Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008
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. |  |
[edit] Promoted
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Verdeja (tank)
- Promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating the article Verdeja due to the amount of time I've spent working on it and its recent promotion to Good Article status. Furthermore, due to the lack of comments on the peer review I believe it has a good chance to make A-class. This bars necessary changes that might have to be made before people support the promotion, but these changes will be made when the issue is brought up. Ultimately, my ambition is to make it a featured article. In any case, thank you all for your time. JonCatalan (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The article uses both Armor and Armour. The rest of the spelling seems to be US, so consistent spelling should be applied. Also, is it "reequip" or "re-equip"? Not sure myself. Also, the metric units quoted in the article should use the {{convert}} template with conversions to imperial/US units. Leithp 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Single years aren't usually linked, unless part of a date, i.e. 1 January 2000. Leithp 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Due to issues with the converter, including my failed attempt to change it to confer from meters to feet and inches I decided to do the conversions manually. From a look at other articles, it seems that these conversions are only necessary in the info box. Would I be correct to assume so? I think it would be a bit cluttered if I were to include these conversions for each unit of measurement I used throughout the article. From input from IRC the word should be re-equip; thank you for catching that. Single years and single months have been 'de-linked', and the reference of 'armour' has been changed to 'armor'. JonCatalan (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't convert 75 mm etc, I agree with you there. There are a few km/h speeds and perhaps some others that would be worth doing, though. Leithp 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Did you get them all? I noticed that some were converted when I started to edit. If so, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think so, apart from the comparison table. Would the comparison table be better placed at the end? I'm not sure. Leithp 08:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you confirm from the source that it was M37 and M44 howitzers that the US offered? I couldn't find any references to these guns on Wikipedia, which is surprising. Leithp 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Did you get them all? I noticed that some were converted when I started to edit. If so, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't convert 75 mm etc, I agree with you there. There are a few km/h speeds and perhaps some others that would be worth doing, though. Leithp 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to find the Wikipedia articles, as well. In specific, according to the stated source Spain received 12 M44 (155/23) and 18 M37 (105/19). To the right is an image of what I believe to a M37 of the Spanish Army (it looks similar to the historic photographs provided by my source). Here is an online source on the M37 and here an online source on the M44. Unfortunately, I don't believe I have an image of the M44 as they don't have one at the base of El Goloso; although, they do have a 203mm self-propelled artillery piece not covered by the source! And, regarding the comparison table, I'm not sure. I put it where it's at to offer some type of review of sorts. JonCatalan (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Interesting. Well, assuming you add the unit conversions to the table, I think I can quite happily Support. A nice article, very comprehensive. Leithp 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment
-
- There are several sources in the bibliography (notably the "García, Dionisío" ones) that lack a "retrieved on" statistic. Judging by the formatting of them, I'll take it that these are magazine/journal articles. Even so, you should still put the "retrieved on" date on that citation template.
- On that note, is it possible to find a web-version of the articles listed? It would be helpful in citing the sources (most modern-journals are published as both hard-copy & web-format, at least from what I've seen)
- I've done a quick copyedit of the lead.
- Other than that, looks good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unfortunately, SERGA does not have web-versions of their articles. Yes, anything that does not have a retrieved date is from journals or books that I have published on paper. JonCatalan (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm able to take all of this stuff in stride. Seeing as there are virtually no other issues arising from the article, you have my
- Thank you. Unfortunately, SERGA does not have web-versions of their articles. Yes, anything that does not have a retrieved date is from journals or books that I have published on paper. JonCatalan (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all requirements now. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comments.
- I think the outline could use some minor tweaking. It looks a little odd to have the Verdeja 1 as an H3 and the Verdeja 2 as an H2.
- Rif War needs to be disambiguated.
- Are the ten FT-17's Spain had at the start of the Civil War the same ones from 1919? If possible, it should be made clear.
- I'd change the sentance "The lack of armor prompted the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Italy to supply both the Popular Front and the Nationalist armies with light tanks", it reads like the SU, Germany and Italy were each supporting both sides. Perhaps "At the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, light tanks were supplied to the Spanish Nationalists by Germany and Italy, while the Spanish Republic was supplied by the Soviet Union."
- I think there's a bit to much mostly unrelated material in the article. Things like the upgunning of the Panzer I should probably be kept in a place like Foreign support during the Spanish Civil War.
