Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of military history content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Featured list candidates
• Featured list removal candidates
• Non-article featured content candidates

Contents 1 Peer review 1.1 USS Wisconsin (BB-64) 1.1.1 TomStar81 1.1.2 Jappalang 1.1.3 David Fuchs 1.1.4 Brad101 1.2 Uriel Sebree 1.2.1 JonCatalán 1.2.2 Jackyd101 1.3 Tank 1.3.1 Mzajac 1.3.2 JonCatalán 1.3.3 Nick Dowling 1.4 Roman-Persian Wars 1.4.1 Oberiko 1.4.2 Dhatfield 1.5 Operation Brevity 1.5.1 Oberiko 1.5.2 Factotem 1.5.3 Dhatfield 1.6 USS Lenape (ID-2700) 1.6.1 Kirill Lokshin 1.6.2 Giggy 1.7 USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) 1.7.1 TomStar81 1.8 USS Finland (ID-4543) 1.8.1 JonCatalán 1.8.2 Neovu79 1.9 USS Mercy (AH-4) 1.9.1 Kirill Lokshin 2 A-Class review 2.1 Operation Brevity 2.2 Greco-Persian Wars 2.3 Nguyen Van Nhung 3 Featured article candidates 3.1 Angus Lewis Macdonald 3.2 Battle of Lissa (1811) 3.3 Lince (tank) 3.4 Cold War 3.5 Brian Horrocks 4 Featured article review 4.1 Isaac Brock 4.2 Structural history of the Roman military 4.3 War of the Spanish Succession 4.4 Theodore Roosevelt 4.4.1 Review commentary 4.4.2 FARC commentary 4.5 AK-47 4.5.1 Review commentary 4.5.2 FARC commentary 5 Featured list candidates 5.1 List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients 6 Featured list removal candidates 7 Non-article featured content candidates 7.1 Australian Red Cross poster, WWI 7.2 Vietnam Tunnel Rat 7.3 Portal:World War II 7.4 Tank diagram 7.5 H.M.S. Pinafore 8 Archives

[edit] Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

A year has come and gone since this article was last reviewed in any official capacity, and since I wish to ensure the battleship maintains her FA-star I am submitting the article for a peer review to get input as to how the article can be improved. Note that I am in summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients, its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TomStar81

• Copyedit to reduce reduntent info
• Edits are needed for clarity and flow
• Check for repetativeness
• Check for NPOV compliance (de-DANFS-ify)
• Check for exotic words/phrases
• Ensure infoboxes for all Iowa class battleships adhere to a single format
• Check sources against those questioned during FAC for Montana class battleship (wp:reliability compliance)

[edit] Jappalang

I apologize for not reading the full article before writing the notes below. However, I believe my comments, even if extracted from the first half (up to Bombardment of Japan), are reflective of the article as a whole.

While reading the earlier sections, I find there to be more details than I think is necessary. Examples would be:

• Her shakedown and refitting, which was uneventful and dull. Unless the ship had no shakedown or had an eventful shakedown, I think this detail can be forgone to the benefit of the general reader.
• "On 24 September 1944 Wisconsin sailed for the west coast, transiting the Panama Canal, and reporting for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October. The battleship later moved to Hawaiian waters for training exercises and then headed for the Western Caroline Islands. Upon reaching the Caroline Island Ulithi she joined U.S. Navy Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet on 9 December 1944." -> "Wisconsin reported for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October 1944 and joined U.S. Navy Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet at Caroline Island Ulithi on 9 December 1944."
• "On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force— seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers— during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during the American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group 17 December with the intention of refueling all ships in the task force and replacing lost aircraft. Although the sea had been growing rougher all day, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull (DD-350), Monaghan (DD-354), and Spence (DD-512), capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Wisconsin reported two injured sailors as a result of the typhoon, but otherwise proved her seaworthiness as she escaped the storm unscathed." -> "On 18 December 1944, Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook them during a refuelling attempt at sea. At the time, the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force had rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group to refuel and replace lost aircraft on 17 December. They saw little warning of the approaching small but violent typhoon. The tropical cyclone overtook the Task Force on the next day while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and were buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull (DD-350), Monaghan (DD-354), and Spence (DD-512), capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars. The force suffered the effective loss of 146 planes due to fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Wisconsin reported two injured sailors as a result of the typhoon, but otherwise proved her seaworthiness by escaping the storm unscathed."

