Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guide  → Essays Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk  → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk Contest department talk Logistics department talk Outreach department talk  → Stress hotline talk Review department talk New! Special projects department talk Showcase  → Featured picture gallery Portals talk
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active  → Inactive Awards talk Project banner talk Project category Project history
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge infobox talk  → Military award 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  → Command structure box talk  → Operational plan box talk  → Service record box talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states 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 Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Promoted 1.1 Battle of Edson's Ridge 1.2 F-84 Thunderjet 1.3 Military brat (U.S. subculture) 1.4 Cambodian Civil War 1.5 Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) 1.6 Roman-Spartan War 1.7 Cretan War 1.8 Operation Commando Hunt 1.9 Sihanouk Trail 1.10 Russian Ground Forces 1.11 Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo 1.12 Battle of the Tenaru 1.13 Ho Chi Minh trail 1.14 Finnish Civil War 1.15 Battle of Greece 1.16 Józef Piłsudski 1.17 Axis naval activity in Australian waters 1.18 Battle of Schellenberg 1.19 Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group 1.20 Webley Revolver 1.21 Cyrus the Great 1.22 Battle of Gettysburg, First Day 1.23 La Grande Armée 1.24 British anti-invasion preparations of World War II 1.25 Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day 1.26 Third Servile War 1.27 First Macedonian War 1.28 The King's Regiment (Liverpool) 1.29 Daniel Boone 1.30 Tent pegging 1.31 Second Battle of Kharkov 1.32 Stephen Trigg 1.33 Greco-Persian Wars 1.33.1 Basiliscus 2 Failed 2.1 F-105 Thunderchief 2.2 Battle of Khe Sanh 2.3 Battle of Khe Sanh 2.3.1 Cambodian Civil War 2.3.2 Caesar's invasions of Britain 2.3.3 T-26 2.3.4 Cretan War 2.3.5 Japanese battleship Kongō 2.3.6 Battle of Greece 2.3.7 Cretan War 2.3.8 American Revolutionary War 2.3.9 Fort Bliss 2.3.10 Napoleonic Wars 2.3.11 United States Navy 2.3.12 Battle of Chancellorsville 2.3.13 Hannibal Barca 2.3.14 Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group 2.3.15 Finnish Civil War 2.3.16 Cretan War 2.3.17 Webley Revolver 2.3.18 Submarine 2.3.19 Norwegian Campaign 2.3.20 Battle of Marathon 2.3.21 History of the Royal Australian Navy 2.3.22 Frederick II of Prussia 2.3.23 Battle of Iwo Jima 2.3.24 Battle of Gallipoli 2.3.25 Cretan War 2.3.26 Battle of Fort Donelson 2.3.27 Battle of the Scheldt 2.3.28 Robert E. Lee 2.3.29 Operation Market Garden 2.4 Pontiac's Rebellion 2.4.1 Third Servile War 2.4.2 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment 2.4.3 HMS Hood (51) 2.4.4 Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne 2.4.5 Alexander the Great 2.4.6 Battle of Krasny Bor 2.4.7 M1 Garand 2.4.8 Charlemagne 2.4.9 Operation Barbarossa 2.4.10 Landing at Anzac Cove 2.4.11 Mongol invasion of Central Asia 2.4.12 10th of August (French Revolution) 2.4.13 Breaker Morant

[edit] Promoted

[edit] Battle of Edson's Ridge

Respectfully request an A-class assessment review of this article on a World War II battle. Cla68 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another great article. Kyriakos 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is an excellent article. --Nick Dowling 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Carom 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Article is definitely complete. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice, complete article. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bukvoed 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems quite balanced, in terms of POV, based on skimming. LordAmeth 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  The review was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good!--MChew 16:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-84 Thunderjet