- The comparison table should probably go at or near the bottom of the article, it would also help if the column and row headings were in bold and borders were added.
- I would try to get pictures of the Panzer I and T-26 that show the tanks at the same angle and accurately proportional in size to each other. Putting them into a single image montage would be of use.
- To make the images a bit more clear, you might want to grey out the background, like that done here.
Oberiko (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! Here is a point by point response/confirmation -
-
- I made Verdeja 2 H3 and changed the overall H2 header to 'Develope of the tank'.
- Done!
- I cleared it up in the footnote, since it would have been a bit clunky to add it to the text.
- I changed the sentece to: The lack of armor prompted the Soviet Union to supply the Popular Front and Nazi Germany and Italy to supply the Nationalist Front with light tanks.
- The idea was to give a general background history of upgrade attempts on the existing fleet of tanks, in order to provide the country's justification for the Verdeja program. For example, had the Panzer Is been sufficiently upgraded I don't believe that the Verdeja would have gotten as far as it did.
- Since you're the second member to suggest it, I will do it. However, I put it there to offer some type of introduction/overview before the reader went right into the text. But, if this opinion is flawed, then I will move it without a problem!
- I will try next time I go to the El Goloso armor base, here in Madrid, but I'm not sure when I can go. Unfortunately, it's not an open museum (as in, you can't just walk in).
- I'm not sure how to do that.
-
- I will fix these issues as soon as they're cleared up! JonCatalan (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Here is a point by point response/confirmation -
Comment Rather good. I enjoyed it. The biggest likeliest cause of trouble at FAC is the sources, which are mostly in Spanish, though this depends whether anyone picks it up. The applicable guideline is WP:RSUE. This basically says that for self-translations you need to provide the original text. I think you may have to change the way this is footnoted for compliance. Perhaps you could separate the source from its citation, in separate footnotes and references sections (see Operation Camargue for an example). Next in Footnotes, you could perhaps include the essence in Spanish of what you are relying on, with the translation. Imaginary example:
-
- ^998 Diaz (1957), p 45. En enero de 1939, se terminó el diseño del primer prototipo ("The first prototype was finished in January 1938")
--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You might be correct, but I rather wait until it's brought up in the FAC. A lot of the footnotes cite over two pages (understandably, this book goes into much more depth than the article), and I think that this would be impossible to copy over. Some of the smaller claims, in my opinion, are not extraordinary. But, I rather wait and see. Or, do you suggest otherwise? I honestly don't know, and most of the time would rather play it safe, but this would actually be quite the task! JonCatalan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Up to you entirely :) As a halfway house, you might split cites and refs prior to FAC, to make it easier to add text later if you need to. But again this is your decision :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- You might be correct, but I rather wait until it's brought up in the FAC. A lot of the footnotes cite over two pages (understandably, this book goes into much more depth than the article), and I think that this would be impossible to copy over. Some of the smaller claims, in my opinion, are not extraordinary. But, I rather wait and see. Or, do you suggest otherwise? I honestly don't know, and most of the time would rather play it safe, but this would actually be quite the task! JonCatalan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] HMS Cardiff (D108)
I've acted on the issues raised when it passed it's GA review and I have aspirations for the article to one day make the FA grade. Also can you guys look at all the pics there is on commons, how many should I have in the article? Are they laid out correctly? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not 100% sure this article is ready for A-class, but that may be because this is the first A-class review I've contributed to, plus I have high standards. Below is a list of things I feel need working on between now and a run for FA... I leave it to those more knowledgeable of the A-class process to determine which of these need to be dealt with now as opposed to later.
- The article is not, in my opinion, comprehensive. It is missing large chunks of the ship's history. From my read of the article, the ship did not exist between 1980 and April 1982, late 1982 to late 1990, and for assorted individual years between 1991 and decommissioning in 2005, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that the ship did exactly nothing in those years.
Photo captions. The two photos of aircraft in the Falklands War section could use a little more context... at first glance it seems out-of-place to have pictures of Argentine aircraft in an article on a British destroyer. Adding a second sentance explaining the photo's relevance to Cardiff would be the way to go (i.e. to the Canberra bomber image add "...2. This aircraft, shot down by Cardiff, was the last Argentine aircraft shot down during the Falklands War.") Overall, use of images is pretty good, no other complaints.Some of the sentances could use breaking up, as combined they don't seem very logical, and are sometimes quite awkward. For example, "She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate, her bell has been mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff." to me reads a lot better as She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate. Her bell has been removed and is mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff. (underlined text added by me).- Needs a good hard copyedit, but what article (up to and beyond FA status) doesn't?
