Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006/Failed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Military history WikiProject page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the main project discussion page.

Military history WikiProject
General information Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk Collaboration department talk Publication department talk Review department talk Image, map, and media resources Showcase  → Featured picture gallery talk Portals
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk Awards talk Outreach department talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Guidelines Naming conventions Notability Article structure Content and style Infobox templates  → Infobox design style talk Categories Featured article advice
Infobox templates Firearm cartridge infobox talk Military award infobox talk Military cemetery infobox talk Military conflict infobox talk Military memorial infobox talk Military person infobox talk Military structure infobox talk Military test site infobox talk Military unit infobox talk National military infobox talk War faction infobox talk Weapon infobox talk Campaignboxes talk Command structure box talk Service record box talk
Task forces General topics Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Polish military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk Spanish military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Ancient Near Eastern warfare talk Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Modern warfare talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Failed 1.1 F-105 Thunderchief 1.2 Battle of Khe Sanh 1.3 Battle of Khe Sanh 1.3.1 Cambodian Civil War 1.3.2 Caesar's invasions of Britain 1.3.3 T-26 1.3.4 Cretan War 1.3.5 Japanese battleship Kongō 1.3.6 Battle of Greece 1.3.7 Cretan War 1.3.8 American Revolutionary War 1.3.9 Fort Bliss 1.3.10 Napoleonic Wars 1.3.11 United States Navy 1.3.12 Battle of Chancellorsville 1.3.13 Hannibal Barca 1.3.14 Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group 1.3.15 Finnish Civil War 1.3.16 Cretan War 1.3.17 Webley Revolver 1.3.18 Submarine 1.3.19 Norwegian Campaign 1.3.20 Battle of Marathon 1.3.21 History of the Royal Australian Navy 1.3.22 Frederick II of Prussia 1.3.23 Battle of Iwo Jima 1.3.24 Battle of Gallipoli 1.3.25 Cretan War 1.3.26 Battle of Fort Donelson 1.3.27 Battle of the Scheldt 1.3.28 Robert E. Lee 1.3.29 Operation Market Garden 1.3.30 Pontiac's Rebellion 1.3.31 Third Servile War 1.3.32 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment 1.3.33 HMS Hood (51) 1.3.34 Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne 1.3.35 Alexander the Great 1.3.36 Battle of Krasny Bor 1.3.37 M1 Garand 1.3.38 Charlemagne 1.3.39 Operation Barbarossa 1.3.40 Landing at Anzac Cove 1.3.41 Mongol invasion of Central Asia 1.3.42 10th of August (French Revolution) 1.3.43 Breaker Morant

[edit] Failed

[edit] F-105 Thunderchief

Completely rewritten with citations and references, comprehensive overview of this Vietnam War workhorse. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose While the article is well written and appears to do a good job of covering the topic, the citations are really too few and far between. There are a number of (presumably) easily citable facts, particularly regarding technical specifications, that lack citations, and some paragraphs have no citations whatsoever. Carom 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Needs more cites Once this article is throughly cited, it will get upgraded to A-class without trouble. But at the moment, as Carom says, it's not at that standard. Buckshot06 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I've gone through and added references where appropriate. Please re-evaluate. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not enough inline citations to warrent awarding A-class status to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me a guideline that indicates the minimum number of citations. Every claim and every significant statement has been cited, the rest of the material is assembled from sources in references. Please show specifically what needs to be cited. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the current project guideline on citations is here. Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to view a reference/note section as needing about 15-20 different sources or notes to be what I consider "well written", since that has now become an accepted guideline for FA-class articles (and to my way of thinking, A-class articles as well). This is the figure stated at WP:IC, which recieves a considerable amount of traffic from new comers and first time A-class/FA-class people who are not sure how to add inline citations. I do make exceptions to this general policy of mine if an article draws heavily on one primary source for most of the information. Having brought USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) up to FA status, and having guided them through the FAR process, I know that there are times when an article can be well written and well cited with a small amount of citations, or a large number of citations to the same source, and I have adjusted my vote accordingly under such circumstances. In this case though, I feel that the article could be better improved on. Take the following examples:

• ...by March 1953 the USAF had reduced the order to 37 fighter-bombers and 9 tactical reconnaissance aircraft, citing the approaching end of the Korean War.
• By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75.
• The first production F-105B flew on 14 May 1957.
• Nicknamed the Wild Weasel, these aircraft achieved 9 confirmed victories against North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile radars.
• Although the F-105D was withdrawn from Vietnam in 1970, the Wild Weasel aircraft soldiered on until the end of the war.
• The initial reaction of the fighter pilot community to their new aircraft was lukewarm.

