Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2007/Promoted

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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
Contest department talk
Publication department talk
Review department talk
Image, map, and media resources
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery talk
Portals
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Promoted

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] List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

This has been an ongoing project of mine for over a year. I think she is ready for an A-class review at this point. Thanks--Looper5920 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: as this is a list, the criteria to be considered are the featured list ones rather than the featured article ones. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A great example of what a list entry should look like. Cla68 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-referenced. Meets featured list criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite nice. Carom 14:57, 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] 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] 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] Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

The article has been growing quite nicely recently; the only thing suggested in the recent peer review that we cannot get is a map. I think the article fullfills the criteria for an A-class article. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Carom 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like we have found several maps. LordAmeth 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but playing the devils advocate, they are not tailored to that campaign: they don't show details of Soviet units locations and movement, nor the battles specific to that campaign.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Presently I face dilemma. I possess relevant information on this subject, but I have the sense that my thought on this subject would be... ...Forgive myself, I am uncertain if this is the word I intend... ...Irresponsible, I believe? I have the sense that I may inadvertantly bias what would in circumstances of other be invaluable fact data. I presently shall retrieve the paper document file, my sources, that exist as my possessions, which allow insight on the subject at hand. As I do this, gift to myself counsel--I possess desire to help Wikipedia, in spite of this, helping Wikipedia is understood by myself to imply obeying the expressed procedures by policy, and it is not my present belief that I am competent to do such a thing in this case. However, if I do not make some attempt, then I may be committing bias simply by omission. Perhaps there is someone fluent in either Ukrainian, or Russian, or both, in addition to English, that is confident in his or her present ability to maintain the NPOV on this subject, given the sensetivity of the source? If such a person is willing, then possibility exists that I would be willing to collaborate in such an venture.MVMosin 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please note that per WP:NPOV no individual is expected to be truly neutral. We all are biased, one way or another. As long as you realize you are biased, admit it and are willing to work with others to 'neutralize' it together, all is fine. It is only users who don't admit they are biased or don't allow others to compromise that are working agaisnt this project. That said, please also note WP:V/WP:RS: any source you are using should be vefiriable outside Wikipedia (so, for example, a file only in your posession and not published elsewhere would not be a good source to use).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:11, 27 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] Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)

Respectfully submit this article for A-class consideration. Cla68 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose I think it is a great article, but it needs better sourcing. With more refrences, it could be an A-Class, but for now, no. --Pupster21 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Disagree with objection. This article extensively utilizes five main sources as well as referencing three other sources for several citations. Based on my experience with editing and reviewing articles, eight sources are more than adequate. Cla68 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment They need to be linked to the early paras with footnotes if you want to cover them twice! --Pupster21 12:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • What exactly do you mean? I can't make heads or tails of that comment. Kirill Lokshin 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • How am I supposed to know??? ...--Pupster21 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok tails. You happy??? --Pupster21 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Carom 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight. I was sick. It's a fine article. Gloomy name though. --Pupster21 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Suppport. Great as usual.--Yannismarou 13:30, 23 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] Battle of Khe Sanh

Previous nominations here and here.

Listing nomination for RM Gillespie. Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Very good article-- with imrovement could be a future FA. --Pupster21 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Cla68 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: citation for the North Vietnamese casualty figure missing. clarify use of communist socialist and nationalist. being under the theleadership of the communist party doesn9't make the soldiers communists - not encyclopedic. 'Riddle of the Khe Sanh' has been disputed as non-encyclopedic in previous nomination. Where are the changes? Wandalstouring 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • PAVN casualty figures are given in the text and footnoted (Shulimson and Shore). The use of the term communist to denote the military forces of a socialist state is not meant to be indicative of the personal political inclinations of the individual soldiers, but of the leadership (political and military) of that state. As for changes to the "Riddle of Khe Sanh", there are none. Is the article well written, well annotated, and factually correct? These are the qualifications for an A-Class article. RM Gillespie 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I did not find a footnote for the 9k total casualty figure. What you intented may be well meant, but communist has a well-defined meaning. If you want to use slang terms of the US armed forces, than prove your point, otherwise it is required to refer to the US site as 'the imperialists'. NLF did fight for an united and independent Vietnam, please prove that they were all communists or use another phrase and keep in mind that due to the Western hemispheres composition of colonial powers every fighter for independence had no choice, but gaining support from the socialist states. The term 'the riddle' has been criticised as unencyclopedic, please show that authorities use this or a similar term or rephrase it an encyclopedic form.
The article has an annotation issue and use of encyclopedic language is required to make it well written. Wandalstouring 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The source is found in the last section of the section titled "Final Attacks" and is the lowest figure cited by the U.S. military (see explination in the following sentence). The title communist has a historically well-defined political/military meaning (see above) and is not a slang term.