- A piece of advice: Grab the Wikipedia:Manual of style and go through everything you can. This will save you heartache at FA.
- Any further questions/comments.. talk to me. -- saberwyn 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It does need further copyediting. Ryan has submitted a request at WP:LoCE (an MHL request should also be considered). I don't know whether the ship's activities in those years you've mentioned were documented by published sources (Google hasn't yielded information of relevance). Articles are representative of the coverage of a subject and the availability of sources. Presently, in my opinion, there does not appear to be major omissions that would seriously undermine the comprehensiveness of the article. In terms of utilising available sources, HMS Cardiff (D108) appears to be more than adequately comprehensive to satisfy A-class criterion. SoLando (Talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I have moved the images around to fit WP:MOS#Images. This was primarily because section headers were distorted due to images. I agree that it needs a very good and deep copyedit before any attempt at FA. That being said I agree with Solando, this is comprehensive in it's use of available sources. Woody (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Woody I've had to revert your move on the TC-92 pic, as it looks like this ( Image:Cardiff distort.jpg ) on Internet Explorer. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Looks like this ( Image:Cardiff distort 2.jpg ) now Woody. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Also, I was told by TomStar (main contributor to FA class article, USS Wisconsin) that the pics had to be by their relevant sections of text. Otherwise I'd have some much "cooler" pics lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (Note, use {{wikipedia-screenshot}} as the licence for anymore screenshots). Yes, I know Tom well and he has edited many great articles, not just the Wisconsin and he is correct in saying that, per WP:MOS#Images. As far as I know I have not detached them from the relevant sections. Yet, as it is, the second Sea Dart image is distorting the header for the Gulf War section. I will ask around to get some comments on it. Woody (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well the 2nd Sea Dart image can probably go, it's only loosely affiliated to that paragraph due to the "Cardiff fired a total of nine Sea Darts". In fact I'd love some help in picking out appropiate images for the article, have you looked at Commons page? As you can see there's loads of em! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Support Comprehensive article, well documented. But some comments, though:
- As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
- Lots of parenthetical comments. Consider whether they are necessary in this article. If they are necessary, they really don't need to be in parentheses; if not necessary, they ought to be removed. Example: "… on the Armilla Patrol (a small group of British warships that spent six months at a time in the Gulf)." If it's key to understanding the duty in this article, set the comment off by commas; otherwise it should go away.
- There are quite a few terms in in quote marks, but most seem to be standard terms that don't need quotes. Example: "…designed as "anti-aircraft" vessels…" Unless there's a compelling reason, anti-aircraft shouldn't be quoted.
- Not sure what the final photograph really adds to the article. If it were a close-up of the rusty name or it showed the whole ship as it's laid up it might contribute more to the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
-
- Thankyou for your support, both of you;
-
-
- In regards to the brackets, me and saberwyn are working on merging them into the article (and a copy edit), on his sandbox. All the bracketed information was added by me in an attempt to Exjarg
- In regards to the last pic, there is a pic similar to what you've requested (
), However I've posted a logic why I chose the "rusted name" pic instead here (number 5)
-
- Comment(s) I have just now gotten home, and having pulled four continious 18-hour days in a row I am not thinking as clearly as I would if fully rested. Having said that I did see a few things that could do with some adressing:
- I think we've all ID the need for a thourough copyedit, unfutenetly I do not possess the skills needed to aid with that.
- As noted above, see about removing the parenthasis and quoate marks from the article body unless there is a good reason for retaining them.