A comprehensive overview of the straight- and swept-wing F-84s. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Also lacking in citations, although again, appears to be a well written treatment of the topic. Carom 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after fixes by Emt147. Carom 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Another great article, but needing through citations to be A-class. There could also be a bit more elaboration on the dam attack and air-to-air combats that are briefly mentioned. Buckshot06 20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the references, please re-evaluate. There is not much more to say about air combat since the F-84 saw very little action against enemy fighters. The dam attack is described in great detail in the Wikilinked article.- Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good step in the right direction. However, for both the F-84 and F-105 articles you might want to take a look at the referencing in previously approved A-class articles, maybe for example The King's Regiment (Liverpool). These have usually over thirty citations right through the article. The only thing you have to do to get these promoted is to go and reference many things that may seem obvious to you (and me, for that matter). But that's the way the wiki-conventions have it. You've made a good start, and the dam attack article you linked has a number you could copy straightaway.

Cheers Buckshot06 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• WeakSupport You have done a good job citing the material; while I would like to see more inline citations, I feel there are enough present to warrent an A-class status. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not playing the "minimum number of citations" game. Every significant statement or claim has been cited. Please show specifically what you feel needs a citation. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a number of "fact" tags to indicate where I feel further citations are necessary. You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I think the tags represent locations where citations would be appropriate. Carom 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Carom on his placement of {{fact}} tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have addressed the fact tags. Thank you for taking the time to place them, it's far more useful than simply saying "more citations needed" since I did most of the writing and a lot of the facts seem obvious and not in need of citation to me. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Bukvoed 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; other users have obviously expressed their citation concerns. Once those citations are taken care of, I see no problem with this... surely one of the more thorough treatments I've seen. Thanks! LordAmeth 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback everybody! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

I nominated this article for FAC about two weeks ago. Two people (Outriggr and SandyGeorgia) made some really good recommendations on the talk page and I realized some problems with the article that I decided I wanted to address, so I voluntarily withdrew the nomination. It probably would have passed if I left it on the FAC indefinately, but that isn't my style I wanted to get it right. One of the big changes was the decision to follow the Military Peer reviews recommendation and change the focus to be explicitly on U.S. Brats. Feel free to copy edit (or edit in general)... also, let me know any places where the prose is weak or needs to be improved (or feel free to fix on your own).

Withdrawn FAC and Previous Military Peer ReviewBalloonman 10:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I already made my suggestions. Support. --ScreaminEagle 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Copied ScreaminEagle's comments to article talkpage. [1] Very good detailed nitpicky suggestions... to which I am very appreciative. Balloonman 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• SupportWandalstouring 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive.ALR 08:41, 17 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] Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

Respectfully request A-class review of this article about an operation in the Pacific War of World War II that had significant strategic ramifications. Cla68 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I see no serious problems. It's long, detailed, with lots of pictures, maps, and a full infobox. Lots of references cited. LordAmeth 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Another great article so I give it my support. Kyriakos 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wandalstouring 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The text needs some cleanup, mainly for grammar, but other than that, it looks good. Carom 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The nomination was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 06:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - good article. Buckshot06 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

I have improved his article and I want to see if it is of A-class standard. Kyriakos 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Not perfect, but OK for A-Class. Well-referenced and researched.--Yannismarou 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The prose is somewhat choppy and the article appears to primarily use only one source as a reference, but, is written in a neutral manner, is organized logically, contains copious inline citations, and appears to cover the subject well. Cla68 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed. --Pudeo (Talk) 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but the prose needs improvement. Wandalstouring 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• minor Oppose, the initial introduction needs to be work over as well as the, until now always mentionned, prose. I guess I'm too strick in my assessment but I stand by it.--Dryzen 16:41, 24 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] Operation Commando Hunt

Recently did a revamp of this article and hope that it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

  The criteria:

  1. It is well written. It seems well written, laid out nicely, organised well into various sections, it may have the air of a fictional thriller in a couple places perhaps but otherwise it looks encyclopaedic.