Comparison with the term imperialist is meaningless. Communism/socialism is a distinct political/economic system that has an historical basis. Imperialism may have a loosely amalgamated set of beliefs shared by it practitioners, but it was never a coherent political system. Did the U.S./Australia/ROK/New Zealand etc, have imperialist designs in South Vietnam? Only in the dreams of the most hardened Marxist. Perhaps a better analogy would be the term "democratic forces", which would encompass the myriad political beliefs of its members (ranging from anarchists to fascists). Once again I stress the qualifications espoused by the project for an A-Class article. Is it well written, factually correct, and well cited. I do not believe that the terms "encyclopedic" or "style" appear in those qualifications. RM Gillespie 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

pray tell me communism is a coherent system. I corrected your unsourced number which was not supported by your sourced number. Wandalstouring 18:37, 22 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] Armament of the Iowa class battleship

I am nominating this because I feel that it meets all set and established criteria for A-class, and because I feel that with a little effort it could easily become featured, as Kirill pointed out on the Iowa-class battleship peer review :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, very nice. Can see few improvements; some copyediting needed. Also, could you include the yield of the nuclear Tomahawk, and a bit about the target identification/guidance mechanism of the Tomahawk? The section on the guidance of the Harpoon is present but could do with a few line breaks and possibly some wikification and light de-jargonning. The Land 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Meets all the criteria, although a little copyediting wouldn't hurt. Carom 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Contains some subjective language ("fearsome" is used a couple of times without quotation marks) but otherwise is definitely A-class material. Cla68 23:26, 18 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] Battleship