- Make sure the external links meet MoS requirements, and check to ensure that the notes section is properly formatted (some links appear on the surface to be the same, like #66 & #67; they may need reformatting for proper viewing). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can help with this, if you explain the situation she will either handle it her or refer you to someone who can help. *I may add more after I take a nap, so keep an eye out for additional info. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have fixed up the links, stray "|"s were breaking the templates. I have used the {{Londongazette}} templates which are really useful as well. In terms of format, I don't like including news.bbc.co.uk., BBC will suffice. After looking at these refs, some of these are not up to standard. Anything with the word blogspot is generally not reliable, personal self-published webpages are not very good. If you need help regarding these, Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) is good at these. Woody (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Early thermal weapons
Self-nom I am submitting this article as part of the process of moving towards FAC. It recently gained GA status, and a reviewer indicated it is not far from FA standard. Having written the article myself, I feel it would benefit from other eyes, particularly those knowledgeable in military history. I hope this review will highlight areas which need working on, and also that by bringing the article to a wider audience it might attract further contributions. I am interested in your comments, and encourage editors to add more to the article as appropriate. Many thanks. Gwinva (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent work nothing wrong with it. chris19910 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Objection You are too much centered on powers around the Mediterranean. The article is very stubby and the choice of example could better be justified(for example you talk and length about Congreve rockets and don't mention Indian rocketry). The sources on modern warfare are questionable, for example the Greek fire siphon was not used in land warfare, and the modern flamethrower not in sea warfare, tracing a direct lineage is nonsense. The use of ballistae in WWI needs to be checked, I do know about catapults and onagers, but that is new to me and I have doubts that it was as widespread as the article suggests. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- response:
- Stubby? What do you mean? I have tried to write concisely, yet also provide a good number of examples so people might build up a picture of what was going on and relate it to various situations. Do you feel the writing style is not worthy of A class? Or needs work for FA? Or do you feel each section is not sufficiently expansive? If I am to improve the article based on your criticism, I need a better idea of your concerns.
- "centred on mediterranean". I have tried to mix the examples up throughout the main body of the article, taking examples from China, India, Islamic world, Eastern Europe etc as well as the West, and consider it fairly balanced both geographically and across the time span. It is a massive topic and provides a summary of the types of weapons found throughout the world throughout the period (with a few, selected, examples to illustrate), rather than a detailed analysis of every development and every use in every country. However the concluding Later development section is, I admit, a little western-centred, but not exclusively so. In terms of improving this article to FA standard, this section could be made more comprehensive, but I do not consider its current status insufficient for A class recognition. ("A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the [FA]criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article.")
- There might not be direct lineage between Greek siphons and modern flamethrowers, but the concept of using a device to deliver an inflammable liquid is the same. (I shall look at my wording to ensure this is made clear.) Early devices (such as, but not limited to, the siphon) threw inflammable liquids made from (variously) petrol, oil and naptha. WWI flamethrowers were devices to throw inflammable liquids made from petrol and oil (Haythornthwaite, p. 73) and modern flamethrowers use Napalm, from naptha. Sea or land? Well, the siphon was used at sea, but other devices were used on land. In modern times, flamethrowers are used at sea in close actions (which is the type of action used in early naval warfare). See, for example, [1], [2] and our own Flamethrower article (which also draws parrallels with Greek fire).
- The use of ballistae and other throwing machines in WWI may not have been widespread but it certainly occurred. The full quote from Nososv (pp. 184-5) is a follows:
"During World War I, after several centuries of oblivion, various countries effectively used fairly small throwing machines resembling the onager or ballista (true, the torsion-spring was replaced by powerful springs) in trench warfare; they were used for launching high explosive shells and incendiary missiles into enemy trenches."
-
-
- Nossov includes sketches of these machines, which are certainly onager and ballista forms. I can't show you these, but Commons has the following, different, example (right). Nossov goes on to describe British experiments with antique-style throwing machines in 1940 for throwing incendiary weapons at German tanks. In ref to WWI, Haythornthwaite also makes reference to "a number of ancient catapults and the like used in the early stages of the war" (p. 180). If you are interested in the later use of throwing machines, I am sure a search of texts will yield more examples. Gwinva (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] USS Bridgeport (AD-10)
I would like to have this article undergo an A-class review, with an eye on a possible future FA candidacy. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Object, lots of paragraphs are unreferenced, the article is long, but I don't think that it would pass an A-class review for a while, until it has the references, and probably untill it has reached GA-Class, which I do not think it is right now. ~ Dreamy § 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Lose the history header. The entire article is history, so in this case it would be better to make your sub header the primary headers.
- Entire sections of the article have no inline citations, but DANFS and other sources are given in the table. Some of those citations need to be in the article body, otherwise this article will get shot down by FAC Anti-Ariticle guns.
- Good job on finding images for the article.
