as an editor the first time, and straight off in the lead I can see some issues that you might want to address.

for example:
  • but the Arab–Khazar military confrontation involved several sporadic raids and isolated clashes over a period from the middle of the 7th century to the end of the 8th century. involved sporadic raids and isolated clashes from...
  • the Arabs were able to capture Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but this had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who remained able to launch devastating raids deep into Transcaucasia The Arabs captured Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but these successes had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who continued to launch devastating raids....
  • At the same time, the long wars weakened ... The continuing warfare weakened....
  • Caucasus needs a link; also, typically there wouldn't be citations in the lead, because you'd clarify anything fuzzy in the body of the article....?
  • Done, and re the links I know, but in this case I think it is required, as the nomenclature isn't really dealt with anywhere else. Constantine 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally, the more "helping" verbs used, the more confusing it gets. I'll be happy to help if you would like some assistance, but you might wish to run through it yourself. auntieruth (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your attention, auntieruth. As I wrote to Robinvp11 above, feel free to make whatever changes and improvements you see fit, and I will go over the changes afterward in case they distorted the meaning somehow. A new pair of eyes throwing a fresh look on the article is always better :) Constantine 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--White Shadows New and improved!

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), White Shadows (talk)

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Another day, another list of ships from me (and White Shadows, who recently returned from a long time away) - this one covers all of the ironclads built by Austria-Hungary between the 1860s and 1880s. It's the capstone to this project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list as we prepare to take it to FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

  • G'day White Shadows, welcome back!
    • Great to be back!
  • in the first table under propulsion "chaft"?
    • Good catch. Fixed the typo.
  • is it worth mentioning STT in the narrative of the Drache class?
    • I can see an argument going in either direction for that. If there's a consensus to add it in there I personally have no objections to doing so.
      • I think I should have couched this (and my later comment about builder) in terms of whether we need to note the shipyard in a list of this type. From what I've seen of FLs, I would suggest not, but if you are going to mention one, you should probably mention all, as it sort of begs the question? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
        • After further thought, I've decided to include the building for every class in the list.
  • fist ships
    • Good catch!
  • suggest "firepower" rather than "gun power"
    • Changed.
  • who built the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class and later classes?
    • STT constructed the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class, Lissa, Custoza, and Erzherzog Albrecht. Kaiser was constructed at the Pola Naval Arsenal but none of my sources give a name for who constructed it. Two of the Kaiser Max class ships were built by STT as well, while the third was constructed at the Pola Naval Arsenal. Tegetthoff and Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie were also built by STT, while Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf was constructed by the Pola Arsenal.
      • Added the builders for all classes.
  • nominally assignd
    • Another good catch.
  • The Custoza section says Lissa had ten guns, but her table says 12?
    • That is a typo. Lissa had 12 guns.
  • suggest the only ship of that type in the Kaiser section
    • I like this suggestion! I've included it in the list.
  • the gun arrangement of Kaiser in the text adds up to nine guns, but she had ten?
    • I'm not a huge fan of how all that reads anyway, so I've reworked the sentence to not only flow better, but also present correct information.
  • Kaiser Max and Don Juan d'Austria became barracks ships
    • Yet another good catch.
  • when the ships were transferred, Yugoslavia wasn't called that, it was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. It only became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929.
    • This is an issue from several older articles dealing with the Austro-Hungarian Navy that I've come across. For example, many older articles say that at the end of the war, the Austro-Hungarian Navy was transferred to Yugoslavia, when in reality it was transferred to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. I've fixed this issue here like I do anywhere I see it.
      • The Royal Yugoslav Navy (and Yugoslavia in general) is a pet topic of mine. By the time the ships were transferred under the treaty, the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSCS) had been created from the Kingdom of Serbia (and Montenegro) and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The latter happened on 1 December 1918. The Austro-Hungarians tried to circumvent the Italians getting a hold of their ships by transferring them to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs before that date, but the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) that actually disposed of the ships disregarded this action and dealt with them as it saw fit, only transferring a few ships to the KSCS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Tegetthoff says 11 guns in the text, but six in the table?
    • This is another typo. Text has been corrected.
  • comma after "Genoa, Italy"
    • Is it inappropriate to have the comma in there? I did remove it as a precaution but I thought it was grammatically acceptable to keep it?
      • Put a comma after Italy is what I meant. That way the sentence pauses after Italy and then goes on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Added in the comma.
  • fn 19 should just be p. rather than pp.
    • Fixed!

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

My responses are above. I think I've addressed them all, and if there's some sort of consensus regarding a few of the other points I have no issues including them in the list.--White Shadows New and improved!

G'day White Shadows, just a couple of clarifications above, but this is good to go regardless. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through the article again and incorporated your suggestions about builders. Glad to have your support!--White Shadows New and improved!

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the images;
  • in the lead, suggest breaking up this sentence a little: "Following Tegetthoff's death..." (there are two sets of semi colons, which indicate it is probably a run on sentence)
    • Done
  • in the lead, "...operational role as a guard ship. After World War I...": I feel that a short sentence is needed here to clarify whether any of the ships saw active service during the war either
    • That's a good idea.
  • in the Drach class section, suggest adding a year in the first sentence for a little more clarity, e.g. "Beginning with the launch of the French ironclad Gloire in YEAR, the major..."
    • Good idea
  • minor style point: citation 41 isn't clickable, but all the others are
    • Fixed.
  • in the References, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Dislere work, in the same manner that you have done so for the Pawlik work
    • Done.
  • watch out for US v British English issues, for instance I saw "armoured" (British) but also "armor" (US)
    • Fixed, good catch. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will be addressing all of these as soon as I possibly can, perhaps later today.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Already done :P Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice work, both of you. Thanks for your efforts. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

James P. Hagerstrom

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HueSatLum (talk)

James P. Hagerstrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Hagerstrom was a fighter pilot with the USAAF and USAF, one of only seven to be an ace in both WWII and Korea. He also served in Vietnam, where he frequently butted heads with military brass. After retirement, he sailed around the Pacific with his family on a homemade boat. I created this article several years ago and got it to GA class, and since then I have expanded it quite a bit over the years. After a copyedit from the GOCE earlier this year, I believe it is now up to A-Class status, with the eventual goal of FAC. This is my first nomination, so I would appreciate any suggestions/critiques. /~huesatlum/ 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, welcome to Milhist ACR. Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • "theatre" --> "theater" (US English)
  • " July 25, 2944" --> " July 25, 1944"?
    • D'oh, fixed. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "didn't" --> "did not"
  • the following terms are overlinked: Tactical Air Command, Wiliam T. Whisner Jr., 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group, Fifth Air Force
    • Delinked, except for Whisner. I think he deserves a second link because it is presented as part of a list of other people in a different context than the first mention. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • the referencing is potentially inconsistent
    • Could you elaborate? I don't understand. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, sorry, I thought I'd written this, but it looks like I was more tired last night than I realised. Compare the style used for citation # 59 (and others) with those of # 60 and 62 (which also appear to be books). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I made 60 and 62 shortened footnotes and added the books to the bibliography. /~huesatlum/ 00:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "at the pilot, not did..." --> "at the pilot, nor did"
  • "because his gun was switched off" --> "because his guns were switched off"?
  • "Hagerstrom and the 8th FS were assigned to Kila Airfield": suggest adding when this took place
    • The source doesn't have a date for this, but I clarified as best I could. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "he was wearing his dress blue uniform": is this level of detail necessary?
    • I moved it down a few sentences to emphasize that he was still wearing his dress uniform when he flew his last mission. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • this phrasing seems a little awkward: "In part of 1968 and 1969..."
    • Re-worked a few sentences so it flows better. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "There, he flew 30 combat missions": as a pilot, or in what capacity?