This article has recently become a Good Article after a two-month improvement drive. During this time, a lot of historical material was moved to ship of the line and ironclad warship - and far more material was added! The result is IMV a remarkably comprehensive treatment of the development and use of one of the most important weapons of all time. However, I might be a bit biased ;) - you can see the development of the article on the talk page and in particular the thorough review from the user who gave it GA status. Your feedback for A-class status is eagerly anticipated. The Land 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this article goes into to much detail on individual battleships when, IMHO, only critical battleships should be explicitly named. I also think it should be trimmed down by not going into so much detail for each nation on the sections such as The Dreadnought era and the World Wars; if anything, those should be separate articles (something like Battleship usage in World War II etc.). Oberiko 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In general, very well done! My main criticism of the current article is the fact that the section on "super-dreadnoughts" comes well after the first use of the term. Also, the article does a very nice job of detailing the origins of the term, but you loose track of the usage after that until you hit the pre-dreadnoughts. You should probably talk about any actual use of the term 'battleship' through the 19th century. After that, you need to be clearer about the terminology of the time. I don't think a reader new to the subject would come away understanding that right before WWI there 'battleships', 'dreadnoughts', and 'super-dreadnoughts', with the latter two eventually taking over the 'battleship' designation, and the old battleships being re-labeled 'pre-dreadnoughts'. --Rindis 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed the issue with the Super-Dreadnoughts and also added the terminology to the top of the article. Pinning down the use of the word 'battleship' in the 19th-C is really difficult and most sources I have hedge their bets about it. It doesn't help that lots and lots of people use the term battleship retrospectively - did anyone refer to Napoleon as a 'battleship' when she was launched? Probably not, yet Conways uses the term quite happily. Did anyone refer to Warrior in that way? No, definitely not, but the Royal Navy rated her as such after twenty years of service just before scrapping her... The Land 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What? You're not an all-knowledgeable expert who can answer these questions that I've never seen addressed (or considered) by the usual authors on the subject? Darn. ^_^ Trust me, I understand the problem - and was kind of hoping you might know more since you'd already gotten a bit deeper into it than I've ever managed. Though it shows that the study of naval history is still quite primitive in some ways, it's hard to understand what people were doing when you don't even study what they were calling it. --Rindis 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just looked at the article again. The new intro looks good. I was thinking in terms of rearranging the article near the super-dreadnought section, but your intro of dreadnoughts will certainly will do the job. I support A-Class, and think we're seeing some very good comments on what can make it an FA. --Rindis 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Overall, a fantastic job. I'd like to echo the thoughts made by Oberiko and Rindis - perhaps too much attention to a narrative of individual countries and wars, not quite enough attention to the concept of the battleship and how it came to be, how it changed, etc. I'm no expert on the subject, but I was under the impression that certain battles of the Pacific War (and perhaps the Battle of the Atlantic as well) really decisively changed attitudes about the importance and relevance of the battleship relative to air power, and yet this isn't discussed at any length in the article. I think it's great that you discuss Japanese developments alongside Western ones - the significance of the Satsuma, the battle of Tsushima, various elements of pre-WWII naval attitudes in Japan and regarding Japan - and to some extent I would argue those should stay. But again, I think, overall, trimming the sections that focus on wars, battles, and countries and placing more attention on the concept of the battleship, its role within a navy, and its decline in importance relative to airpower and other factors, would be most useful. (Still, even as it is now, I support a promotion to A-class.) LordAmeth 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see the point you're making. The Dreadnought arms race material can certainly be split off to a new article. I think part of the problem is that there are relatively few battleship engagements and many of them are of some significant to the broader narrative of the battleship. For instance Did the battleship have a big influence on the Spanish Civil War? No, not really; but it was the first time a battleship was knocked out of action by air attack. Then the fact that a large proportion of engagements are significant makes it tempting to include virtually all of them... The Land 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes yes. I understand. Hmmm. What to do, then? LordAmeth 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've re-ordered the World War II section so it's more chronological; which also happily makes it more thematic, because between November 1940 and December 1941 four different navies had significant battleship losses, most of which were down to naval aviation. What d'you think? The Land 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Combine your common citations please. For example, citations number 6 and 7 go to the same source, as do numbers 41 and 43. Also, the last two battleships that had been in the mothball fleet have since been removed from that fleet, so I updated the intro to reflect that change in status. Overall though, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is generally well-written and pithy, and not disproportionately long for a subject that spans four centuries and involves every major maritime nation. This is not to say it cannot be trimmed and tidied up; for example, much of the Iowa-class material could be move across to Iowa class battleship. However I agree with LordAmeth that the article is relatively weak in its treatment of the concept of the battleship, Why did nations feel obliged to build such costly ships? What role were they expected to perform? How did they relate to other elements of the fleet? What alternative forms of naval power were available, and why were they so often rejected? What were the drivers for their design? What made a "good" or "bad" design? As I pointed out in reviewing the article for GA status, the Battleships in strategy and doctrine section is little more than a stub. I would hesitate to support a move up to A-class status until the article is strengthened in this area.
On the other hand, I am generally happy with the historical narrative, and oppose the idea of breaking it up. This risks losing the very cross-cultural and historical perspective that LordAmeth rightly praises. My own experience suggests that stripping out information and putting it in satellite articles, such as the proposed article on the "Dreadnought race", are inconvenient to the user, who is constantly chasing backwards and forwards for the information that he or she is looking for. An even worse problem is the workload involved in generating and maintaining the articles. The proliferation of articles surrounding the Bismarck exemplifies the problem of maintaining quality control over a cluster of closely-related articles. Every hour spent proliferating new articles is an hour lost to the task of bringing our backlog of existing half-baked articles (naming no names) up to scratch.
In summary, the article is (except for the weakness of the Battleships in strategy and doctrine section) an excellent "one-stop shop" for a user new to the subject. Let's keep it that way. Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Taking this on board I've added a fair bit to that section - though what I've put in isn't cited yet. Does that cover the important points? The Land 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. I have taken the liberty of reworking your edits a little, and giving the last sub-section a slightly more dignified heading. Regards, John Moore 309 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I'm perfectly happy to support this article for A-Class as it stands now, but I would certainly expect some (most?) of the concerns raised by other editors to be addressed prior to an FA nomination. Carom 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would replace the header "Post World War II" --> "Cold War" and "Today" --> "Post Cold War". In my opinion, those are more 'durable' headings. Oberiko 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is a great article, with more improvement it could even become a FA.--Pupster21 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I am happy with the current version. Well done, ya'll! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support had a few stranded [ and ]s probobly from rewritings. Was a long read though, could be troublesome for some readers. As a bove great amount of information.--Dryzen 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - A very well-written and comprehensive article. Only suggestion I might make is changing "Battleships" in the LEAD paragraphs to "The Battleship", etc. Might just be me but I think it sounds a bit more scholarly. Great Job, definitely A-Class material on the way to FA Status! Mike Searson 14:13, 16 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 Barrel Roll