- I doubt it, but do you happen to know if this ship was part of a larger class? I'm guessing no, and I won't hold this against you if you can't find any info, but it would be nice to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know but suspect that SS Brandenburg (1902) of Norddeutscher Lloyd was probably a sister ship. They were about the same gross tonnage, built at the same shipyard, and had more or less the same dimensions (per info gleaned from de:Norddeutscher Lloyd#Passagierschiffe). Also, an image of Brandenburg (here) bears a striking resemblance to Breslau/Bridgeport. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, at the moment. As Dreamafter points out, there is a need for more rigorous citation. I would also suggest that you expand the lead a little, but that's a relatively minor complaint at this point. Carom (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)- Support the addition of inline citations does much to improve the article. I am happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Cold War
Good an interesting article, which in my opinion can be more than a B-class. I'd like to see some comments regarding it, and if there is anything to be done in it, I would be happy to do it. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support Good article. A few small things: mixes American spellings (defense) and British ones (defence)—pick one and stick to it; sometimes uses U.S. instead of US (change to US for consistency with other abbreviations); uses hyphen instead of en dash (alt+0150) in date ranges; and once uses {{cquote}} (deprecated) instead of {{bquote}} (recommended). --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, i'll take care of them soon. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Check the second paragraph under 'End of the Cold War' - there are two Harvard references needing to be converted. Also the 'Cold War Veterans' is totally US-centric and cannot stay the way it is. What about the veterans from all the African and Asian conflicts, the UK, China, France, and the USSR in Korea and Afghanistan? But these are nitpicks - overall, the article is quite good, but needs sweeping through for such things. Also there's a question over what it should cover - not much mention of Middle Eastern conflicts, or the confrontation in Germany and chances of war there, for example. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I converted the refs and did a minor edit in the veterans section, but I have no idea what to do else. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I think it meets A-class standards. I feel, however, that it could still be improved. Brief mention could be made of the times when U.S. and Soviet forces did engage each other, such as the 10 - 20 U.S. reconnaisance aircraft which were shot down by Soviet forces in and around Soviet territory. Also, there should be plenty of public domain photos of U.S. fighters shadowing Soviet bombers, nuclear weapons being tested, nuclear missiles being transported or sited, NATO and Warsaw Pact forces maneuvering, etc that could be added to the article since it has room for more images. Cla68 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Hans-Joachim Marseille
The article passed GA without much problem. I think it can achieve A-class as well soon. Let's see what is missing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I find the excess number of tables begining about 1/2 the way down the article distracting; while I will not oppose for this I am curious to know why the information couldn;r simply be in paragraph form.
- Otherwise, it looks good. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. As Tom points out, the lists and tables at the bottom might give you some trouble if you nominate the article for Featured status. But, I don't have a problem with them. Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the "summary" would be better in a table form and not a bulleted list. Is it not covered in the text anyway? I don't like the garish colours as well. I think the memorial would look better as a blockquote, or at least with no colour. The same goes for "The references in the Wehrmachtsbericht" in terms of colour. I don't think it would get through FAC. Woody (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks everyone for the constructive review effort. I feel that I need to comment on why I chose to present some of the information in a color-coded table. Roughly 60% percent of my references are available in German language only (at least to my knowledge), this includes the pictures/copies of the actual German documents as available via the references I state in the article. To present this data, very evident in the section of the Wehrmachtsbericht, I had to translate this information from German to English myself. Some editor may find my wording strange or not inline with future literature available in the English-speaking world. The German quotes in the article are the exact wording of my references. I consider it therefore undisputable. The red coded text is my translation should be subject to improvements by other editors. Now I am hesitant to change this style on the basis of personal preferences by some of the editors alone (which does not mean I will not change this, please point to style guides). I am looking for more guidance on how to convey this message. Thanks again for the great work.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article is good per overall, but I found some problems with referencing:
- 1.Marseille's kill rate was slow, and he went from June to August without a victory. He was further frustrated after damage forced him to land on two occasions: once on 14 June and again after he was hit by ground fire over Tobruk and was forced to land blind. - this sentence needs a ref; Done