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Unfortunately, I'm not in much of a position to comment on this, having not been familiar with the topic myself, but you have a lot of good references, all from written works on the topic, which is a definite plus. There are plenty of facts in there.

  3. It is broad in its coverage. Same comments from number 2 apply here. It seems to cover all the aspects, possible if you put the casualties etc for both sides in the info box, and perhaps the flags of the combatants in the info box next to their names, minor aesthetic things like that possibly.

  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Personally (and this is just me, by the way, i wouldn't be surprised if other users disagree, that’s cool) I feel that a section titled 'conclusion' makes the article sound more like your POV regardless of content, however you have put some references in that section to lessen the POV side of it somewhat.

  5. It is stable, according to the history, aside from the huge list of changes by yourself, the article seems stable.

  6. It contains images Good number of images, possible a little graph heavy and map heavy, perhaps some more photographs? Colour ones if possible, and aesthetically if you lay them out so they alternate to the different sides of the page, makes it a little more readable I think personally. Otherwise, images are fine.

  That's just my two cents, as the review guide states above, minor minor issues should not hold an article back from a higher class as they are easily fixed. I'll keep my report as a comment though cause I'm not sure how well I reviewed your article! --SGGH 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I would add a link to Igloo White right under the section heading, rather than burying it in the paragraph. Carom 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It seems a little too POV for the U.S. side but contains a lot of information organized coherently and well-cited. Cla68 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sihanouk Trail

Just finished rounding this article off. Looking for some criticism. RM Gillespie 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks great to me. I fixed two minor spelling errors - there may be others. Vietnamization should perhaps be wikilinked the first time it appears, in "Operation Menu", rather than later. So, yeah, minor copyedit sort of stuff. But overall, it's very professionally written, very detailed and balanced, and seems as far as I can tell to touch all the important points. If there's anything to be fixed on the overall style, it's that it may be too professionally written - intimidating for the reader with those giant, dense paragraphs. Still, I gladly Support your bid for A status. LordAmeth 08:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, although I don't know that "Road to the Abyss" is the best name for the last section (it seems a little dramatic, and this is an encyclopedia, after all). Carom 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but this chapter could be rewritten to make more sense.

  Sihanouk, furious with the course of events, quickly assumed leadership, in absentia, of front made up of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and the Laotian Pathet Lao, throwing his personal prestige in Cambodia behind the communists.[23] In the wake of the coup that toppled Sihanouk, the new Cambodian government turned over captured documents to the US disclosing the full extent of Sihanouk's participation in the infiltration effort. Between December 1966 and April 1969, Unit K-20 had facilitated the infiltration of 29,000 tons of cargo into Cambodia.[24] The unit had also purchased 55,000 tons of rice annually from the government and another 100,000 tons directly from Cambodian farmers.[25]

  Wandalstouring 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  After rereading the passage, I agree that it was rather roudabout and confusing. Have corrected the problem. RM Gillespie 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Ground Forces