None of these claims cite a source; there is no number at the end of the sentence or paragraph to back up these claims. Its not that I don’t think the article has potential; rather, the articles that we approve for A and FA-status should reflect the motto of the US Marine Corps: "The Few, The Proud", and this one is not quite there yet. I would encourage you not to give up though; I have absolute faith in your ability to get this article to A-class, or if you choose, Featured Status. As they say, the best things in life are worth working for :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I will address the issues you noted above. For future reference (yours, mine, and everyone else's), actually tagging the article with fact tags as was done with F-84 is by far the best way to give feedback on what exactly needs a citation. As I said in my F-84 comments, having done most of the writing makes a lot of the facts obvious and not needing a citation to me. I apologize for my frustration (I genuinely appreciate all constructive criticism) and I'll take care of the cites. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support Well written, did't notice major problems. I'd like to see more photos; the distribution of notes suggests there may be overreliance on a single source; but I don't think it should prevent the article from being rated as A-class. Bukvoed 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple sources make sense for controversial topics with many opinions or for very complex topics. The majority of citations are for dates and hard numbers, not something that would be subject to controversy or heated debates. I can cross-reference every number across 10 different sources (I do verify all the specs between several sources) but that would be pretty insane, wouldn't it? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Of course multiple sources for specific details aren't needed typically. What I wanted to say is that the article seems to be based on Knaack with relatively minor additions from other sources, which is sort of a shortcoming... at least I think so. Perhaps I have wrong impression; or perhaps Knaack is the definitive source; or... etc. Anyway, I like the article, it is comprehensive and well written, it probably already qualifies as A-class. Bukvoed 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is a combination of about half a dozen sources. It's easier from the writing standpoint to cite all numbers from one source but I can see how that would create an impression of overreliance on multiple sources. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I really don't care how few citations there are, as long as the information is accurate. Of course, I have no idea if it is, which is the point of citations in the first place. But, for length, detail, style, etc, I'm happy to support it. LordAmeth 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodian Civil War

Previous nomination can be found here. Carom 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a few citations. RM Gillespie 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Raymond Palmer 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Support. I fixed a few things, like "the" in section hdgs and unlinked full dates. THere are still several dates that are "date month" but most are "month date". With a little work, this could be an FA. Would be good if some web refs were found. Rlevse 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw my support. Rlevse 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a few clarifications that I have requested on the article's talk page. Some tone issues exist that will need to be fixed prior to any FA nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caesar's invasions of Britain

I would like to self-nominate this page, it having been suggested to me by User:Kyriakos on my talk page. It has easily made B class and he and I both feel it has the potential to be GA / A class, or is there already. Any suggestions welcome - or even better, please improve it so it can make it.User|Neddyseagoon 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support but my only suggestion is that you put in your sources. Kyriakos 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the article needs a thorough Peer Review first.

Set up here. User|Neddyseagoon 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial thoughts -

• There doesn't seem to be any modern references used.

See new Sources section, now being expanded.User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion the trivia section should go - Carry On Cleo and the Goons?

Renamed and expanded, in line with this suggestionUser|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection some chapters need to be expanded, otherwise they have little connection to the article. Wandalstouring 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For example? Do you mean the Discoveries one principally? User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following chapters: Success?, Technology, Religion, Economic resources Wandalstouring 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing in particular that needs fixing or changing... In my book, it makes A-class, but maybe just barely. It's long, detailed, cites its sources... LordAmeth 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

[edit] Japanese battleship Kongō

Not mine, so I cannot vouch for the language or the factual accuracy. But it's long, detailed, cites references, and has a fair number of maps and other pictures. LordAmeth 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are only three inline citations, which is troubling, but I think the writing needs some cleanup, as there are a number of particularly awkward sentences that hinder readability. The lack of citations also means that some statements lick "the stunning loss of aircraft carriers a, b, c and d" need rewriting, as I'm not sure "stunning" is an entirely appropriate word unless we can cite either a) the consensus in the historical scholarship, or b) multiple primary source documents that indicate that this was the feeling at the time. It is, overall, a promising article, but it really needs cleaning up. Carom 13:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose A very promising article, with a great deal of information - but virtually all of it is unsourced and uncited. Some minor weasal word issues, but my main concern is the complete lack of citing. old windy bear 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There a several istances where wikilinks should be furnished or disambiguated. History is thin, armament detail is lacking.GraemeLeggett 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Greece

Previous nomination here.