Comments from Dank

  • Hi HueSatLum, welcome to Milhist A-class. I started copyediting, but stopped at the quote boxes. I don't think it's my place to say whether they should be there and what they should say, but I'd like to see some discussion on them by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Dank, and thanks for your work so far. My input: I added the quote boxes mainly for visual interest and to break up the wall of text. They essentially take the place of images, as extensive searches turned up no additional images of Hagerstrom that would definitely be allowed here. I believe they add more value than if they were replaced with generic images of, say, relevant battles or aircrafts. They provide a landing point for someone who is just skimming the article, as well as give insight into Hagerstrom's voice and point of view. /~huesatlum/ 02:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. For better and worse, FAC follows MOS (within reason), and WP:MOS says "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." There are strong opinions on both sides. It's not my fight, and I'm not sure how people feel about this at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Were you waiting for me to do something before you continued looking at the article, or do you want input from other folks first? /~huesatlum/ 15:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd like to see some discussion on the quote boxes by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I doubt I'm more knowledgeable than you, Dan, but I'd be comfortable with the quote boxes, so long as the colour was removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Heh, I don't doubt that. The quote boxes might be fine for A-class (not my call), but I'm a little worried that they'd set up a messy fight at FAC, and this one might be headed to FAC. Can you think of anyone we can ping who's up to speed on what FAC reviewers want from quote boxes? (and maybe that's you). I'm certainly not one of those guys who says you can't have them, but I know reviewers have ideas about what they should or shouldn't say. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
                • @Ian Rose, Peacemaker67, and Nikkimaria: G'day everyone, do you have an opinion about the use of quote boxes in this article? Would it be ok if the article went to FAC in your opinion, or would it be something that is likely frowned upon there? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
                  • Well, Template:Quote box discourages their use in articles, and MOS recommends using Template:Quote and really doesn't talk about quote boxes being used at all. Having a quick look through, the Vietnam quote is contradicted by a lot of sources regarding the use of airpower in that war (an example is the "force feed fire support system" explored in Firepower in Limited War by Robert Scales), so I think that might draw the crabs due to its content, unless the quote and criticism of that approach to airpower in Vietnam is explored in the body. In that case, I think it is better to leave it out. The other quotes would probably be ok as block quotes if it is felt they enhance the article. I don't think using quote boxes in lieu of images is a good practice though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                    • Noted but can't respond properly just yet. Later, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                    • There are FAs that use quote boxes, and there are reviewers who have complained about their use. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 is the most recent major discussion I'm aware of on the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                      • Back again... I'm responding here primarily as a frequent FAC nominator/reviewer rather than as a FAC coordinator. I took part in the discussion Nikki links above and expressed the opinion that quote boxes are appropriate when the quote in question doesn't quite fit into the flow of text (in which case a block quote would be logical). If you look at the summing up of that discussion I think you'll find that it wasn't a minority opinion. I've successfully nominated several articles at FAC with a quote box or two before and after that discussion and had no issues raised. Putting my FAC coord hat back on, I don't think I've noticed concerns raised in other nominations either. My advice would be to use quote boxes judiciously, as with any other style element. I wouldn't be using colour backgrounds though -- plain background is less obviously eye-catching, and one of the arguments against the quote boxes was that they highlight certain passages in the article to too great an extent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                        • Thank you all for your input. I have made the quote boxes the default light gray background and removed the Vietnam quote, per the suggestions above. I'd like to leave the rest in, although I would be willing to reconsider if it is brought up again here or at FAC. /~huesatlum/ 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Japanese battleship Ise

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Ise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles in preparation for a FAC. I've updated this recent GA with the comments from her sister ship Hyuga's ACR and ongoing FAC, so I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vami_IV

  • Ise (伊勢 (戦艦)). I am not literate in Japanese at the slightest - what's the difference between the two sets of characters? This should have something like what's present here here, which has the kanji name and links to the respective systems for naming.
    • 伊勢 [Ise] refers to the battleship name, meanwhile 戦艦 [senkan] refers to "battleship". So, 伊勢 (戦艦) is "Ise (battleship)" in English. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, cool. I asked that because that information should be in the lead. –Vami_IV✠ 20:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
        • This prompted me to learn something about the nihongo template which I'd never looked at before, so see if it satisfies now.
  • Still in the lead (last sentence): Was Ise scrapped in situ or raised to be scrapped somewhere else?
    • In place, but details like that are best reserved for the main body.
  • I feel the first two paragraphs in "Armaments" can and should be condensed into one.
    • Sure, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.
  • I advocate for Ise, named being Ise was named in the first sentence of "Construction and Career" so as to streamline the sentence and remove an unnecessary comma.
    • But the comma is necessary to demarcate the subordinate clause. Otherwise we'd have: "Ise was named after Hyūga Province, one of the traditional provinces of Japan, was laid down..." The second "was" is ungrammatical in this wording.
  • Ise was assigned to 1st Division should be "to the 1st Division," like you wrote immediately after it.
    • Good catch
  • [...] off the Siberia coast should be "Siberian coast" or "off the coast of Siberia." Link to Japanese intervention in Siberia.
    • Good catch and done.
  • Provide a link to the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. I would also provide a link to China in the following sentence, or to the Republic of China (1912–1949).
    • Done.
  • [...] help to sink should, I think, be [...] help sink. Unless, that is, if its just part of the British English that the article is written in.
    • I went with "helped sink"
  • Link to Pagoda mast. I would link to naval and shipbuilding terms in general.
    • Added. Every naval or shipbuilding term is linked one place or another; if you find any others please let me know.
  • I feel there is an unexplored gap in time from Ise's overhaul in Kure to Pearl Harbor. I would begin "Start of the Pacific War" like this: "Reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu, and a newly overhauled Ise, and the light carrier Hōshō, the 2nd Division [...]" The prose up to this point in general is very mechanical.
    • I agree with you on the mechanical wording and have mixed it up a little in an effort to improve it. Any gap results from the spotty coverage available in the sources. She's on patrol off the Chinese coast from early '39 to early '41 and then I only have organizational-type info for her until the war starts.
      • Ouch. I feel you there. –Vami_IV✠ 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of Ise's activities in the Battle of Midway. Did she do anything at the battle?
    • She wasn't present at the Battle of Midway.
      • My mistake then. –Vami_IV✠ 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine paragraphs two, three, and four in "Conversion to hybrid carrier".
    • I dunno; two and three cover different aspects of the conversion, while the fourth covers her return to service. I suppose two and three could be combined under the greater rubric of the conversion, but not four.
  • In the first paragraph of "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards," provide links to the Bonin Islands, Fourth Carrier Division, 634th Naval Air Group, the Yokosuka D4Y, the Aichi E16A, and the Hyūga.
    • All previously linked.
  • In the second paragraph, provide links to Leyte Gulf, Fast Carrier Task Force (Task Force 38), and Luzon.
    • Added links for the places; the other linked in the preceding para.
  • Ise was near missed eight times should be "nearly missed".
    • Those two are not interchangeable - a near miss did not hit - something that "nearly missed" did hit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Retracted. –Vami_IV✠ 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are no links to Operation Kita in either of their instances.
    • Additional link in the main body added.
  • HMS Tantalus is not marked as such.
    • Fixed
  • Provide a link to the Fourth Carrier Division, Kure, Ondo-no-seto, in "Final Role."
    • All previously linked, except for Ondo Seto which has no link, Ondo-no-seto is a strait and I'm not sure if it has any relation to Ondo Seto.