- 2.To counter German fighter attacks, the Allied pilots flew "Lufbery circles" (in which each aircraft's tail was covered by the friendly aircraft behind). The tactic was effective and dangerous as a pilot attacking this formation could find himself constantly in the sights of enemy pilots. Marseille often dived at high speed into the middle of these enemy defensive formations from either above or below, executing a tight turn and firing a two-second deflection shot to destroy an enemy aircraft. He attacked under conditions many considered unfavorable, but his marksmanship allowed him to make an approach fast enough to escape the return fire of the two aircraft flying on either flank of the target. Marseille's excellent eyesight made it possible for him to spot the enemy before he was spotted, allowing him to take the appropriate action and manoeuvre himself into position for an attack. - this entire paragraph would certainly need referencing; Done Mike Spick in his book (pages 120 to 124) gives a good (incl. Graphical) description of Marseille’s fighting style. The part pertaining to the article is on page 123.MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- 3.Marseille flew four different Bf 109F-4/Trop aircraft: - this would also need a ref; Done
- 4.Regarding the "Victory claims and notable actions" section, I propose to restructure it and post the source for all those claims (which is Wübbe if I noticed properly) somewhere at the top of the section. Done converted to table as sugested before. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1.Marseille's kill rate was slow, and he went from June to August without a victory. He was further frustrated after damage forced him to land on two occasions: once on 14 June and again after he was hit by ground fire over Tobruk and was forced to land blind. - this sentence needs a ref;
After this issues will be fixed, I will support the nomination. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Just one more thing - Marseille's 151 claims in North Africa included: - this needs a ref. Done However, i'm going to support the nomination, even if I don't think it will pass an FAC in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Failed
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Battle of Posada
Even if it's a quite short article, I think it could meet the requirements in my opinion. However, suggestions and comments would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks decent, with a few potential tweaks. If only for visual appeal, it should not be one block of text. I'd end the introduction with "For Wallachia, the victory meant the continual survival of the young state". Logically, then, the first point is the background of alliances, enmities, events, etc. before the battle. "In 1324, Wallachia was a vassal of Hungary, and Robert referred to Basarab as "our Transalpine Voivode."[3] That might start with "The war started with encouragement from the Voivode of Transylvania[5] and a certain Dionisie, who later bore the title Ban of Severin.[3] In 1330, Robert captured the Wallachian citadel of Severin and handled it to the Transylvanian Voivode."
- The location needs to move down, perhaps to a heading Preliminaries and Battle.[5] Basarab sent envoys that asked for the hostilities to cease, and in return offered to pay 7,000 marks in silver, submit the fortress of Severin to Robert, and send his own son as hostage.[5] According to the Viennese Illuminated Chronicle, a contemporary account, Robert would have said about Basarab: He is the shepherd of my sheep, and I will take him out of his mountains, dragging him off his beard. Another account writes that Robert said that he will drag the Voivode from his cottage, as would any driver his oxen or shepherd his sheep.[5]
- Even a brief Aftermath and significance section would help. You might restate the victory from the introduction. Add, minimally, the last sentence, and perhaps a bit more about the balance of regional power afterwards. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Length is not generally a problem, but as Howard points out, it should still really be divided into sections - he suggests "Background," "Battle" and "Aftermath," and that seems logical to me. The image that currently appears at the top left corner should probably be moved, as well. Carom (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I expanded it a bit and think it covers now all the sections. Would there be anything else? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Remove the images of the commanders from the infobox. Wikify the use of bold text. Give the sources and dates of all images in their descriptions. Is this battle just such a short affair without any scholars researching the battle dispositions? And the numbers should be based on a historians work(with a reference!) since 30,000 Medieval soldiers being all killed by 10,000 shepherds without military training sounds like a fairytale. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agincourt was against trained soldiers(widely regarded as the elite of medieval archers, plus the infantry fought in a morast that hindered movement of the heavier armed French troops and thus allowed archers and billmen to kill them with swift attacks), not a levy of untrained shepherds and peasants (these were also unlikely to attack with swords, a weapon that does require a lot of training). Where is the source about how many were not professional soldiers and what were the arms of these professionals? I can read that it was an ambush, but still killing 30,000 with 10,000 is rather difficult. If there is a large contingent of archers(light infantry can be used with minimal training in formations as long as they have plenty of experience in aiming with their distance weapon) it could work(for example shepherds using the bow and shooting from above, that gives the arrow enough power to penetrate a gambeson), but that is the only weapon in medieval warfare that could do this. So all in all, it would be desireable if you found more sources on how exactly the troops were composed. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Again, read the article carefully before making such comments. Basarab's army was not formed of a "levy of untrained shepherds". As stated in the article, Basarab's army numbered less than 10,000 men and comprised of cavalry, pedestrian archers and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds. And, the source is mentioned. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I can READ. You just mentioned that 70-80%("about 70-80% were sheperds") of his force were the levy. Where is THAT sourced? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- And to make this article finally achieve A class you should try to find out how the Hungarian army was composed. I know that they were composed of lots of crossbow archers and heavy cavalry when facing the Mongols, but I don't know how it was at Posada. Furthermore the levy requires some more information whether in Wallachia the peasants and shepherds were allowed to hunt and use weapons(in many medieval European states these were restricted). Another point is the amarment of the Wallachian archers. On the contemporary images it looks like they wield recurve bows. Is that correct? A big question is how the entrapping was achieved. I think that small contingents of heavily armed warriors were needed to trap the Hungarians in the pass, but that's only guesswork. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I was wrong when I stated that the Wallachian army was composed of 70% shepherds. Djuvara says the Hungarian army is actually the main Hungarian army, excepting a contingent which was sent in Poland. I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article or not. The shepherds were recruited by Basarab on his way to the location of the battle, so were automatically allowed to carry weapons. However, in the XIV century Wallachia was a poor organized young state, so of course anyone was allowed to hunt and use weapons. Regarding the other details, i'll have a look over the sources, but I doubt such fine details are available. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine.
- 1.It would greatly benefit the article if you found out how many professional soldiers Basarab I had. I'm sure there are some estimates since we do know how much money he was willing to offer. A short note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry arms and that the country wasn't very organized would help to give the reader a better picture of the situation.
- 2. How did this defeat affect Hungary. Did the army composition or total number of troops change afterwards(and what was it during the battle)? Did they become more peaceful towards their neighbours? Did the king rule without much opposition because many nobles were dead? Was the king the only one to make good his escape?
- 3. What kind of weapons did the Wallachians wield(bows, polearms, long knifes, some swords)? They are depicted with recurve bows. Were these small or large recurve bows(could the same bows be used on horseback or not?Wandalstouring (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1.The only information we have is already mentioned in the article, "Basarab's army was formed of pedestrian archers, cavalry and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds". Sincerelly, a note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry weapons would be absurd in our case and not at all appropiate. We already mentioned in the article that Wallachia was a young country, and however, details about XIV century Wallachia can be found in the Wallachia main article.
- 2.Of course this battle didn't represent such a big disaster for Hungary, which was one of the most powerfull kingdoms in Europe at that time. Of course the Romanian source which I cited (Djuvara) doesn't give many details regarding the aftermath of the Hungarian side. Also I see no connection of King's rule after the battle with this article, as eventual internal problems resulting from this battle would have nothing to do with this article (as it would not necessary represent the aftermath).
- 3.Information available states that Wallachian pedestrian used bows. Actually, there was some controversies that the Wallachian warriors would have used lances, but this was later denied by Djuvara stating that this was imposible because the lance can be used only once, in close combat. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- 3. That a lance can only be used once in close combat is new to me. It depends on where the enemy is hit(ribcage is the area were lances and other pointy weapons are sometimes trapped).
- 1,2&3. OK, your source dosn't mention all that. So try to get more sources, what you present is rather meagre regarding research.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stop bickering. If this article was good someone would already have given support for its promotion. The issue with the bows is just minor, but good research could provide the answer. I don't think it is fit for A-class, but I try to help you. However, if researching the issue is too difficult, I can try that too, but this will take me some time because I have to finish other wikiwork. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some more sources:
- Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
- Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.
- I think they probably discuss the location, but could contain useful info.
- Bertényi Iván: Magyarország az Anjouk korában, Gondolat – 1987, ISBN 9633817761
- Képes Krónika (Hasonmás kiadás), Helikon – 1987
- I'm sure there are more recent Hungarian works.
- The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz does also contain a section on the battle. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- In 1324 there was an encounter between Basarab and Charles in which the Wallachian forces were defeated. That should be part of the background because it was also a dispute centered around Severin.
