Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2007/Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Egyptian Invasion of Mani

This article recently passed as a GA and I would like to see if it can become A-class. If you do oppose the article's nomination could you please write why. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A little editing to clean up some clunky phrasing wouldn't hurt, though. Carom 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Minor oppose This may be seen as a purely opinion based opposition but the tone of the article seems too dramatic in its portrayal of greek heroism and the value of the battle. Reading the article I didn't feal it as objective as it should be. As well work should be done on further explaining in article the 22 000 men involved in the battle indicated in the infobox. Are the 7 000 men from the initial invasion really different from the 6 000 used in august? Only 2 000 maniots and 500 refugies are mentioned in the article yet 7 500 greek fighters are counted in the infobox. A few points that I find need to be polished.--Dryzen 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed the info box. Kyriakos 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] World War II

I nominated this article for A-Class because of its great in-depth explanation and good refrencing. --Pupster21 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This article has the making of a FA bit for the moment I can not support it. Some secions do not have citations which I think is a must for passing the article. I am a little concerned about the lack of a lead but I think the overview section makes up for it. Kyriakos 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I kinda agree, the overview needs refrences... Well, they are had, but they need to be footnoted and linked, It is there but not shown. If I knew how to footnote, I would do it my self. --Pupster21 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a good article overall, but there are entire sections without any citations at all. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, either. Carom 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] American Civil War

Previous review here

Re-nominating for Pupster21. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, seems pretty good, and I have no problem supporting the move to A-class. The previous review said it was "choppy", and I can't comment on this as I'm not reading the entire article. Extensive coverage of the causes and effects of the war is great, as is the separate article on naming the war. Generally, the treatment of the various causes of the war looks quite well-written and well thought through, but I wonder if it doesn't still lend too much weight to the slavery issue. Something to think about. One more thing - is it true that more Americans (Union+Confederates) died in this war than in all other wars combined? Or at least more than in WWII? If so, that would be an interesting and important fact to include in the introductory section somewhere. LordAmeth 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I looked it up in a book. --Pupster21 11:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support --068152 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Anthony Eden

Former British Prime Minister. Long, thorough, well-written article. Has earned an A-class from WP:Biography, thought I should nom it to have the assessments match. LordAmeth 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No citations in the first 2/3 of the article is a little problematic, particularly in the case of assertions such as "the marriage was not a success, and broke up under the strain of Eden's political career." Beyond that, it needs a copyedit - a lot of the phrasing is a tad clunky. Also, the lead is a little on the short side, but that's a minor quibble, really. Carom 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as above Wandalstouring 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Japanese castle

I've placed this article through peer review, took action based on the comments & suggestions received, and am ready to nominate this for A-class. There aren't yet have any A, GA, or FA class articles which are primarily my work, as far as I'm aware off hand, and as this is a very broad and important (and likely fairly popular) topic, I should like it to be able to stand out as an example of some of my best work. Thank you. LordAmeth 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

• 1a. Well written - Yes. Though I trimmed a sentence which was self-referential and unessential.
• 1b. Comprehensive - Yes. I took to add a map of the layout of Utsunomiya Castle to also show a plan/layout, which had been lacking. I also suggest writing about the multi-tiered roof designs common to traditional Japanese architecture.
• 1c. Factually accurate - Yes, conditional. I noted that many of the footnotes are not to external references, but to further uncited statements. Try to add more external references and avoid using references for making additional unsupported statements. Elsewise, the "cite" police will come after you.
• 1d. Neutral - Yes.
• 1e. Stable - Yes. Other than my dinkings around today. :)
• 2a. Lead section - Yes.
• 2b. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
• 2c. Table of contents - Yes.
• 3. Images - Yes, though I added two to support a plan/layout map, as well as one to show Kokura Castle against the foreground of its garden to support the adjacent text regarding gardens.
• 4. Length - Yes. Only 39k.