X –Vami_IV✠ 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive review, although I'm puzzled why you didn't apply these to the FAC for her sister Hyuga as many of the comments apply to both articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review - all image licenses check out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I spy a couple of "armor"s (and the same "modernized" as in the Hyūga FAC)
  • Couple of dupe links.
  • I second Peacemaker's comment below on links in the lead - that makes sense for short articles, but this one is long enough that a link repeated in the service history section would be of use to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from PM

  • the pp length is in the infobox but not in the body
  • the decimal conversions of the lengths and beam jar, should be ft in
  • deep load is used in the body, but full load in the infobox
  • the crew figures in the text and infobox don't match
  • where were the pairs of main gun turrets located, I assume one forward and one aft, but the other pair?
  • the text says 20 secondary guns, but infobox says 16?
  • the first reconstruction data says 24.5 kn, but the infobox says 25 kn
  • During the reconstruction the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time
  • Given two 14 cm guns were removed, shouldn't the second infobox show 18 guns? See above comment about the number of secondary guns.
  • I can't make sense of the second infobox range for deck armour. If the deck was 85 mm 55+30 initially, how did it drop to 51? And if the total increase was to 140, how do we get 152?
  • Siberian coast?
  • I can't make sense of the third infobox AA gun figures as built. In the body it says 57 weapons, but the infobox indicates 104? Isn't this the final number?
  • link Leyte Gulf
  • I have to say, your policy of only one link in the lead doesn't make reading the full article very easy. I found myself having to scroll up to hover over the earthquake, Second Sino-Japanese War and Operation Kita to get an idea of each
  • For consistency, it should probably be British submarine HMS Tantalus

That's me done. Great job on a complex ship history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment from White Shadows

This is all just aesthetics, but wouldn't it be sufficient to just call the "Design and description" section "Design"? On that same note, could "Construction and career" be split into two different sections? --White Shadows New and improved!

G'day Sturm, just a reminder that this is here, with outstanding comments that need addressing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Another list article I've put together lately, this one covers the torpedo cruisers built by Italy in the late 19th century. The list caps off this project, and is part of a larger project to document all of the cruisers built by Italy from the 1870s to the 1960s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list! Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Italicize Goito in the caption
    • Good catch.
  • Most of the images use a pre-1923 publication tag, but most do not have a publication date listed here or at the source. Suggest either tracking down and adding an early publication where one exists, or switching tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • These are all photos from the NHHC, which assert that images in their collection are in the PD in the US unless otherwise indicated. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • PD for what reason, though? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
        • The photos of other nations' ships in the NHHC's collection almost always come from ONI, one of the responsibilities of which was to collect photos of potential enemies' warships for recognition purposes. The vast bulk of these photos were either taken by naval personnel for ONI, or were acquired by ONI commercially (and in this case, any that were obtained commercially would have been acquired before 1923, since the ships depicted were all scrapped by that point, and the photos would not have been useful to ONI at that point). For example, the first image in the list states that it came "From ONI album of foreign warships (dated circa 1900)".
        • I've also done a bit of digging on the Conti-Vecchi credited with several of the photos - he was indeed a photographer of warships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - he published a number of photos in L'Illustrazione Italiana through the 1890s and 1900s. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
          • In that case, it would make sense to add a pre-1923 publication for those images where there is one, and otherwise swap the tag to a Navy one. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM
  • in the lead "built by any naviesy"
    • Fixed
  • comma after "minelayers" in the lead
    • Done
  • a bit of repetition in the last sentence of the lead with "early 1920s", suggest "were then sold for scrap"
    • Good catch
  • drop the comma "She spent little time in active service, as a result"
    • Fixed
  • suggest adding Confienza's medium gun to the table
    • Done
  • suggest adding the medium guns to the Partenope table
    • Done
  • "theItalo-Turkish" needs a space
    • Fixed
  • add an OCLC for Notes on Naval Progress
    • Done

That's me done. Great job. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Great list, Nate. Ticks all the boxes, just the right amount of detail. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Nice work as usual Parsec. I think that the A-class criteria are met, though I have one comment:

  • "A total of eighteen vessels of the type were constructed, based on six different designs" - could something more precise than 'based on' be used here? (for instance, ship classes). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

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

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

This article is about a Soviet Cold War large anti-submarine ship, considered a cruiser by Western sources. This is one of my first major ship articles, part of an effort to improve the coverage of the Soviet Navy, and I welcome improvement suggestions. The article just passed a GAN and seems to be of the appropriate length comparing it to other Russian ship A-class articles. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article, possible to either add them or add cites there? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Think I've got everything; I decided that there only needed to be one figure for range in the infobox in line with other ship articles. Kges1901 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the profile slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "sank under tow en route to India for scrapping a year later": Looking quickly, I only see a shorter version of that in the text below the lead.
  • I've made it consistent. Kges1901 (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

comments from auntieruth55

  • the lead seems a bit skimpy for an A-class article....just MHO. I passed this at GA and he's made few changes. auntieruth (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead expanded. I will create the exercise articles shortly. Kges1901 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, nice work so far. I have a few suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • there are no duplicate or dab links (no action required)
  • ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the images, although this isn't a hard-and-fast requirement (suggestion only)
  • Added alt text to the profile drawing, infobox ship image does not allow for alt text. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • in the infobox "4 30 mm", needs something separating the two sets of numerals (see for instance how it is done in Japanese battleship Ise). This applies to the other armament listings in the infbox
  • "91,000–100,000 shp" appears in the lead, but I couldn't find this range in the body of the article
  • Standardized on Hampshire's figure only since he used Russian sources while Chant was using Western intelligence analysts. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "She had Grom SA-N-1 fire control and MR-103 Bars AK725 fire control." --> "She had two Grom SA-N-1 and two MR-103 Bars AK725 fire control systems"?
  • Done. Placed designation of weapon system it guided in parenthesis. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • the infobox says "MG-332T Titan-2T" sonar, but the body says both MG-332 and MG-35 sonars
  • Only MG-332T. Fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Following repairs at Sevastopol, Admiral Isakov, under the flag of Northern Fleet First Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Vladimir Kruglikov with the frigate Revny and Genrikh Gasanov, visited Havana and Cienfuegos between 2 and 10 December 1982 before returning to Severomorsk on 21 February 1983": this is a very complex sentence, and might be clearer if split
  • "the ship was sold to an Indian company for scrapping, but sank under tow en route": do we know which city/place the vessel was being towed to and from?
  • No, it was probably being towed to Alang but that would be OR.
  • I couldn't find any mention of Goblet or Silex missiles in the body of the article, although they appear in the infobox
  • NATO reporting names. Kges1901 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As the Construction section is very small, I suggest just merging it into the career section (see for instance how it is done in the Japanese battleship Ise article)
  • the hyphenation for the isbn of the Chant work is slightly inconsistent compared with that of Belov and Hampshire
  • link "Displacement_(ship)#Standard_displacement" and "Displacement_(ship)#Light_displacement"

« Return to A-Class review list

MAUD Committee

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

MAUD Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The origins of the British nuclear weapons project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: needs minor touchups only.