- In 1337 Charles was in alliance with Poland against the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg. After such a crushing defeat it is worth mentioning.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Under the Hungarian successor the struggle continued, plus Wallachia was still officially under the Hungarian suzeranity. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Rezachevici is cited 9 times in Djuvara's book, and Johann de Thurocz also. Unfortunately, i'm unable to speak hungarian. However, Djuvara also gathered the most important Hungarian sources and chronicals. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Try for example to quote directly what the primary sources say (look at Jean d'Arc for example). The Romanian wiki is full of quotes, perhaps there is something that can be used. Also the battles before and after this event should be mentioned as suggested and the legal status against the de facto status of Wallachia. I found a source on the arms in Eastern Europe during this time, however, it is not available in a library on the continent, so it will take some time to add info. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Objection and a to do list:
- Background: Mention Wallachian defeat in 1324 and the resulting suzeranity of Hungaria. Plus that this conflict was already about Severin.
- Battle: The narrative of the battle doesn't make sense. How can Wallachian warriors attack with swords when they are above the Hungarians, shooting arrows and throwing stones? Please check your sources whether there is any mention of one or two small contingents blocking the escape routes. Theory of the attack with lances should be briefly discussed(how did it originate and why is it dismissed).
The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz depicts a cavalry battle. Please check this source whether there is a description of cavalry encounters(entrace and exit?).
- Aftermath: Mention that Hungaria is in 1337 again at war, this time with the Holy Roman Empire, thus has rebuilt its army(short note about the immense financial power possible). Mention the de facto independence and the de jure suzeranity of the Hungarian king until the diplomatic dispute is solved (1340?).
Mention that under Charles's (died 1342) successor the military conflict with the Hungarian king would continue.
- Location of the battle: Create new section after the aftermath and mention the four theories where the battle possibly took place.
Check these sources for information and check the literature your sources used:
- Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
- Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.
- Armament: I found a source on the topic and thus possibly a section can be provided, however, a minor issue.
- Legal status of the peasants and shepherds: Whether or not they were allowed to carry arms has nothing to do how young a nation is. If they were allowed to have arms in contrast to other European subjects, than provide this with a source.
- Unfortunately no such source exist. Since they were fighting, of course they could carry arms. Just tell me a XIV century state, in which the use of arms was prohibited (sourced).
- Citations: provide some appropriate citations from the primary sources (example: Jean d'Arc).
If you have done all demanded in this to do list (except the armament) then I have no more objections against promoting it to A class.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sincerelly, we shouldn't mention those four theories regarding the location of the battle because at least two of them are completely wrong (Djuvara concluded that the locations of Prahova and Argeş should be excluded).--Eurocopter (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree. As long as these theories exists we have to mention them, especially since other historians made them. If your source proves it wrong, we have to show how this sources proves the mistake. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I can't agree with this, introducing false information in the article may disinform. So, i'd rather let this article fail this review rather than continue with this false. Just think, why would an army coming from Visegrád (going to Curtea de Argeş) choose a 600km-longer route through Valea Prahovei? Let's be serious.. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest we include in this article all possible errors and misinformations made by historians through the time. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment. I assume that the source for Djuvara, Neagu. is actually Thocomerius - Negru Voda. Un voivod de origine cumana la inceputurile Tarii Romanesti (Bucharest: Humanitas. ISBN 978-973-50-1731-6) as this doesn't appear to be available in English. As this article is heavily reliant on this source, can you please make sure it complies with WP:RSUE? --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm sure it complies with WP:RSUE, as Djuvara is widely regarded as one of the best Romanian contemporany historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm. That's not the point as you'd see if you read the link :) It's about providing original text and translations for key material. This is easy enough to do using a second set of footnotes. This isn't a whim on my part by the way, it's policy. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean ... that's always the case with cites though, trying to provide pointers for controversial stuff. It's a very hit and miss business, no matter what language :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. On the infobox title it says Slaughter of Posada when the article's name is Battle of Posada, it would be good if you changed it. Also in the lead it says Carol Robert. Does this refer to Charles Robert and if so it would be good if you could change it to keep consistancy. Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[2]](http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://vietnamresearch.com/flame/info/flamethrower-boat.jpg&imgrefurl=http://vietnamresearch.com/flame/info/history1.html&h=298&w=400&sz=14&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=QBnLS_Qn6y2VWM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflamethrower%2Bnavy%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2006-30,GGLR:en%26sa%3DG){kind=link}