For your perusal. RM Gillespie 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Quite good. Carom 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Long, thorough, well-cited, objectively stated but not too dry. LordAmeth 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. On a technical note, some of your sources seem to go to the exact same citation. I would suggest combining them to help reduce the page size. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very good written article. However, I've never heard of it. ;) --Pupster21 13:00, 8 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] Edwin Taylor Pollock

Self-nom. Recently passed GA, had a productive peer review which appears to have quieted down. This is my first real attempt at a detailed officer biography. JRP 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I think it's a good article ready for A status. Needs more detail about his childhood/adolescence and his post-Navy life and the red links should have stub articles created for them, but, good enough for "A". Cla68 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Seems a good enough article, but indeed pre and post navy life sections are missing. Arnoutf 10:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Add pre- and post navy life section(even if they are not notable parts of the biography) and get one of our copyeditors to improve the writing style before nominating it for FA. Wandalstouring 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would stress that the article really does need to be expanded either side of his navy career. Carom 21:37, 14 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] Operation Rolling Thunder

Have just finished working on this article. I hope it meets your approval. RM Gillespie 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support The prose is a little choppy in places, but other than that, it looks good. Carom 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Although I agree with Carom on the prose it is still a well written, well sourced article with some excellent images. Hossen27 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Looking at the A-class criteria this article meets all of them. It is very well documented (and should we assume accurate?), comprehensive and well written. By definition, this article deserves to be A-class. JonCatalan 02:47, 2 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] T-26

I want to re-nominate this article, now that it has been peer reviewed. The fist A-class review has been archived here. JonCatalan 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - I think the textual errors and citation problems from the first review have been fixed, the article reads well and covers the topic very comprehensively. Hossen27 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I found it very interesting and it is very well referenced, largely well written and has many useful and interesting pictures and tables. I'm supporting, but I have a few small notes if you wnat them: 1) Although the major problems from the last review have been resolved and the article reads much better, it might still benefit from another copyedit just to make it flow a bit smoother, some of the sentances are a little choppy. I'll take a look myself if you want? 2) In the final paragraph for the Second World War section, it says that production of the T-50 was intended for 1945 and then talks about factories being moved in 1941: Are these dates correct? 3) I wasn't sure about the paragraphs in the intro, I'll move them a little, see if you think it works, if not then revert.--Jackyd101 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank's for your kind compliments. You're correct, that date is wrong - it should have read 1941, and it has been changed. In regards to the introduction I think I'll leave it as you have changed it until somebody else gives their opinion. Concerning your offer of taking a look at the sentence structure of the article, I would much appreciate it! JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I just gave the article a thorough copyedit and look over again, I changed quite a few grammatical constructs, but tried to keep the meaning of the sentences as accurate as possible. Please look over the changes and make sure they are OK. I added one [citation needed] tag where I felt it was necessary to cite a source, and I also noticed a couple of occasions where I wasn't sure if you were quoting direct from a source or not. If you do, remember to use quotation marks. Finally, the use of "Ibid." as a source marker in Wikipedia is not a good idea, as unlike a paper article, if a random editor sticks a source of his own between your Ibids the aricle will rapidly descend into chaos. Perhaps all sources should be written in the Harvard form without the Ibid. Hope I helped, sorry if I made any errors and again congratulations on a thorough and interesting article.--Jackyd101 06:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you continued help. I exchanged all the ibid. to the name of the author. I'll have to cite the source for the 'citation needed' when I get home (to look up the page number). Regarding sourcing; none of it is directly taken from any given text. It is all own wording. JonCatalan 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked one last sentance, but congratulations once more on a very nice article and some excellent, well written and researched work.--Jackyd101 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - All the problems from the last review have been resolved, and no new ones seem to have arisen. Carom 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support There are a few quibbles:
You mention in the lead 12,000 T-26s produce. This fact is mentioned twice more in the following section – a bit unnecessary.
Sentence problems:
The 45 mm gun would see some evolution, as the original 45 mm 19K anti-tank gun[14], developed at Plant No. 8, in 1935 by the 45 mm model 1934, which saw the semi-automatic mechanism replaced by an inertial operating mechanism.
Also:
The turret featured in increase to 20 mm at 45 degrees sloping.[37]
There’s some unecessary wording:
During the Republican offensive towards Torrejon three T-26s were captured, and a few days later another four were captured as well
There are some contracted words eg: It’s. Should read It is.
There are punctuation problems and prose issues that will have to be ironed out if you want to go for FA. Raymond Palmer 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the only 'it's' I could find, and I did some changing to the three sentences you have picked out, especially the second sentence (and the two other times I mentioned 12,000 units had been produces have been erased). I'm glad that you have made a note of prose requirements for FA status. I've actually be crossing my fingers that somebody will be nice enough and help me fixing the prose and punctuation. JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have used a different Infobox from other AFVs - is this intentional for some reason? Raymond Palmer 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I used the standard WikiProject Military history/Weapons infobox.
This one is often used for various AFV's, as it's slightly more specialized than the Weapon infobox. Consistency is good, but it's not really a big deal, in my opinion.Carom 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not more specialized, actually; all the parameters in {{AFV}} are present in the consolidated infobox. {{Infobox Weapon}} is actually intended to replace {{AFV}}, and WP:WEAPON has been (slowly) converting articles to use it; but we haven't been able to arrange for a mass replacement yet. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Right you are, Kirill, right you are. Carom 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My fault for bringing it up. Although I do like the colour scheme of the old box Raymond Palmer 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Seems better than the last read, and very few errors. UberVash 02:11, 2 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] Thomas Crisp