  • Ahhh, that first ROS in the lede. My eyes, my eyes! Suggest removing mention of WWII and reorganizing this entirely.
    Help! I don't know what ROS means! I can't find it in Wikipedia:WikiSpeak Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    Not sure, but perhaps "run on sentence"? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also suggest that the first para of an article on MAUD actually be about MAUD, not some other article. The 3rd para would be a nice basis.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " In April 1932" - sort of off topic, as is the next statement. I think this could cut directly to "Then, in December 1938" (although without the Then)
    Deleted. It was mostly to show that Britain was a leder in nuclear physics back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The government also placed" - separate para.
  • "separation, so the project would get a head start" - "separation, which would give the project a head start"
  • "to Liverpool. The universities were reimbursed" - para break.
  • "university funds. The government also" - and here.
  • "enemy aliens. The MAP gradually" - here too.
    I don't see the logic here. The first paragraph deals with financial arrangement, the second with personnel arrangements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and Heinz London. They concentrated " - and here
  • " of power. He estimated" - and here

- sorry, I was repeatedly interrupted and it continues. I'll be back! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Support: I made a few minor WS and arrangement edits, and added a link to shake, which better explains the concept there. Good to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: I made a few tweaks here and there. Overall, the article looks pretty good to me. These are my edits: [2] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

  • suggest saying four universities were involved (in the lead), as it begs the question
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • the MeV redirect means that the meaning of MeV in plain English isn't apparent, even when hovering over the link. Suggest putting it in plain English (whatever it is) then using MeV in parentheses after that, to make it accessible to the non-scientist
    {{convert}} to the rescue. With funky options. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "thus omitting consideration of moderator" should it be "a moderator", and what is a "moderator"?
    Linked neutron moderator. I've been writing these articles for so long I'd forgotten not everyone knows this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The terms of reference of the MAUD Policy Committee were"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • of which committee was Basil Dickens the secretary?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "But was it correct?" is a bit conversational. I suggest "There was information that questioned this conclusion." or words to that effect
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • link Physical Review
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "By March 1941, the Alfred Nier"
    deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "a microscopic amount of pure uranium-235" if that is what is meant
    Very well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oxford team was composed mostly of non-British scientists"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest tacking "In addition to this work, Eric Rideal studied..." to the preceding para
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "pure uranium metal" what was this? u-235?
    Uralloy. Pure natural uranium. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "might serve as a moderator for the fast neutrons"?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Nikkimaria, I'm not sure about the licensing of a couple of these images. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • File:George_Paget_Thomson.jpg: the original publication as credited on the Nobel site appears to have a copyright notice - this presents a problem wrt "it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" from the US tag
    It was PD in Sweden on the URAA date though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Then it will need a different US tag that doesn't have that requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Is there one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • When/where was File:Sir_Mark_Oliphant.jpg first published?
    2004. By which time copyright had already expired in Australia in 1989. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Then it will need a different US tag that doesn't require earlier publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Replaced with a {{PD-AustraliaGov}} tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Sir_Francis_Simon.jpg: source link is dead.
    Repaired the source link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Not seeing an attribution for the image in the new source link - am I missing it, or is there an alternative that states it was a government photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see it either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Territorial Force

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Territorial Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The Territorial Force was a British part-time auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and Yeomanry auxiliaries. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army, the role the Territorial Force was largely designed to perform, on the outbreak of the First World War. Despite this indignity, the territorials volunteered for service overseas, filled the gap between the effective destruction of the regular army in France in 1914 and the arrival of the New Army in 1915, and carried the majority of the British effort in the Middle Eastern theatre. The article has been peer reviewed, and assuming it passes this ACR, I hope to submit it for FAC. Looking forward to feedback. Factotem (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Mileham in notes but not refs. Two instances of Beckett p. 232, but which Beckett? And I assume Besher p. 30 is a typo for Bewsher p. 30. Otherwise nice work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Careless mistakes by me all fixed now. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Central_London_Rangers,_1896.jpg: what's the basis for the CC claim?
The CC claim refers to the scan by HantsAV. That was the only license applied when I found the image, and realising that that was not valid for the original, I added {{PD-anon-1923}}, based on source and publication date provided by HantsAV and my own research of Elliott & Fry (the original copyright holders).
  • File:Lady_Butlers_Charge_at_Huj.jpg: what's the source for that publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Found a source for the actual publication date (as well as the actual name given to the painting by the artist), and added that info to the commons info.
Thanks for taking a look at this. Always appreciated. Factotem (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, nice work. I had a look at this when it was at peer review, and I was impressed with it then. The changes since then have improved it further. I have a few comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  • there are no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
  • the ext links all work (no action required)
  • typo: "alledged" --> "alleged"
  • "including two of only three bars ever awarded": suggest linking Medal bar here
  • typo: "Gibralter" --> "Gibraltar"
  • "The History of the 51st (Highland) Division, 1914-1918": should have an endash
  • "Call to Arms: the British Army 1914-18": same as above
  • "Defending Albion: Britain's Home Army 1908-1919": same as above
  • "Hay 2017": as there is now no other Hay being used, it probably doesn't need the year given that other similar instances (i.e. Bean) don't. That said, it might be easier in the long run to give all citations years
  • "Territorial War Medal": I wonder if this should be mentioned in text, or clarified who it was awarded to in the caption?
I've amended the text a little to include something about the medal, but don't think it needs a great deal as the article for that medal is linked. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement, it can assist the vision impaired: [3]
  • "Their shabby treatment": seems a little informal. I'd suggest "poor" or even just saying "Their treatment" as it is already implied that the treatment was poor
Thanks. Always appreciated. I believe I've addressed all issues. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Keith-264

Biblio, I altered the Bewsher isbn to an oclc because the isbn didn't go anywhere when I clicked on and headed for Worldcat; I think it's for the N&M Press reprint ed. Some of the others might be worth checking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Keith. Took the liberty of adding a section header above. Hope that's OK. Thanks for taking a look. Much appreciated.
  • Fair point about Bewsher. I checked, and changed the OCLC to one which Worldcat indicates relates to the computer file. That's seems most appropriate, as I used the online version. I'm sure the ISBNs for the printed publications are good, and the OCLCs used for other works in the biblio checkout OK.
  • Re: your edits to the lead, I've tweaked a few, hope that's OK. Mainly though, the word "territorials" is not, as far as I'm aware, a proper noun, so should not be capitalised. Having said that, Mitchinson generally does, even when using the word as an adjective. I'll have a look through the other sources, and maybe consider capitalising it. Thoughts? Factotem (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, thinking on this further, we don't capitalise "soldiers" or "sailors", so I'm not really convinced that "territorials" warrants it either. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I suppose it depends on if it's an abbreviation of Territorial Force or not but I defer to your opinion. Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list


Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

IFF Mark II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

IFF was one of the many advances of the "Wizard War" in WWII. While the Mk I and II are best considered temporary stepping stones on the path to the "real" Mk. III, it's place in history is still secure as the first operational IFF system. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments: After a quick read:

  • Citations generally shouldn’t be in the lead.
  • Any citations for this: “but only 50 of these were delivered.”
  • Seems a bit on the short end, but this is quite a narrow topic.