Renominating for Periklis*; no comment on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support for A class status although I found the article to contain some bias and POV for the Allied/Greek side with words like "brave" used in uncited passages to refer to the Greek forces. However, the article is well-cited and fairly easy to understand and follow. Cla68 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per everybody else. Though each indiv section is rather small, and that tends to bug me, this article seems pretty thorough overall, and has lots of pics and citations and all the other goodies that I love to see in an article. LordAmeth 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support oldwindybear Two things I would like to see improved though, there are a few weasel words, "brave," etc. And the sections could be a bigger. However it is well cited, and well written. So I will support.
• Support Medains Though I'm concerned about a wider issue that this article butts up next to... There's a link to the Battle of Leros, which provides a little idea of what happened later - but there's very little anywhere on the liberation and aftermath (Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944 AFAIK). Even the Axis_Occupation_of_Greece_during_WWII article has nothing... :(
• Support of course.--Yannismarou 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  The review was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I've been involved in editing it and might be 'too close' to it. User:Buckshot06
• Support Good article.UberCryxic 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

[edit] American Revolutionary War

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has limited citations. I might be convinced that this is acceptable if the linked articles were well cited, but they are not. More specifically, all the sections on the various campaigns like citations, as do the main articles on those campaigns. Carom 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeThe article's citations are way too limited - this is one of those articles which needs citations practically every sentence. Nor, as Carom noted, are the linked articles well cited - they are not either. This has the makings of a good article, but it does have some major weaknesses historically:
• The Battle of Saratoga may well be one of the great turning points of history - certainly Sir Edward Creasy thought so, when he named it one of the 15 Decisive Battles of History. (Modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson agrees, among others) It is given relatively short shift in this article, and it does not mention Benedict Arnold's role at all, when most historians believe that without his leadership, the American Revolution would have been lost at Saratoga.
• The article's section on the western theater of the war is accurate, but not anywhere close to being in depth enough. The effect of the death of Jane McCrea before Saratoga should not only be mentioned there, but emphasized greatly in this theater as it, and similiar tragedies brought in hordes of undecided frontiersmen to fight on the rebel's side out of fear of the British Indian allies.
• The sections mentioned need major expansion, and the entire article desperately needs citing throughout.old windy bear 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Bliss