First World War Victoria Cross recipient. Passed GA, been Peer Reviewed. Want to see what else can be done and how far I can take this.--Jackyd101 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That was quick, I only just passed it :) The auto Javascript program says the following:
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • I saw this at peer review. I thought that the "infobox military person" superseeded the "persondata" box. Is this wrong?
Persondata goes at the bottom of an article is isn't visible, so I dont think so. RHB Talk - Edits 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorted--Jackyd101 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only dates with a th are in the citations and as these are direct from the source I didn't think they should be changed.
Yep, you're right there. RHB Talk - Edits 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved notes, changed "Further reading" to "References". Is this what is meant?
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
  • Will have another look through, were there any specific instances of poor prose?
Looks fine to me reading it through. RHB Talk - Edits 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the red links are slightly annoying, and the information for Unterseeboot C-41 was available in one of the references. The www.victoriacross.net seems to have become a holding advert page, so doesn't say much. The CWGD page goes to Charles Manning, the Crisp page seems to be here. The image is a bit iffy - when was it taken? and by who - Crown Copyright can be annoying to say the least. I saw it on the Find a Grave page too. Finally, references generally go after punctuation. Other than than, and a final prose copyedit, I think it should be ok. RHB Talk - Edits 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further changes: I'll sort out the red links as best I can;
  • I'll remove the Victoriacaoss.net link;
  • I'm not sure what you mean about CWGD link going to the wrong place, it goes to Thomas Crisp for me;
  • Which image has the problem? They all seem to have correct tags. I don't know their origin, the picture of Crisp seems to come from the Victoriacross.net site before it closed down, not sure about the status of those images. Its says here at Find-A-Grave that thier images do not infringe on the copyright of any nation. Don't know how accurate that is.
  • Where was the reference in the wrong place? Bugger, I thought I'd got them all.
Thankyou for your time and comments.--Jackyd101 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just me looking at one of thr references wrongly, dont worry about the CWGD link. Looking good to me, any chance of some more references? Which museum is the replica at? RHB Talk - Edits 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The replica is kept in Lowestoft town hall, not in an actual museum. I don't know any further details than that, and the town hall is not particulaly notable in itself (as far as I'm aware, not enough to merit its own article anyway). The references are tricky, because most sources for this do little more than simply copy the citation and a few basic dates and places. Snelling's book is the only one I've seen with comprehensive information.--Jackyd101 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support The article seems to meet the criteria for A-class, although further improvement would certainly be necessary for FA. Carom 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out where for future reference?--Jackyd101 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Indeed meets criteria for A-class. Would in usual case need more citations for FA-status; however what Jackyd101 says about the sources may make this difficult. Cheers Buckshot06 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - You've done an excellent job with a fairly obscure subject. With a combination of searches I've turned up the following, though some aren't that useful: [1], [2] - Is victoriacross.org.uk similar to victoriacross.net?, or has the site moved?, [3], and [4] - he is shown on both church memorials, and finally [5] . RHB Talk - Edits 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding those, I inserted some of them, [6] was particulaly useful, the others a little less so, but still worthy of placing in external links or inline citations I thought.--Jackyd101 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection reword the intro into a shorter version with less adjectives. The main article can contain such flowery material.SupportWandalstouring 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done--Jackyd101 06:28, 29 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 Linebacker