Following peer review and much improvement, I'd like to self-nominate this article for A-class review. I'd also be interested in people's opinions of whether the 'dispositions' section should be via a table, as it's presented now, or by bullet points, as it was prior to a few revisions ago. Thanks very much Buckshot06 09:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support'. Beautiful. I look at every armed forces article and wonder why it can't be more like this. You've included not only the basic stuff, like history and organization, but a decent sized section on crime and corruption. I love the navbox of different Russian/Soviet armies throughout history. And I do, personally, think that dispositions (though I have no idea why they're called that) look better in a table. In far too many articles, the bullet point list gets way out of hand, and ends up greatly exceeding the text of the article (in length on the page). Thanks for your hard work. LordAmeth 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and soursed and a good read. Could use a few more images though, there's only 2 and a flag and im not as sure about the table as much as LordAmeth but ill let it pass as bullets look a lot worse. Nice article Hossen27 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Quick note. The other possible option for the units, which I'm leaning toward, is on the bottom of the talk page. What do people think? Buckshot06 09:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Spetsnaz and Siberian units could be linked and a bit more overall info (equipment, structure, training, women in the armed forces, recruitment campaigns, etc.) or links. Sourcing is OK. Wandalstouring 16:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This is certainly a good and very interesting article, but I don't think that it's A-class. My main concern is that the article is written as a commentary on the Russian Ground Forces rather than in an encycopedic style (for instance: "Reports such as these continue, and mean that the much increased funding allocated to the armed forces is going to waste: when a constant-readiness motor rifle regiment's tanks run out of fuel on the firing ranges, because petrol is being diverted to local businesses,[52] how can observers be convinced the extra funding is going to produce improvements?"). The article would also benefit from the addition of a table listing the major weapons holdings of the ground forces (number of tanks, helicopters, etc) and more photos would be nice. --Nick Dowling 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Response. I've examined the places Nick nominated for changes/cites and I think I've better represented the issues, as well as adding Spetsnaz units. There is information on women in the Armed Forces at Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; I've seen no recent info specifically on women in the Ground Forces; equipment has expanded at bit. Buckshot06 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo

Respectfully request review of this article for A-class status. Cla68 10:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It does seem a bit short, not overall, but in individual sections. If this is more or less all there is to say on the subject, then so be it, and I'll fully support A-class status. But if the two battles and the aftermath section can each be expanded beyond a few short paragraphs, then I think that should be done before A-class status is awarded. LordAmeth 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some more detail to the battle and aftermath sections, extending each by several sentences. Attempting to add more detail would likely involve recounting individual experiences in the battle, which I feel would change the article from an encyclopedic entry into an historical narrative. Cla68 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll lend my Support. LordAmeth 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support An excellent article on a worthwhile topic. It could perhaps be a bit longer, but it adequately covers the subject, and it is well cited. old windy bear 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it can be longer but it still dserves A. Kyriakos 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Tenaru

I believe and hope that this article is ready for consideration for A-class status. It's also currently under peer review. Self-nomination. Cla68 10:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well sourced deserves A-class. Kyriakos 11:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive, well-written. Lots of pictures and sources. You've even sources the casualties and strengths. Good work. LordAmeth 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support good sourced, well written, but showing the faces of dead soldiers is disputed in many countries for ethnical reasons. Wandalstouring 16:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well sourced and a lot of detail for a small battle. Hossen27 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support An excellent article on a worthwhile topic. --Nick Dowling 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article, well researched - my one reservation is that I question the pictures of the dead soldiers with their faces showing, in many cultures this is inappropriate. old windy bear 14:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Note I'm probably going to replace the infobox picture with another one that shows basically the same thing, but that doesn't clearly show the faces of the dead bodies, as soon as I can scan it from the book. Cla68 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

THANKS, that clears up the only issue on this excellent article. This is first rate work. old windy bear 21:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Definitely deserves A-class status Ikokki 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ho Chi Minh trail

Have just completed this article. Looking for some constructive criticism. See what you think. RM Gillespie 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Easily long enough, detailed enough, with enough pictures and references. I did have a few unanswered questions on the article's Talk page, however, if it's no bother... LordAmeth 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written. Raymond Palmer 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support The redlinks could be removed, redirected or created as stub articles - would help. Buckshot06 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some images of the actual trail would be helpful, otherwise quite a good read. Hossen27 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good article, brought back a lot of painful memories for Vietnam Vets, but a good article, well done and good referencing. old windy bear 14:54, 23 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] 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] Józef Piłsudski

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

Links to PR, FAC and MHPR can be found on article's talk page. Of those, I'd recommend reading FAC as it has some interesting - if unsourced and perhaps POVed - objections I'd very much appreciated further comments on. I am currently reading a biography of JP which I plan to use to expand the article, possibly addressing some of the mentioned objections (if I can find any reference to their claims), and renominate the article for FAC in the near future. Any comments or edits you can make to help the article will be very appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support It's a very good article.UberCryxic 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is sure nice, it just needs some tweaking and a touch of NPOV to make it to FA. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 10:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis naval activity in Australian waters