This is an article I have spent some three monthes overhauling in an effort to take it all the way to featured status. As it stands the article meets all preexisting requirements for A-status, so I am placing it here to gain consensus. Objects, if any, need to be specific, because I do not have time to conduct a through investigation to find the problems in the article (school work comes first). If your objects are not specific then I will ignore them. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several sections, including "Reconstruction and the Pershing expedition," "Fort Bliss today," and "Base realignment and closure" have no citations, or the existing citations are insuffcient. For example, the article states that the base was realigned in 2005, and gives detailed information about the changes made, but gives no source. Carom 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectThis is an article which has excellent potential, but again, as Carom said, it lacks citations. For it to be A status, it needs the citations. I like the article, consider it well written, informative, and as far as I know, it is correct. BUT, it has to be sourced throughout. Once that is done, I would support it for A status, but not until then. old windy bear 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you spot any sections aside from the three Carom pointed out that need citations, or were those three sections it? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information in Early Fort Bliss needs sourcing - for instance, the information on "8 September 1849 the garrison party of several companies of the 3rd U.S. Infantry, commanded by Jefferson Van Horne, arrived in this area. On the noth side of the Rio Grande they found only four small and scattered settlements." What source gave this information? Also the entire Following September 11 needs sourcing. For instance, that section states "Fort Bliss has served as one of the major deployment centers for troops bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. This mission is accomplished by Biggs Army Airfield, which is included in the installation's supporting areas." What sourcing says so? What source do we have for the training of the Afghans later in that subsection? I believe the information is accurate - but we need sourcing. I realize this may seem trivial, but I think we need to point out specifics where we feel sourcing is necessary. This is a good article, but for A status, it needs much more sourcing. old windy bear 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know its not trivial; you are in the right as far as sources are concerned, but in some cases the sources are hard to come by, especially for the more recent things. To be frank some of the information comes from my own observations about the post since my family moved here lo those many years ago. At other time information comes from news broadcasts in the city, but those are not print sources and finding a copy of adio/visual information is difficult. I will do some further research into the material and see if I can find any sources for the information, but at the moment I have backlogged school work that I have to see to, so this project will have to take a backseat for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 Please do not be discouraged! You have done an excellent job, but you just pointed out the biggest problem we sometimes encounter. We just cannot use information you simply observed - it violates the bann on original research. If I may make a suggestion, check with your local paper. Also the chamber of commerce. Also the Fort Bliss public information officer. The local paper should have articles on the updates and upgrades on the post, and they could give you the day of the article, why there you have your souce! As to the information on the early years, again, check with the Post information officer, he or she may have a good book that will give you the sources you need. You have an excellent article here that you have put a great deal of time and hard work in. I really do commend you on that, and suggest you check with the local paper, the chamber of commerce, and the Post Information Officer, and I believe you can come up with your sources. Additionally, if you remember which news broadcast it was, you could check with the station, and if they have the date, again, you have your source. old windy bear 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, that will be easy. The UTEP Library has a very generous collection of newspapers from the El Paso Times and the now defunct El Paso Herald Post, so I am not short for resources; however, finding and securing enough time to look through the archives is hard due to conflicting interests. At the moment, I am checking the online archives from the Fort Bliss Moniter to find BRAC info for 2005; since the moniter is the official Fort Bliss paper I know that I will find something in there that I can cite. Checking the Fort Bliss public information center will be tricking since the security at the base has been increased, I have heard horror stories of people waiting an hour just to get on to base, but I will take that suggestion under advisement. Thanks for the kind words ans suggestions! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 I grew up as a military kid - an army brat, actually! - and served myself during Vietnam, so I know how the information officers can be! But you seem like a nice person, and they generally respond to nice people who are trying to portray the post in a positive light, which you certainly have! Your access to the libraries is outstanding, and I will be surprised if they don't resolve most of the needed cites. I think you have written an excellent article, and don't kill yourself, but as you can, do the things you are talking about, and I would wager you will find the sources! Again, please don't get discouraged, because you have done a fine job, with a lot of hard work and genuine interest in this subject - and it will get sourced, and rated as it deserves! old windy bear 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleonic Wars

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to failure to cite sources in all sections. Carom 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: You'll find that inline citations are a de facto requirement for an article to even attain good article status these days, much less A-class standing or featured article status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Not ready yet.UberCryxic 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks citation in all sections and has small base of reference for such a well published subject. As well it needs to be more pressice on the number of soldiers presented in the early sections, was this the number of soldiers over the course of the years or the regular enlistment every year of the conflict? the Napoleonic wars were not the first instance of state runned armies instead of mercenaries. Louis IV's french army was a standing army long before Revolutionary France. The Seven Years' War saw professional, pan-europe state funded armed force engaged in war half a century prior to Napoleon... --Dryzen 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Navy

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Prose and organization are pretty good; in many places was my model for the now-FA USMC. A few suggestions:

• Good sources but more citations needed. Judgemental statements like "are roughly equivalent in striking power to most foreign aircraft carriers." definitely ought to be cited.
• ToC is a bit loosely organized; there are too many top-level items. Relationship with the Marines and the Coast Guard could be tied together, perhaps under organization. Items like Special Warfare, MSC, and Coastal warfare can similarly be placed under "organization".
• Some of the lists could be converted to prose, e.g. the list of fleets. I know it's inviting to tabulate them, but it does break up the flow of the prose.
• The prose needs some fine-toothed combing before FAC but it's good enough for A-class. --Mmx1 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article and a very good model for the development of other articles on branches of an indidual nation's armed forces. The only suggestion I'd make is that the section headings could be tweaked a bit to make it clear that the article is focused on the USN as it currently stands. --Nick Dowling 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Chancellorsville