For your perusal. RM Gillespie 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support but rephrase the last sentences:

    Although the operation was a success, it was not the end. Henry Kissinger may have announced that peace was at hand, but it was not going to come easily. American bombers would return once again to the skys of the North Vietnam in Operation Linebacker II before the American commitment to the Vietnam Conflict would come to an end.

    Wandalstouring 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, after fixing a few typos, made a few links. Clarify the "ratio" of 1:1 to 4:1 in Going North. Force ratio, or kill ratio? It is inferred that is the kill ratio, but it does not explicitly say so. --Petercorless 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Straightened it out. Is the ending any better? RM Gillespie 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Did some slight editing. I think it is OK now. Wandalstouring 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Suppport, with one caveat: the line "During and immediately following the PAVN offensive, U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aviators had flown 18,000 sorties in I Corps" needs clarifications - what is "I Corps" in this context? Otherwise, she's all right mate! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Altered the text to fix the problem. RM Gillespie 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support The first paragraph in the "Build-up and air attacks" section has no citations; that really needs to be adressed. Also, some of you inline citations, like #56-#58, are cited to the same exact source; it may be worth reconfiguring the ref tabs so that multiple source citations go to the same link, rather than seperate links. Othet than that, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 16 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] Ioannis Makrygiannis

The article recently passed GA, and I'd like to see your take on it. Druworos 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good to me. LordAmeth 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indecisive Are there only Greek sources and one French available? Wandalstouring 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I don't know of English sources. This does not mean they don't exist, obviously. Just that I don't know of them. :) Druworos 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In the French article are several non-Greek sources listed. Perhaps you can use some more of them. It is a case of noteability. Like the Hiasl who is a local hero in Bavaria, but hardly anybody outside that small country(some cultures within neither) knows him. Is such a man noteable enough to have an article here? Wandalstouring 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You will notice there are three French sources in total in the French article, I'm already using one of them. Surprising as it may seem, tracking down French journals like Autres Espaces (one of the other sources) is not exactly easy in Greece. At any rate, I copy-paste the following from MilHist:
The following types of military figures are always notable:
....
People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat.
....
People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.
Makrygiannis did command a substantial body of troops in combat, and he is the primary topic of at least one published secondary work I know of (the article by Theotokas you'll find listed in the sources section). More important, perhaps, than his military career, is his involvement with the first Greek constitution, his contribution to which has been recognised by the Greek state. His most significant work, however, may be his Memoirs. As you will find in the section on his literary work, he has been called one of the two greatest masters of modern Greek prose by Nobel laureate poet Yorgos Seferis. Surely, this should answer the issue of notability. Druworos 11:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I started to search for this guy. The English version of his book is: Ioánnis Makrygiánnis, The Memoirs of General Makrygiannis, 1797-1864. Oxford University Press, 1966 (selections) Wandalstouring 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Needs a bibliography - listing the sources. A few more cites would also be good. Buckshot06 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support But I agree with Buckshot, it needs a seperate sources section. Kyriakos 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The sources are the ones already appearing under the references section. It would, of course, be simple to create a separate bibliography, it's just that it would be a repetition of the references section right above it. As for more citations, there are already quite a few in there, I think. I could add a citation to the end of every sentence, I just think that's a bit over the top, myself. If you feel there are particular points that need a citation, please point them out in specific. Thanks for the comments! Druworos 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • At any rate, I added a separate sources section, I suppose it is more appropriate. Druworos 11:25, 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] Battle of Marathon