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

• Support Although I think the notes-links-references sections needs to be reorganized. Carom 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very accurate, extremely well sourced, and well written. It deserves A status. I would agree yet again with Carom that the notes-links-references sections needs to be reorganized, but it should still get A status. old windy bear 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment As a person who has done a lot of work on this article I won't vote on this, but could you please provide more details on your prefered organisation of the notes-links-references section? Thanks, --Nick Dowling 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The prefered order is, to the best of my knowledge, Notes, References, External LInks/See Also. This is slightly more intuitive and more closely mirrors the form of academic works. Carom 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Preferred order is notes, references, external links. old windy bear 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support as above. Wandalstouring 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very well sourced, and very comprehensive; my only concern is the length, really. UnDeadGoat 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Schellenberg

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

• Support Carom 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I hope this gets nominated for FA soon.UberCryxic 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work - Vedexent (talk) - 11:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support oldwindybear Outstanding writing - could use a bit more cites, but article is still easily worthy of at least A status.
• Support. Very informative, an excellent showing of maps. I have but one one question, A female dragoon, Christian Welsh?--206.123.2.121 12:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make a note in the article (note No 19) "Christian Welsh, known also as Mother Ross or Mrs Davies, had concealed her identity and enlisted in the army as a man in 1693." Raymond Palmer 14:04, 3 October 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] 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] Cyrus the Great

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Carom 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support with comment The last paragraphs of the conquest of Lydia should be reveised to correct the Pactyes/Pactyas mix up, wich is hte real one or are they two different people. Also in the prior paragraph the pointform of Cyrus' conquest of Croesus should be worked over. As well, why is it mentionned " including Syria and Palestine", their modern names, while the rest of the article speaks of the states and territories' names as known then? Lastly the map should be moved higheri nthe article, due to all the movments and cities mentioned (If possible indicating these cities would be appeaciated).--Dryzen 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gettysburg, First Day

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Carom 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well refernced, very interesting (although as a native Pennsylvanian I find everything about good ole PA to be interesting), and definatly worthy of A class. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Grande Armée

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears to be well written, certainly covers the topic in great detail, and I have no real problems with the format. However, the citing is sparse, which I find problematic. Carom 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support with comment I am impressed by the sheer quantity of information presented on the Grande Armée. A truly marvelous job of research and the sectioning was also much enjoyable. Yet there where a few instances that could use some last minute polish: the render of french cannons as the image of the grand armée is disapointing. The Général de Division is said to have been the commander of a Division and at the same time possibly in charge of a corps? For the later's explinative sentence it could be made a little clearer. "nicknamed Picadors of the Hell or "Los Diablos Polacos" (The Polish Devils) by the Spanish" could the former be veryfied or fixed, of the hell is a rather strange adjective and I am not at all familiar with Picadors. Why are the infantry paragraph built diffrently than the cavalry paragraphs (this I can normalise)? It is by far, though, a long read and could benifit from seperate articles, when detailing the Army and its history, possibly for the tactics as well.--Dryzen 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support with comment Agree with Dryzen that some sentences need polish. It is also lacking in citations, for example - Were it not for the poor quality of French cavalry following the Russian campaign, these triumphs may have been decisive enough to permanently conclude the war there and then. I would like to see details like this cited if it goes for FAC. The picture in the info box is very poor. Great work overall though. Raymond Palmer 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support with confusion, not a comment. How was this article A-class before being reviewed?UberCryxic 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  All the articles tagged as A-Class before the review system was put into place are (slowly) going through it now. Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is some inconsistency regarding the citations - in some places, points of minor importance are cited (and even have two citations) while larger claims (or claims that maight prove contentious) are not cited at all. The article has a lot of citations, but I'm not entirely sure that they are well distributed. Otherwise, it is well written and appears to treat the topic fairly well. Carom 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I make no comment to agree or disagree with Carom; I'm not sure on the quality and distribution of the citations. But there are quite a few of them, the article is quite lengthy and seemingly thorough, and there's lots of good images. LordAmeth 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Concur with LordAmeth on this one. Article is well written and very informative.--Looper5920 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Carom 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 02:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Medains 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I must say, though, I am amused that our coverage of Gettysburg is thorough and detailed enough to warrant separate articles for separate days of the conflict. Very very few battles have merited that. Props to those working on this topic. LordAmeth 18:20, 21 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] First Macedonian War