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citation of sources in all sections. Carom 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very few citations.UberCryxic 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannibal Barca

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citations, particularly in the section on the Second Punic War. Carom 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not bad, but lacks citations, particulary when the first five citations deal with the same issue. There's also an error in the section called 'Stalemate'. I think there's a picture missing. Raymond Palmer 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Currently Oppose The final legacy to the modern world could use some work and the Military History segment some citations (in particular, but not only, the 3 demands)as well as the bogeyman comment. As Raymond Palmer described there is some mauled code for an image. An enjoyable read and quite informative on his rather overlooked out-of war years.--Dryzen 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose still lacks content in the biography section. Hannibal wasn't only a general. (I'm working myself on the issue). Wandalstouring 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group

Previous nomination here.

The author would finally like to nominate this article for your perusal. Thanks to Vedexent for the earlier comments. See what you think. RM Gillespie 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support oldwindybear I think the author has done a fine job of research and writing, with careful sourcing. I personally would like to see a little more cites - but it has enough. In it's previous incarnation, the article had too much "military speak," which has mostly been corrected. I would like to see the title changed to something that more people would recognize, but I am not sure what we could replace it with that was hirtorically accurate! This is a good, solid article. It skirts talking about the political climate that forged so many of the military decisions made, but again, I am not sure how it could have been done better. In the end, I think it deserves A status for it's overall excellence. old windy bear 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Extremely well written - one of the best for clarity and good English. Would like to see clearer/better maps if possible. Easily deserves at least A-class. Raymond Palmer 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Definitely deserves A-status.UberCryxic 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: the review was closed and archived at this point. Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I concur, Bravo Zulu--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sup Wandalstouring 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Civil War

Failed a previous nomination, but it has since been vastly improved, and has also passed to GA. I think most of the concerns from the previous review have been addressed by the editors working on the article. Carom 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support All opposing comments' suggestions in the last nomination were fixed along other additional things. Has been completely copyedited. --Pudeo (Talk) 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. LordAmeth 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The nomination was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The lead is too long even for a very big article.
  • The inline citations should have page numbers for verifiability purposes.
• Other than that, a nice article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

[edit] Webley Revolver

Previous nomination here.

The article previously failed over objections that the citations were insufficient, but there have been concerns raised that the places where additional ones were needed were not specified. Rather than fighting over this point, the best course of action seems to be simply relisting the article; please make sure that any objections over citations are specific. Kirill Lokshin 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support There's a lot of information on Webley Revolvers in this artcle, it's been extensively researched and cited, and the information is presented in a clear and accurate way. --Commander Zulu 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Execelent article, well written and comprehensive. Someone has definatly poured a lot of work into this, and it shows. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support But citation numbers should always come after the punctuation Raymond Palmer 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Important material. I think text a teensy bit dramatic ("be they warriors or Germans"; "Sun never set..."), but the substance is pretty strong and well-sourced. I love the work and see the construction has been carefully considered; IMHO it comes across as being written by an enthusiast, and that's less encyclopedic than the current neutral ideal. Sometimes one can grow too attached to the work, and not allow the tone to soften. If this were going to FA, that would be a factor. Irregular use of parentheticals (and way too many of them--I know, I often find myself writing out loud instead of tightening to remove the parentheses). This section might better be served as a table, but that's a taste thing. Strong, but not FA yet. BusterD 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Organization has gotten better since I last read the article, but I feel that it can be better improved on. Also, the inline citations are noticably lacking for an article that tops out at 70 kilobytes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with everything TomStar81 has written above. The article is very well written, it just needs many more citations and a more logical organization. Might be better to move the history up a bit. Also, it just does not read right to have modern civilian subs as the first paragraph after the intro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs).