Other than that, good work.--Randomness74 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation in the lede was for DYK, I've removed. Looking for the 50. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Maury, ‌interesting article. I'm well out of my depth in relation to content, so I figured I'd try to help out by looking at some of the minor aspects. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • images seem correctly licenced to me
  • "used by all allied aircraft" --> "used by all Allied aircraft"?
  • there are a few overlinked terms: Battle of Britain, Chain Home, radar display, Ferranti, Royal Navy
  • in the Bibliography, are there ISBN or OCLC numbers fo the Brown, Howse and Shayler works? They can usually be found at
  • "Robert Watson-Watt": suggest maybe quickly explaining who he was when you mention him for the first time
    • Suggest maybe "British inventor Robert Watson-Watt", or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "unfortunately": probably best to avoid this word per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
  • "they wouldn't have the right": probably best to avoid contractions
  • "1000" --> "1,000"?
Got all of these too! I'll never understand the desire for ISBN in the era of URLs though... Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those tweaks, Maury, I have had another look through. I wasn't quite sure of the structure before, but couldn't place my finger on the issue. I have spent a bit of time thinking about it, and have a suggestion now, which I will detail below. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • structure: I'd suggest maybe removing "History" as a 2nd level header, and replace it with "Previous efforts" as a 2nd level header, with "Early concepts" and "Mark I" as level three headers. I would then have "Design and development" as a second level header (replacing the "Mark II" level three header that is currently there), and then change the "Mark III" third level header to "Subsequent development" or something similar (maybe "Replacement by the Mark III"?) Anyway, I have made an edit on the article, to illustrate my point. I've self reverted, though, so you can choose to implement or not, or come up with something better. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support I've wondered how World War II-era IFF systems worked, so it's good to see a high quality article on the topic. My only comment is that the article should explain what a "Geneva mechanism" is. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Interesting article. Is there a publisher for fn 2? And a citation is required for the last sentence in the Mark I section. Otherwise, my only suggestion is that squitter doesn't need italics; put it in quotes like "pip-squeak". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments Interesting read. A few suggestions: /~huesatlum/ 17:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • "It was all too easy" is repeated in successive paragraphs.
  • With Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III all being mentioned in the article, you should add non-breaking spaces before the Roman numerals for clarity where they could be split up into two lines.
  • "Watt's" → "Watson-Watt's"
  • "He filed initial patents on such systems in 1935 and 1936" This doesn't seem to be in the Bowden paper as cited.
  • Link "cam" (lede and body)?
  • Add a DOI to the Bowden citation
  • "Radar Development to 1945" is missing author(s)
  • Citation 2 (The British invention of radar) is a dead link. Is this a website or a transcribed book? The archived site has date and author information that should be added.

G'day Maury Markowitz just a reminder that there are a few outstanding comments here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about my disappearing act everyone. I believe everything above has been addressed. I did not add nbsp's, and Watt didn't become Watson-Watt until after this period. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Razing of Friesoythe

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Razing of Friesoythe (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 passed GA in February, there has been a fair bit of work on it since and I believe that it is potentially up to A class standard. The incident is not well known, but I feel deserves a modest degree of prominence. It gives, I think, a feel for the spirit in which the last months of World War II, and probably the rest of it, were fought. No glory and precious few heroes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • For A-class, the lead probably needs to be expanded a little further, I feel
  • link battalion, Molotov cocktail, Sögel
Done. It seems to me to be getting close to over-linking, but I realise that is subjective.
  • we don't usually include ranks in the infobox
  • "mood was described as buoyant": probably best to say who described it so
  • Vokes was furious when he heard of Wigle's death. "A first-rate.... Suggest making it clear that this quote comes from Vokes' autobiography
  • in the Context section it mentions Sogel, but it doesn't quite seem clear enough that the Sogel incident was in fact a separate one to Friesoythe. Is there a way to make this clearer? Potentially mentioning it as an earlier incident in the lead might be a way to do this
Done I have also given the Sögel section a separate named section.
  • in the Context section, suggest splitting the paragraph after "experience"
  • As G.L. Cassidy put it, "The...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised here
  • suggest clarifying who Cassidy is when introduced
  • the Official History of the Canadian Army is overlinked
  • A recent historian has suggested: probably should name this historian here
  • records "The Argylls were...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised her
  • On 16 April The...: same as above
Done. Although "The" is part of the regiment's name.
  • in the Aftermath, suggest splitting the paragraph after "was spared"
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding a translation for the German title of the Cloppenburg work
Done. Didn't put it in sentence case, which may be incorrect.
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Williams' source should use title case capitalisation, and should have an endash instead of a hyphen
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs use hyphens and some don't (either is fine, but the approach should be consistent)
  • in the Bibliography, The Canadian Liberation Of The Netherlands: should be a lower case "o" for "of"
  • in the Bibliography, 1 April 1945-30 April 1945: probably should use an endash
  • in the Bibliography, North-west Europe 1944-45: should use an endash
  • Note # 4, the reference should be presented in brackets for consistency)
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 21 probably seems inconsistent to the other citations (for instance citation # 20)
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 25: p. 163–64: should be "pp." for a page range
  • "File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg": lacks alt text, while the other files appear to have it, so I suggest adding it for consistency
  • there is probably no need to repeat the websites in the Bibliography if they are included in specific citations

Image review

Looks like File:Captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945.jpg should have the same PD tag that File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg has.

I am not positive that it needs both the Canada and U.S. PD tag, but that seems right...@Nikkimaria: I tried to take this up to help your workload, but I usually only deal with new you agree with my assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian tag on Captured_German_flag,_Friesoythe,_Germany,_16_April_1945.jpg states that it applies worldwide and subsequently URAA (which is encompassed by the US tag on the other image) does not apply. Therefore, an additional tag is not needed assuming there is a publication date for the image that would support the validity of the current tag. Similarly, for Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg, we need a publication date to confirm the validity of the tag combination; in theory if it was published early enough the single tag from the other image would be sufficient for this one as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay! The Library and Archives Canada site says the copyright is expired, but it may be good to get a publication date as well. @Gog the Mild: Can you track down the publication dates for those two images? Kees08 (Talk) 10:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kees08: I have tried, but it is beyond my meager competence. (I had to seek assistance to get the flag photograph uploaded to Commons; photos and copyright are something of a mystery to me.) I have done some thumb-fingered searching, but haven't come up with anything not apparent on the Library and Archives Canada site. I can't even establish that they were published prior to going on that site. Given the detail in the captions it seems likely that they were published before then, but that is just my guess.
If someone could give me some pointers I will have another go. It is probably something I ought to learn anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You could try contacting LAC directly to see if they have any further information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I did a lot of research on this tonight. I think you are going to need the initial publishing date. It is crown copyright, the author died in 1996, and it will have to be published prior to 1967. Contact the library for clarification, probably at [email protected] Say something like we are verifying the copyright on the image, and need the publication date to prove it is public domain, or otherwise ask them how it is public domain. Consider CC'ing OTRS on the email. Best work on this early on in the nomination, before it hits the bottom of the queue (that's what happened to my last nomination!). Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments This article is in very good shape, and covers the topic well. I have the following comments:

  • The mention of the capture of Sögel in the lead lacks context: how does this relate to the subject of this article, and how close are the towns?
20 miles. I was trying to cover a couple of things:
  1. indicate the mixed quality of the opposition without straying too far from the activities of the 4th Division. Ie, fighting children at Meppen; fierce resistance at Sogel, with several hard pressed counter attacks which even civilians participated in; firm but brittle at Friesoythe.
  2. Indicate that the 4th Division was displaying a pattern of behaviour. It burnt down the centre of Sogel on the 10th, and razed Friesoythe on the 14th. And, see Aftermath, came close to a third incident.
  3. Show up a certain evasiveness in the official record. The official history states that buildings were destroyed in Sogel as a (justified) reprisal. (Reprisals of course are illegal under the Geneva Convention.) For Friesoythe it gives a minimal description of the "mistaken reprisal" and just states that "No investigation was carried out." Which is narrowly true, but as the author was at Friesoythe as the town was bulldozed it seems inconceivable that he was unaware of what happened. It seems to me to be interesting that the official history explicitly describes the 4th Division as twice committing war crimes, but I am not aware of a source which explicitly links them, so I mention it all in the article for a discerning reader to pick up.
OK, but this is confusing for readers - especially in the first para which is meant to summarise the entire article. I'd suggest mentioning Sogel in passing in the lead, or simply omitting it. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the lead. I think that it is now clearer. I am not sure about the Sogel sentence. It reads fine to me, but I am too close. It would be easy to remove it entirely. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Canadian Army's official history described the mood as buoyant" - whose mood was buoyant? The 4th Division's, or that of the Canadian troops overall?
Done. Reworded to better match the source.
  • The 'Context' section somewhat under-states the nature of this campaign. While most German towns and units swiftly capitulated, there were lots of short, sharp, battles like this one - especially when Waffen SS or elite (and often fanatical) units like the paratroopers decided to make a stand. Relevant to the attitudes of the Canadian soldiers, the casualties incurred in these pointless battles were greatly resented by the troops (as they saw their comrades killed or wounded when it was obvious that the war was almost won). I'd suggest branching out a bit more widely with your sources here.
Ha! I had tried to stay on topic. Easy enough of course to come up with something on the pointlessness, nearly every account mentions it. I was concerned that I would, by flagging this up, be straying into PoV territory and (strongly) implying that this attitude contributed/caused the incident. It probably did, IMO, but no source puts that view forward directly. I will have a go at adding something to the Context.
  • "85 to 90 per cent of the town was destroyed in the course of this reprisal, making it one of the most-devastated towns in all of Germany at the time" - in percentage terms yes, but a very large number of German towns and cities had been destroyed by the Allied air raids and ground combat. The context here is important: this was one of hundreds of deliberately destroyed German towns. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
That was from the source, but I take your point and have removed that section. Let the bare numbers, as provided by the sources, speak for themselves.

Support My comments are now addressed: great work here. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments An interesting counterbalance to war crimes perpetrated by Axis forces. Minor comments, mainly around cites:

  • "During the 10th...": I don't think this reads well, suggest: "The following day..."
  • Note 1: Shouldn't harvard cites be used within the note (and the others) for consistency with rest of article?
  • "defended the town.[7][6]": cites not in order.
  • "A rumour circulated that a local civilian had shot Wigle."[9][11][Note 2][10]: as above, the cites are not in order.
  • "...being badly cratered." This sentence needs a cite I think? The note isn't supposed to be the cite is it?
  • "... personal visit to Friesoythe on 15 April.[17][16]: cites not in order."
  • Aren't Cites 5 and 26 the same? Also if a website, then the Morton entry in the bibliography doesn't need to be there.
  • Cite 25: no page number?
  • "...Be that as it may."[26][13]: as above.
  • Some of the 978 ISBNs don't have a dash.
  • In the bibliography, the War Diaries are presented in different styles. Suggest selecting a specific format. Also shouldn't there be a mention of the archives for the staff war diary (like there is for the other one). Actually do they need to be mentioned at all here since I just noticed they are recited in full in the notes?
  • The book refs are not presented consistently, a couple mention city and country, most only mention city, a couple only mention country. Zawed (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: just checking where you are at on this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: a further ping, it would be good to get this one wrapped up. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

The Canadian Army's official history described the circumstances as buoyant.[1] It was recognised that the end of World War II in Europe was close.[1] suggest rewording these two sentences: According to the Canadian Army's official history, the army's buoyant mood as buoyant reflected the soldiers' belief that the end of the war in Europe was eminent.[1]
  • needs some kind of indication where the town is.... on the river Soeste, approximately 25 kilometres (16 mi) northwest of Cloppenburg, and 30 kilometres (19 mi) southwest of Oldenburg. Indication that the units had crossed Ems a week earlier is important--how difficult was the crossing? were they het up (heated up)? how many miles from Ems, in how many days...etc. The destruction of Sogel in the lead comes after the destruction of Friesoythe, which is confusing.
  • ittle official notice was taken at the time of the incident and the official history glosses over it. It is covered in the regimental histories of the units involved and several accounts of the campaign. There was no investigation of the event. Although the Canadian Army took little notice of the incident at the time, and the official military history glosses over the destruction of both Sogel and Friesoythe, the incidents are described in the regimental histories of the units involved.
  • During the action on 10 April or On 10 April.... Destroyed by engineers to provide rubble? Or as reprisal? This is confusing.
  • If the Germans were to hold it... if the Germans were to hold it, (comma)
  • reaching the outskirts of Friesoythe, where several major roads met, on 13 April reaching a major intersection in the outskirts of F., on 13 April...
  • Vokes ordered the resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle. Vokes ordered Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle to resume the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders on.....
  • is it an outflanking march or a flanking march? I'd have thought flanking march.
  • etc.
  • it is not clear if Stacy is talking about Friosyothe or Garrel. I think also, that you should mention Garrel int he lead, because the death of the officer created a cascade of reprisals. Let me know if you want me to look again, or to help .... Nice job. auntieruth (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The attack went well, meeting only scattered resistance from a disorganised garrison.....the attack (? flanking maneuver?) met only scattered resistance from the disorganized garrison.

G'day Gog the Mild, there are a few loose ends to be followed up here. It looks to be close to passing, but we'd want some action shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) (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 recently passed a GA review and I believe it is detailed enough to make FAC. This article, my second nomination of the year, is about a fairly obscure Soviet division whose most intense combat occurred at Khalkhin Gol. Kges1901 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments: G'day, Kges, interesting article. Thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • seems inconsistent: the infobox says the division was active from 1921, but the article says October 1920
  • I wrote 1921 because in November 1920 it did not have the same designation; it was the 24th Rifle Division VNUS. The 57th was not designated as the 57th Rifle Division until 1921. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries, makes sense, although I would probably just change the infobox myself to "1920", but it is a minor point, I feel. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • there are a few duplicate links: Red Army; 82nd Rifle Division; Mukden; Transbaikal Military District
  • In accordance with the transfer of VNUS... --> Following the transfer of VNUS...?
  • 71 45 mm guns --> seventy-one 45 mm guns
  • same as above for 34 76 mm guns, 24 122 mm guns, 12 152 mm guns
  • the dashes in the Commanders section aren't quite right. Where an item on either side of the endash contains a space, a spaced endash should be used per MOS:DATERANGE
  • many of the sentences start in the same way ("On X..." or "In X"). This impacts on the narrative flow a little, so if possible I suggest trying to vary this a bit more
  • Colonel (promoted to Major General 16 October 1943) Viktor Nikiforov: might be smoother as Colonel Viktor Nikiforov (later promoted to major general 16 October 1943)...
  • and was replaced by division deputy commander Lieutenant Colonel (promoted to Colonel 10 August 1944) Nurey Zakirov: this might be smoother as and was replaced by division deputy commander Lieutenant Colonel Nurey Zakirov, who was promoted to colonel on 10 August 1944.
  • The ranks here (when not used as titles) should be lower case per WP:MILTERMS, i.e. "John Smith was a brigadier" v. "Brigadier John Smith". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • there is a missing closing bracket in this sentence: The units in Tongliao (the 293rd ...
  • The division was reduced to the 55th Separate Rifle Regiment...: do we know why?