Previous nomination

Renominating for Ikokki. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support It seems to qualify.UberCryxic 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I think the article is good but I have one problem. You have the KIA cross and a question mark next to Datis' name. Datis did not die in the expedition as can be seen in Herodotus book VI, 118-9. If you change this I will support. Kyriakos 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Support Kyriakos 10:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As it says in the article according to Ctesias Datis was killed in Marathon. Herodotus disagrees, as it says in the article itself. Hence the KIA cross with the question mark. If this is not a standard Wikipedia convention I will remove itIkokki 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Since I did not have a chance to write why it should be A-class I will do so here.
    It is sufficiently long without being too big
    It is well referenced
    It tries to include most theories over the battle
    It is readable (biggest stumbling block last time)
While I am sure that there are some things missing it is of sufficient quality to be A-class where after all perfection is not sought like FA but very high level Ikokki 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A few minor quibbles about phrasing, especially in the Background section, but definitly of A-class quality. (One note though, the dashes used don't show up right on older computers *cough*.) - Aerobird 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit. Example:
But if the front had a density of 1.4 meter compared to 1 meters for every Greek and had a density of 40 to 50 ranks as seems to be the maximum possible for the plain
Battle of Plataea or battle of Plataea
Darius wished to take advantage of this situation to conquer Athens, which would isolate Sparta and, by handing him the remainder of the Greeks in the Aegean, would to consolidate his control over Ionia.
Other editors will correct me if I'm wrong, but there should be a seperate Reference section to clearly show the sources used. Secondly, the inline citations should come after the punctuation and without a space between it and the word.
Needs quite alot of polish Raymond Palmer 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Raymond Palmer's points are valid, and I think the images and maps may be a bit excessive - you can afford to cut down on those a bit. But otherwise, a lengthy, detailed article. Major plus points for drawing so heavily from original sources (I just hope that the proper allowance has been given for bias in those sources, etc.) LordAmeth 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I read several secondary sources that pointed to original quotations. Most secondary material I read (Kampouris being a major exception) basically say the same thing, in many cases with the same wording. I chose to reference to original sources because they are much easier to reference to. Gedeon or Glotz, for example, wrote interesting things but they did little more than to combine Herodotus, Cornelius Nepos, Plutarch and Suda in order to draw conclusions. Their conclusions are noted here but I prefer to reference directly to Herodotus' narrative than their own.
As I also said earlier A-class does not mean FA. I do intend to continue improving the wording, replace link citations and write a text reference section like the one in Trojan War. I think though that an A-class article can exist without those YET. Thank you everybody for your input.Ikokki 14:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the German map and the map of Attica don't quite fit in and I think you will lose little if they are deleted or replaced. Very good to point out the social issues. Perhaps the social problems and their development in ancient Greece can be made into an own article. Wandalstouring 23:19, 11 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 Linebacker II

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RM Gillespie (talk • contribs).

  • Oppose. A long, detailed article, much of which is quite easy to read, in terms of its narrative style. Some points, I think, though, could use a little rephrasing. (1) last sentence, first paragraph: I know I'm being majorly nitpicky, but I really don't think the phrasing here, the use of "except" is really quite the appropriate thing to put. Something like "a resumption of the Operation Linebacker bombings.... with the emphasis shifted..." might be better. (2) "Darkest Hour"? Sounds a bit too purple, i.e. not neutral, encyclopedic, scholarly enough. But, fix those minor things, and I'll change my vote. Thanks for an interesting read. LordAmeth 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mission accomplished. Do you find the article well written, well cited, and factually correct? RM Gillespie 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Support. I do apologize for nitpicking, but I think that the changes made in the last few days make a big difference in the overall quality of the article. Thank you again for your hard work. LordAmeth 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support works for me. Carom 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-cited, well-structured, well-researched.--Yannismarou 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question. Does the book Aces of North Vietnam: Pilots - Units - Operations - Aircraft - Statistics 1965-1975 by Roger Boniface or any other book give much insight into the North Vietnamese side during the Linebacker/Linebacker II operations? Also, I didn't see it mentioned, but didn't a U.S. Air Force B-52 squadron at Guam actually refuse to fly more missions until SAC changed mission tactics? Cla68 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure about the Boniface work since I have not read it. As to the second question, the answer is no. According to the Air Force sources, only one pilot refused to fly the missions. There has been plenty of talk (both at the time and today) that some of the pilots at U-Tapao "mutinied" by going on sick call to avoid the missions. Earl Tilford looked into the matter and reported that no more names appeared on the sick list than was usual at the base. It can be taken for granted, however, that although the crewmen supported the mission and were enthusiastic about their participation in it, they were not happy with the SAC high command. RM Gillespie 01:51, 3 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Military_history_Assessment_2007_Promoted_f1bf.html"