• Oppose Needs Citations Raymond Palmer 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why is there no mention of the legendary Yellow Submarine, with which the Fab Four bravely defended Pepperland from the Blue Meanies?! I don't think the article can be complete without at least a 20kb section on this venerable fighting machine! ;-) --kingboyk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, inline citations lacking, {{cite web}} format needed, and the external links section needs pruning. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Campaign

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Needs citations. Raymond Palmer 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Raymond.UberCryxic 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Royal Australian Navy

Article is currently at GA and has been peer reviewed by the project. I think it is at A-class level now. I am withholding my opinion on its quality as I have done a large majority of the work. Hossen27 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is at least one place (under 'Malaya') where a statement appears to be a quote drawn from a source, but no citation is provided (and indeed, even if a quote is not being used, the information needs some kind of citation. There is also some unfortunate use of the passive voice that hinders readability in a couple places. Carom 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Content is excellent but I think that some major editing needs to be done to make it read smoother and more professional. --Looper5920 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick II of Prussia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some problems with the footnotes (the format is poor) and I'm not convinced that there are enough. I also think some sections could be expanded, particularly 'Legacy'. Carom 18:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be more about his possible sexual orientation then his history. The tone of the article shifts radicaly form an Enlightened despot to military master mind to a hater of poles and jews. I also find that the article could be better partitioned in sections than what is currently laid out.--Dryzen 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I failed this for GA nom last month and I don't know if any of the issues I raised were addressed? --plange 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Iwo Jima

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, no inline citations and not enough refs. Is B-class easy, though... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Although I guess two oppositions are unneccessary. Carom 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is missing something very important. Actual paragraphs about the battle. 90% of the article is about the preparation. There still needs to be info added on the actual course of the battle.--Looper5920 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gallipoli

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs to (vastly) improve citation, and there are some spots that could use editing for readability. Carom 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object More citations would be nice, and the article is generally disjointed.UberCryxic 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose The article contains many assertions which require a citation and it isn't a very easy read. The graphics in the article are well chosen though. --Nick Dowling 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

[edit] Battle of Fort Donelson

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, too few citations. Carom 01:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above Raymond Palmer 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Scheldt

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too few citations. Otherwise, it looks acceptable. Carom 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. The layout at the end need sorting. Notes: References: External links. Raymond Palmer 11:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Lee

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me, although some of the sections (i.e. Gettysburg) might benefit from a link to the main article. Carom 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support KingPenguin 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object - whole sections lack any inline citations and there are places where refs are appearing before punctuation and I'd like to see the trivia items re-worked into the prose. Also, Notes should go before References, right? --plange 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Market Garden

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It's very well written, but I'm troubled by the lack of citations and the use of only three sources (the sources are themselves good, but given the wealth of literature on this topic, I think a more complete list is necessary). Carom 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally I feel there are far too many headings and sub-headings (I counted 54!) – it needs a major reorganisation. Also the info box is lacking in detail. A lot of quotes but no citations. Only three references. Raymond Palmer 23:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War

Previous A-Class nomination failed, and is archived here.

The article has been re-vamped based on this, and other reviews. The minor objection voiced in the previous nomination has been addressed: A description of the slave's status, numbers, treatment, and a mention of the previous Servile wars has been incorporated into the article, setting the pre-conditions, and the pattern of the Servile wars which this conflict follows.

Ideally, I'd like to see the "Aftermath" section revamped to include what changes in the Roman institution of slavery, or body of Roman law regarding slavery, that this conflict triggered (if any). However, this is beyond my current research materials, and I believe that the actual history of the Third Servile War is complete as it stands.

Minor restucturing, expansion, a copyedit for english grammar and spellinmg performed by UberCryxic.

I think it stands as an A-class as-is. Hopefully others will think so as well :)

Vedexent 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as before. I'm no expert on Roman slavery, but the changes look good to me. Carom 15:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - please merge some tiny paras into larger ones.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: which paragraphs did you have in mind? - Vedexent 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support well written and well referenced--Looper5920 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Article includes nearly all of the regiments history, is well sourced and cited, contains additional information about the regiment including blazon and heraldry, and links to official regimental pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It is indeed well cited, but I think some of the sections are a little bare, and I would be very surprised if one could not locate information to bulk them up. Carom 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a good article, but it's not A class. As noted by Carom some sections lack detail and I think that it would benefit from the addition of photos to illustrate the Brigade's history. --Nick Dowling 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objection well sourced, but a bit limited. Give more info or links to other articles containing more info. Wandalstouring 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment with 3 objections, I'll consider this failed. However, I'd like some help finding the photos (I'm no good whatsoever at finding fair-use or pd images) and bulking up some of the more recent history (i.e. post ww2). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Hood (51)