Support Comments by Gog the Mild:

After volunteering to review this article I am chagrined to discover that there seems little for me to do, it seems to be in fine shape. However, a couple of points:

  • "As a result of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, a series of border clashes with Japanese troops, the division was alerted for combat on 29 June 1939." Given that the majority of the Khalkin Gol fighting was after 29 June, and that the division took part in this, I don't think it reasonable to say that it was mobilised "as a result of" the battles. Also, I am not comfortable with an army level battle with over 50,000 casualties being described as "border clashes". My suggestion would be to delete "the Battles of Khalkhin Gol," but no doubt there are other solutions,
  • Rephrased. Good catch. Kges1901 (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "when the last Japanese troops were pushed back over the Mongolian claimed border". "Mongolian claimed border" sounds clunky. Could this be rephrased?
  • "The units of the division also received fuel, rations, and Studebaker and Ford trucks." Reads a little oddly to me; putting food and fuel in the same category as motor transport. What is the significance of the division receiving new/additional motor transport?
  • I assume it was significant in that there would have been slightly less foot marching. Kges1901 (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "the units of the division took the route from Jarud to Lupei at 3:00". Am or pm?
  • "By the morning of 29 August, the operational group arrived in Mukden and was quartered in a gymnasium, where the Japanese units were disarmed." This reads that the Japanese units were disarmed in the gymnasium. Is that what you mean? You repeat disarming the Japanese in the next sentence. I would suggest deleting ", where the Japanese units were disarmed".
  • It did happen there, according to the report. I have rephrased to avoid repetition. Kges1901 (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "they were allocated 36 crews for the escort of Japanese prisoners of war to Soviet territory" Do you mean "36 crews [detachments would be better IMO] from the division were allocated for the..."?
  • I am not an expert in this area, but the sources seem to be all that I would expect and to be appropriately used.
  • I have also made a couple of copy edits. Let me know if there is anything you are not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Alt text does not seem to be in place[?]
  • There seems to be a lack of non-breaking spaces ({{nbsp}} or {{snd}}) in all of the places where the MoS would suggest that there should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Added alt text. I am not familiar with the usage of non-breaking spaces. Kges1901 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kges1901: That all looks fine. "I am not familiar with the usage of non-breaking spaces." Shocking! And you with 4 A class or FA articles to your name. Even your FA article assessors didn't pick it up. What are things coming to that FA assessors let through articles ignoring the MoS? Hohum. I should make you learn them and put them in, but that seems a bit petty. OK. I'll let this one go and if I get a spare hour I will put them in for you. Also I made an edit myself to tie up a last niggling point. Are you/the sources ok with it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Kges1901. Can I give you a nudge re query immediately above? (My edit that is.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit is fine and I do not think it would be an unreasonable assumption from the source. Kges1901 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Then I am done. A classy job of work there. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


  • File:Red Army 57th Rifle Division 170th Rifle Regiment territorial soldiers marching 1927.png - I'm not an expert on Russian/Soviet copyright laws, but I'd think we would need the original publication and either the name and date of death of the photographer or evidence that it was published anonymously (us not knowing now is not the same thing, unfortunately) to justify the license tag. We also need evidence that the photo is PD in the US, which may or may not be the case.
  • Have added the original source, which does not have photo credits. Kges1901 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It would probably be worthwhile to make clear on the file page that the author is not credited. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not PD-Russia and I have nominated it for deletion on commons. Kges1901 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also not PD-Russia, have nominated for deletion. Kges1901 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by auntieruth55

  • what is the difference between the Red Army and the Soviet Army? Inquiring minds want to know.
  • Same force, but in 1946 the Red Army's name was officially changed to Soviet Army. Before then, Soviet army was used as a synonym for Red Army by Western sources. Kges1901 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • who is going to review these sources? I know nothing about the Red or the Soviet Army.
  • I've read through it once, and looks like support. Just a hiccup over the above question. I'll read again in a day or two and I should be able to support. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Emanuel Moravec

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

  • in the lead you link World War II but not World War I: suggest both or neither for consistency
  • in the infobox, "1942-1945": should have an endash
  • in the Early life and education section, do we know the names of his parents?
    • G'day, not sure if this has been addressed, or if this information isn't available? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Chetsford: G'day, not sure if you saw my comment above. This is the to only remaining point for me. Do you know if these details are able to be reliably sourced? If not, no worries, but just let me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert - I apologize, I missed your question. I did check on this and was not able to source the name of his parents, unfortunately, or at least to a RS. The corresponding article on the Czech Wikipedia [5] does list his father's name as Jan Petr and the source appears to be respectable, however, it's offline and difficult to obtain so I can't affirmatively state it actually says that. I would usually just GF it, however, they seem to have a laissez faire approach with sourcing over there so I'm not sure it would be faith well placed. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, that's a fair call. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Early life section, suggest linking officer
  • in the Early life section, do we know why he chose to change sides?
  • The Imperial Russian Army captured Moravec in 1915 and made him a prisoner of war: suggest that this might be smoother as Moravec was captured by the Imperial Russian Army in 1915
  • in the Fist Czechoslovak Republic section, link major
  • Moravec wrote and published extensively using the pen name Stanislav Yester: was this fiction or non fiction? What were the topics he wrote about?
  • Igor Moravec fought on the Eastern front: should be "Eastern Front"
  • ordinary Czechs' to...: the apostrophe isn't necessary here
  • for the titles in the Publications section, I suggest adding English translations as well as the original title
  • in the External links: "a scene..." should be "A scene..."
  • Citation # 25, GRATIAS AGIT Award should be "Gratias Agit Award" per MOS:ALLCAPS
AustralianRupert - thanks, kindly, for the review. I've just amended the article to address all these points. Please let me know if you see that I've missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Almost everything is "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;". But otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi thanks much - I've updated references. Please let me know if I've overlooked anything. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
  • What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide) Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D - thanks, much, for the review.
  • *Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
This is not done. Please break up the large page ranges to the specific page which supports each fact. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D - sorry, I misunderstood your page comment. I've now added Template:Rp to all books referencing more than two pages. Chetsford (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
You're correct. It is primarily a reflective memoir, however, is interspersed with historical chronicles and I've only used those sections. Kirkus [6] described these as "... a vast amount of political and cultural material, veering between scholarly and autobiographical approaches. The academic analysis is at times intimidatingly dense, but readers who persevere will be rewarded with rich, balanced profiles of significant figures ranging from Konstantin von Neurath, the Nazi-installed leader of Bohemia and Moravia, to Franz Kafka’s beloved Milena Jesenská, an essayist who was active in the resistance movement." and PW [7] describes it as "Interspersing political and cultural history with snippets of memoir"
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
  • "What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide)
It's possible he was anti-Semitic prior to middle age, however, I have seen no RS that unambiguously says this and - purely on personal speculation - I think it might equally likely have been the case that he became an anti-Semite of convenience, rather than conscience, following the German occupation. I base this assumption on the Pynsent article which introduces Moravec's suddenly Anti-Semitic statements as "subserviently accepts a version of the Nazi line", however, that is still somewhat interpretive to the point I didn't feel I could insert a definitive conclusion without veering into the realm of OR.
Hopefully I didn't miss anything, but please let me know if so! Chetsford (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list


Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Marcian (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 is a part of my ongoing project to improve articles on the Roman Emperors, and it has recently been promoted to a good article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

First, I'm responding to the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so I'm looking at this article differently than members of WikiProject Military history would. That said, two general observations:

  • While it relies on suitably recent publications, it is clear from their titles that these are general histories of the period. Nothing specific to the reign of Marcian or his predecessor (Theodosius II) or his successor (Leo I). The omission of any citations from the periodical literature is glaring, since this is where the most recent specialized work appears.
  • A serious omission is that there is almost nothing about his activities within the Empire: this article covers his rise to power, the foreign challenge of Attila & the Huns, & a paragraph dealing with Council of Chalcedon, & another with his death. It omits all mention of the collapse of the Western half of the Empire that began with the Vandal sack of Rome (454). (As the power & cohesion of the Western half dissipated, the Eastern half increasingly intervened in their affairs. At the very least, a number of refugees from Rome found their way to Constantinople where they had to be received & tended to.) Or that five laws (or Novels) of Marcian survive, providing us with glimpses of how he ruled the citizens of the Eastern Empire. These are enough of an omission to make me wonder how this article managed to achieve GA status. I'm no expert on the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, but it took me only a quick sanity check to see these omissions in content. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Llywrch: Please note that most of these books each have subsections for his reign, being categorized by reign rather than a straightforward narrative. I will look into expanding it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Llywrch: I have added as much as I could, although I could find little direct mention of his novels. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Llywrch: do you have any further suggestions or concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Response: My comments were just an initial response, based on what I could recall off the top of my head supplemented by use of just one of the books from my library -- namely, A.H.M. Jones' The Later Roman Empire, considered one of the standard references for the time. In response to your ping, I did a bit more research to find what was available. Here's a few more thoughts:

  • The new section "Economic and legal policy" does cover what I would expect to find in those 5 novels of Marcian. About the only improvement would be to indicate which of those items were the subject of which novel. And if the info isn't in Pharr's translation of the Theodosian Code, then it's not easily available. (One might have to consult the primary sources, which might be only available in Latin or Greek.)
  • As for Marcian's relations with the West, my first response was surprise that this wasn't addressed. So I did a bit of looking myself, & this might be one of those cases where the info should exist -- but doesn't. There's adequate evidence indicating that Marcian & his successors did intervene in the affairs of the other half of the empire, but it's thin for the reign of Marcian. So far all I've found is a notice in Jordanes that the Western Roman Emperor Majorian "undertook the government of the Western Empire at the bidding of Marcian, Emperor of the East." (Gothic History, XLV.235) Not much more can be found at Majorian.
  • There is one book you may want to look at, although it falls in the category of "sources you don't want to cite for Wikipedia, but it's useful to point you to better ones": Michael Babcock, The Night Attila Died. Babcock is a Ph.D. in Philology who came up with a preposterous theory that Marcian hired the historian Priscus to assassinate Attila. (As one reviewer wrote, this makes for a better historical novel than a serious monograph.) Despite this, he knows the sources & period. He has a brief section on Marcian's background (pp. 157-160), which provides these details from primary sources:
    • According to Evagrius Scholasticus, Marcian was by birth a Thracian, the son of a soldier. He decided to enlist & on his way to Philippopolis stopped to bury a man recently slain by the side of the road, but other travelers thought he was the killer & brought him to the authorities, who would have executed him had the real criminal not been found. Following this close scrape, he finally presented himself to the recruitment bureau. Having heard of Marcian's story, instead of enlisting him as a common soldier they gave him the military rank of the man Marcian had found dead by the road. (Book 2, ch. 1 -- which is online at
      While this story alone seems fine; it's connected to another story where another "claim to the throne" story is given, which makes me wary of adding it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As a young soldier he went off to fight in the Persian Wars of the early 420s, but was delayed by illness. He was given shelter by two brothers, who nursed him back to health & witnessed a sign that he would become emperor. (In the Chronographia of Theophanes the Confessor, also supposedly online.)
      Unable to confirm this one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Babcock has a third anecdote, taken from John Lydus, that foretold Marcian's rise to the purple.
      Confirmable; but almost all emperors claimed to have seen an event which foretold such, or atleast had another claim it for him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked a few more references, but there is little more known about him. Feel free to add the above -- after verifying Babcock's retelling of these anecdotes is correct, of course. (At least I would verify them before adding them to an article.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Sorry for the belated response; I'll look into the anecdotes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Llywrch: Forgot to inform; I have reviewed the anecdotes. While some of them are confirmable, but I am skeptical of their addability, given that many are distinct parts of "Claim to throne" myths. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Furius

Small point, but the headings are a bit weird - why 'history' rather than 'life' or 'reign'? Why does the Council of Chalkedon come after Marcian's death? Furius (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Furius: Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Furius: Do you have any further concerns or suggestions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Iazyges. This isn't really an era I am comfortable with, but I will try to help out. I have a few observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • the date of birth isn't mentioned in the body
  •  Done
  • the first sentence of the Reign section is a bit of a run on. I suggest splitting it after 28 July 450 and then slightly rewording the second part, e.g. 28 July 450. Theodosius II died without a son and had not designated a successor, leaving the Eastern Roman Empire leaderless.
  •  Done
  • a tax on senators property: missing apostrophe
  •  Done
  • slightly repetitious: a fifty year old army officer commanding a unit in the Praesental army (suggest removal of the first "army") here
  •  Done
  • the infobox seems to mention a daughter, but she doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article (unless I missed it)
  •  Done
  • the burial place appears in the infobox, but does not appear to be mentioned in the body of the article
  •  Done
  • Alanic: the link in the article appears to point to a clothing company?
  •  Done
  • the images lack alt text, which while it isn't a requirement, can be helpful
  •  Done
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adjusting the capitalisation here: History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius... --> History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius...
  •  Done
  • I will come back and have another look when the above points are addressed

From Gog the Mild

Just a drive by comment: shouldn't "Foederati" in the lead start with a lower case f and be in italics? An explanation in brackets afterwards as to what a foederati is would probably help the average reader too. In fact, would it not be easier to replace it with something like "vassals", possibly with foederati, wikiLinked, in brackets after? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've lowercased and italicized it, and added a short explanation. I haven't changed it to vassal, as the Roman's had a huge variation of vassal levels (although their titles were often muddled in the time of the republic and early empire). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

first paragraph of lead: last sentence is very confusing. Perhaps divide into two?
While Attila was taking part in the Hunnic raids upon Italy, then a part of the Western Roman Empire, in 452, Marcian launched expeditions across the Danube into the Hungarian plain, defeating the Huns in their heartland, an action which, accompanied by the famine and plague that broke out in northern Italy, allowed Attila to be bribed to retreat to the Hungarian plains. same problem with this sentence. In 452, while Attila was raiding Italy, then a part of the Western Roman Empire, Marcian launched expeditions across the Danube into the Hungarian plain, defeating the Huns in their own heartland. This action, accompanied by the famine and plague that broke out in northern Italy, allowed Marcian to bribe Atilla into retreating from the Italian peninsula.
need a link on Jesus
and so on. Such edits would greatly help its readability without reducing it to elementary school level. Please let me know if you want some help. I'll come back and read some more later. Please ping me with any comments or questions! auntieruth (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: Thank you very much. I'd appreciate any help you can give! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 20 July 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