--Petercorless 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for your continued help in improving this article. Regarding your point "1c" though, on citations, I wonder what the alternative should be. Much of this is just basic explanatory stuff which can be easily cross-referenced on the appropriate Wikipedia pages (e.g. samurai, Mongol invasions of Japan). I'd be happy to seek out citations for these things too, but I do think that they are better placed in the footnotes than cluttering up the main portion of the article, no? Some of this was added during the Peer Review process, as at least one editor said the article wasn't clear enough on specialized terms like "samurai". LordAmeth 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know you're not a big fan of citations, but there are some really, really bare patches in this one, particularly towards the end. It's quite good otherwise, but I don't think the citations are up to the level of recent A-class promotions. Carom 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you point out exactly which statements you think need citing, I'll be happy to look for sources. LordAmeth 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added about a half-dozen fact tags, let me know if you think any of them are unreasonable. Also, in some places, it's difficult to tell whether or not the citations are intended to refer to an entire paragraph, or just a sentence; this could be clarified in the notes themselves. I do like the notes you have, however - very scholarly, very useful, I just wish there were more. Carom 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Operation Igloo White

Previous reviews here and here

Am once again proposing this article for an A-Class review. RM Gillespie 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 1st Infantry Division (United States)

I nominated this article for A-class because it has historical importance and good content.--Pupster21 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - While it has the makings of a good article it also has some serious flaws at the moment and may have been nominated a bit prematurely. I would say it still needs:

• Expansion of introduction. An explanation of the motto should not account for half of it.
• Overall format is all over the place. The list of commanders are unnecessary. Important commanders should be mentioned in the prose itself. Various lists that break up the article (Interwar years OOB & Assignments in the European Theater of Operations) are best turned onto prose or removed.
• Lacking any inline citations
• De-Army the text...For example I'll say 99.9% of readers do not know what a TO&E,IFOR2 / SFOR1 are...also the prose does not flow. Much of the writing is just "On this day this happened."

I am a bit short on time and these are just initial impressions. I'll add more later. Cheers--Looper5920 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - for many of the same reasons. I just added the first inline citation to the article because the existing link was malformed. Also added a link to the term TO&E. It's fair for military jargon to be cited, but it might be better to enumerate some of those elements as a diagram or at least a bulleted list rather than having to read through the TO&E by text. I was somewhat confused as to what happened to the aero squadron that had initially been assigned in 1917, which was missing (apparently) when the unit got to France, even though the division was larger. There could have been links to the first instances of such terms as brigade, regiment, battery, etc., so those unfamiliar with such military units could read more about them. The article also had a propensity to refer to units such as "1-4 CAV." What is that? It should more properly spell out specifically what that unit would be the first time: 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment] (1-4 CAV). Actually there is an article on Wikipedia for the U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment, which could be linked to, rather than an off-site link to GlobalSecurity.org, though an inline citation could reference the other site. --Petercorless 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm afraid that this article currently doesn't come close to A class, though it is a lot better than most of the articles on US Army divisions. My main concerns are:
  • Much of the article is just lists of commanders and assignments. These should be converted to prose.
  • There's lots of military jargon - eg "World War II Prep", "CONUS", "TO&E", "reconnaissance-in-force". These should be converted into terms a general reader can understand.
  • As noted above, the article needs lots of citations to reach A class. --Nick Dowling 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous comments, especially concerning the long lists of deployments and units and whatnot. Furthermore, I think that a lot of the sections need some expansion - especially the combat sections (alternatively, if there's nothing more to write they can be merged). But a lot of these short sections can have expension, given that many of them offer no details on operations during the deployment to that area - see: Bosnia/Kosovo and especially 2006 Iraqi Freedom, which I think you can find online media sources on. That said, the article needs many more inline citations, but this has already been mentioned before. JonCatalan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Introduction too brief, too many lists (reads difficultly), too much jargon, way too few references for A-class. Arnoutf 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Pontiac's Rebellion

Previous nomination

Renomination by Wandalstouring. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as before. Carom 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - needs a few more refs in places. Buckshot06 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Until its cited sufficiently. Many paragraphs are noticeably bare.

Seems to be very well written though, and deserves to be A class at least. Raymond Palmer 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very well written, just needs more inline citations. Cla68 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Lengthy, one of the most detailed, well-written, and nicely formatted (i.e. looks nice on the page, lots of quotes, pictures, maps, which are well-placed, well-labeled, not overwheleming, etc) articles I've seen in some time. LordAmeth 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great article, but needs more cits. Kyriakos 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support as it is. The refs are a slight problem, but not big enough to incite rejection in this case. And on another note, per Raymond, the prose is fantastic. Kirill, don't be afraid to exercise some dictatorial authority in ignoring the opposing votes (kidding).UberCryxic 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (I want to point out that my nomination was only a formal issue because this article had failed for lack of assessments.) The citation can be improved as a lot of sources are used. Probably someone started this from a not too well referenced article. Wandalstouring 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Operation Igloo White

Previous reviews here and here

Am once again proposing this article for an A-Class review. RM Gillespie 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.