This article has been the subject of tender loving care from a number of editors in recent months (including myself), and is now well up to A-class standard. Taking in order the A-class critia listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, we have:

• Well-written: Good, grammatical English prose, without unnecessary Anglicisms or Americanisms
• Clear: Text is comprehensible, acronyms and technical terms explained in context.
• Complete: There is more that could be said on this ship, especially about its design history and inter-war service. However, the existing text is more than adequate for a non-specialist user, and the design description is exceptionally complete.
• Length: The article is long, but this is appropriate to a vessel of such exceptional historical importance.
• Introduction and section headings: The introduction is adequate and clear, and the article is well-structured. The section headings are accurate descriptions of the contents and there is little duplication or redundancy.
• External references: The article is exceptional in this regard, both in quantity and quality of referenced sources, both printed and on-line. Exceptional care has been taken in the referencing of the text, especially in the context of the controversy over the ship's loss, with particular focus on primary sources.
• Illustrations: These are numerous, relevant, of good quality, clearly and accurately captioned and copyright-free.

Checking against the potential issues listed under the B-class criteria, non of these arise. Many months of collective effort have eliminated POV and unreferenced assertions, maintained balance in areas of controversy, and filled the outstanding gaps in the article. It would be pleasant for all concerned to see these efforts acknowledged by the Wikipedia community.

John Moore 309 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose A very good article, I commend all of you who worked on the page. I would not give your article an A just yet though, I think that there are a few things that could be better presented:

• For starters I would recommend moving the entire "pricipal characteristics" section to the class page. Since all members of a class share indentical, or at the very least similar, characteristics I think that this section would be better represented in the class article. This was done with the articles USS Missouri & USS Wisconsin; both of these articles discuss only the history of the ships, all in depth information regarding the armorment, armour, aircraft, and weapons systems are discussed at length in their class article Iowa-class battleship. Since all three of these articles are already Featured Status there is a good chance that they will be the standard(s) by which Hood will be judged.
• Consider moving "modern theories on the sinking" to its own article. This has been done with regards to the Kursk incident.

Other than that I feel that this article has the potential to go places. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Would this be better going through a peer review? Raymond Palmer 14:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose There are some sections that lack references (which is troublesome). I also think peer review would be a good destination for this article. Carom 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Reads OK, but needs a longer peer review. Wandalstouring 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object The only referenced or cited source is a very old Britannica, and I would imagine it is possible to get more recent (and potentially more reliable) information about the subject. Carom 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources needed. Wandalstouring 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of printed reference sources on Turenne; using a single source is never sufficient, particularly when many printed sources can differ on the 'facts'. Also needs citation. Raymond Palmer 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above --plange 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.UberCryxic 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander the Great

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, although I wouldn't complain if it were slightly better cited. Carom 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some issues with citations and pictures. Is this picture legal? Image:Alexanderbattle.jpg Wandalstouring 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost sure that it is not, seeing as how it comes from the video game Rome: Total War. I believe there was a discussion a few weeks ago, and it was determined that such images did not comply with the proper Wiki rules on images. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be; given that the article is explicitly discussing how he's depicted in modern culture, there's probably a valid fair use claim for such an image here. Kirill Lokshin 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object picture missing (redlink?) and there are several sections where there are no inline citations at all --plange 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Insufficient in-line citations.--Yannismarou 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Krasny Bor

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A nice, long, and detailed article. But not quite as long and detailed as I personally believe A-class should be. LordAmeth 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs more citations to be A-class, although otherwise, it seems ok. Carom 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, more citations. Wandalstouring 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good article, not A-class. See comments above. Raymond Palmer 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have zero knowledge or expertise as regards firearms, but a cursory examination seems to indicate that this article contains exhaustive coverage of the subject. Pictures, tables on variants, diagrams, and a fair number of references. LordAmeth 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I think it should probably cite sources a little better in a couple of sections, but I'm not too troubled. Carom 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources, especially if quoting somebody. Wandalstouring 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlemagne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid I have to vote "oppose" for now. Though well beyond many B-class articles for length and detail, this article has a very short introduction, and not nearly enough references. LordAmeth 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too weak on citations (only three in an article of this length is really not quite right). Carom 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Missing citations. Wandalstouring 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Barbarossa