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

• Support No complaints here. Carom 02:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The mention of "in Dardania or perhaps Paionia" should be changed to better indicate that the borders of these territories are obscure or simply cut the supporting information. Also, I would of liked to have seen some information on the peace treaties and what they entailled.--Dryzen 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Needs an Aftermath though Raymond Palmer 11:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support although the lead needs to be strengthened a bit.UberCryxic 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support though I would also love a bigger lead section. Ikokki 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The King's Regiment (Liverpool)

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

• Support Carom 20:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good article.UberCryxic 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support An excellent article which has a real potential to reach FA status. --Nick Dowling 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object to few inline citations --plange 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Boone

Just peer reviewed this for Kevin and it appears A-class to me --plange 00:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks fine to me, well set-out. Quite well referenced, and cited. Raymond Palmer 13:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Carom 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Sourced and tidy Wandalstouring 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tent pegging

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

• Support It's very short, but I can't say that it could be that much longer. It's also well-sourced. Carom 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 06:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Same reasoning as above KingPenguin 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The introduction is very short. A lot of single sentence paragraphs. Needs a lot more ‘flesh on the bones’ on all sections. Lacking in any detail. Sorry, B-Class at best.Raymond Palmer 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Battle of Kharkov

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

• Support. Longer, more detailed, with more maps, pictures, and footnotes than many articles on far larger topics. As with the other articles, I must admit I have only skimmed and read nearly nothing, but I would very much imagine based on the length, the section headers and the maps, pictures, and diagrams, that this is a fairly exhaustive analysis of the battle. Few battles have this long and detailed an article. LordAmeth 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support I wouldn't complain about more citations, but I'm willing to pass this one. Carom 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Trigg

pre-review A class article. No comment on quality as I'm the main editor... --plange 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some more citations possible. Wandalstouring 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Carom 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Cla68 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Persian Wars

• Initial nomination

Assessing the article for WP:GREECE I saw a paradox. The article passed in 2006 an A-Class review, but then (in the same month!) failed GA review! I think that it should be reassessed by the project, in order to see whether this paradox (a WP:MILHIST projet A-Class article to have failed GA review) should remain or not.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments -

1. The lead seems short, and should probably be expanded to at least two paragraphs (apart from the guideline to have one sentence per section).
2. A few of the footnotes should be grouped.
3. I don't like the tables in the forces section, and I think the forces should be written out. Perhaps provide a table (laid out horizontally to save scrolling and huge white spaces) for a visual reference.
4. Under the Peace of Callias, I think the treaty terms should be provided in paragraph form. It seems unprofessional to me, but I may be wrong.
5. The article probably needs a thorough copy edit, but I'm not the best person to judge!

These are some things I saw. I will give it a more thorough look over later or tomorrow. JonCatalan (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment eliminate all unsourced material that was inserted since the A-class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basiliscus

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I recently did a peer review of this article and my concerns were handled. On a side note, Kirill, can you take a look at the comment I had on citation method in the peer review. I don't know enough to answer him on that :-) --plange 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Carom 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Cla68 05:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The picture of Hagia Sophia is miseleading, as that construction was the third and grandest on the site and resembles little to the smaller church of the 4th century. Therefore should be remouved or replaced.Dryzen 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)