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A nice long, detailed article, with pictures, maps, good sections, a link to a translation of Hitler's directive itself, even a quote. But even so, it is not as long as many other GA+ articles are. Also, there aren't very many footnotes, and all the references are in Russian. LordAmeth 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not troubled by length (an article is what it is), or the references in Russian (if they aren't available in English, they aren't available), but the lack of citations is troubling enough for opposition. Carom 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too few sources and mostly Russian. There are several books listed under further reading. They could be used better. Wandalstouring 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landing at Anzac Cove

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 11:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as not citing any sources or providing any references (not even weblinks). Carom 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with no sources at all, no way it can be A-class. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no sources. no A-class. Wandalstouring 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol invasion of Central Asia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support (is that even an option?). I'm a little troubled by the low number of references. Carom 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong objection needs some quality sources.

"Even his invasions of China, to that point, had involved no more bloodshed that nomadic invasions such as the Huns had previously mounted, had caused.[1]"

This claim can be severely contested. Chinese sources in other articles say 100% different.

"but Genghis Khan introduced the world to tactics that would not be seen again until the Germans used them so well in World War II - indirect attack, and complete and utter terror and slaughter of populations wholesale as weapons of war."

Seems to forget the Boer War and the Confederate Cavalry, while slaughtering of population was an ideological motivated instrument of German warfare in the Nazi era and served very contraproductive to the efforts of establishing a stable German rule (partisans). For the Mongols it was an instrument of establishing a rule and so say all contemporary sources.

"(It must be noted that Genghis Khan eventually abrogated every allegiance he ever made, but in the short term, he probably did not intend to invade the Khwarezmid Empire when he did) [3]"

Alliance with equals or rebellions of allied minors who had to serve?

"Genghis then sent a 500-man caravan, comprised of Muslims to officially establish trade ties with Khwarezmia. However Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, had the members of the caravan that came from Mongolia arrested, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. It seems unlikely, however, that any members of the trade delegation were spies. Nor does it seem likely that Genghis was trying to provoke a conflict with the Khwarezmid Empire, considering he was still dealing with the Jin in northeastern China.[3]"

Needs some more sourcing about Mongol spying practice and intelligence gathering.

"The city leaders opened the gates to Bukhara, though a unit of Turkish defenders held the city's citadel for another twelve days. Survivors from the citadel were executed, artisans and craftsmen were sent back to Mongolia, young men who had not fought were drafted into the Mongolian army and the rest of the population was sent into slavery. This was to be Genghis' typical treatment of captured cities throughout the rest of the campaign. As the Mongol soldiers looted the city, a fire broke out, razing the majority of the city to the ground.[7]"

Did this happen to the cooperative population of Buchara or did someone misquote?

"After the fall of Bukhara, Genghis headed west, towards the Khwarezmi capital of Samarkand and arrived at the city in March 1220. Samarkand was significantly more fortified and there were as many as 100,000 men defending the city. As Genghis began seiging the city, his sons Chaghatai and Ogodei joined him after finishing off the reduction of Otrar and the joint Mongol forces launched an assault on the city. Using prisoners as body shields, the Mongols attacked. On the third day of fighting, the Samarkand garrison launched a counterattack. Feigning retreat, Genghis reportedly drew out a garrison force of 50,000 outside the fortifications of Samarkand and slaughtered them in open combat. Muhammad attempted to relieve the city twice, but was driven back. On the fifth day, all but an approximate 2,000 soldiers surrendered. The remaining soldiers, diehard supporters of the Shah, held out in the citadel. After the fortress fell, Genghis reneged on his surrender terms and executed every soldier that had taken arms against him at Samarkand."

These claims really need sourcing. So many defenders in a city? How did the Mongols win so easily if they mistreated all allies all the time, this needs really more sourcing and an expert. Wandalstouring 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10th of August (French Revolution)

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - needs more inline citations and current web links inline converted to proper footnotes --plange 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Although otherwise, it looks good. Carom 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose same reasons Wandalstouring 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose references and inline citations are both lacking.Raymond Palmer 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaker Morant

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - not a single footnote in the text. No way should any unsourced article ever be rated more than Start in my opinion.Michael Dorosh^Talk 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD, though I'd say it's B-class -plange 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, although I also think it's B-Class. Carom 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's B-class only. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)