There are several cases of redundant or rambling elements within sentences as well:

• "she was actually completed": The "actually" is redundant especially when "although" was used at the start.
• "Due to the length of time it took to build," -> "Due to her long construction time,"
• The last three paragraphs of "Shakedown and service with 3rd Fleet, Admiral Halsey" can be copy-edited and combined into a single paragraph.
• "On that day, one of Wisconsin’s float-planes landed and rescued a downed pilot from the carrier Shangri-La (CV-38).": Landed on the carrier? On the sea? Why not just delete "landed and"?
• "Wisconsin ultimately put into Leyte Gulf and dropped anchor there on 13 June 1945 for repairs and replenishment." Why the use of "ultimately"? -> "On 13 June 1945, Wisconsin put into Leyte Gulf for repairs and replenishment."

There is an occasional disjointed flow or confusion in the readings:

• The very first paragraph is disjointed; Some description of the Iowa class before the second statement could provide a flow-in from the previous statement of "fast battleship" design. Something also needs to be done between the laying of her keel and her launch as those two sentences do not flow smoothly with each other.
• Three (four) consecutive paragraphs at the start of "Service with 5th Fleet, Admiral Spruance" beginning with "Wisconsin". This cna be rephrased.
• "redesignated TF 58": Was this TF 38?
• "Japanese shipping, both naval and merchant, also suffered drastically, as did hangars and aircraft installations." How do hangars and installations suffer drastically?
• "They revisited Tokyo on 25 February": I do not think a mental image of TF members taking a guided tour through Akihabara and Shinjuku should possibly be presented.
• "Wisconsin's task force stood out of Ulithi on 14 March 1945 bound for Japan." What is meant by "stood out"?
• Although I understand that the BPF consists of Commonwealth ships, the phrase "British battleships of the British Pacific Fleet" reads a bit funny. Any way to rephrase it?

Other comments:

• The main armaments of the Iowa class are not mentioned to be housed in how many turrets. An omission of details.
• Was Wisconsin part of TF38 or was she an independent escort?
• What were the results of TF 58's "eliminate airborne resistance from the Japanese homeland to American forces off Okinawa"?
• Active phrasing generally works better, e.g. "resulting in heavy damage to" -> "dealing heavy damage to"

I think a thorough copyedit and trimming would help this article greatly and will gladly review again a trimmed copy-edited article. Jappalang (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Fuchs

Some initial comments:

• “Wisconsin was last decommissioned” – you mean the Wisky was decommissioned last? Or what? Was it just plain decommissioned (I didn’t know they came back after being decommissioned.)
• Forgive me as I’m just a video games editor :P but is it allowed usage to refer to the ship as “her” and “she” rather than “the ship”?
• “She was launched on December 7, 1943, sponsored by Mrs. Goodland, wife of Walter S. Goodland, the governor of Wisconsin, and commissioned on April 16, 1944, with Captain Earl E. Stone in command.” The sentences in these paragraph suffer from repetitive construction and this sentence is somewhat rambling. Reword or chop up.
• ” Working round-the clock, Wisconsin’s ship’s force and shipyard personnel completed the operation which grafted the new bow on the old battleship in a mere 16 days.” – mere sounds POV-ish; unless you can demonstrate that 16 days was very little for the operation.

Overall, looks good so far, I'll check back later with some more comments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. The only immediate answerI can give is for the "her/she" comment: if you look on the talk page for good ole WisKy you'll find an FAQ box which provides the answer to this question (and a few others). Thanks for the comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brad101

• There are several sensationalist phrases like "Her turrets boomed again" and "Blasting/ed Japanese targets" that should be altered.
• The number of references should be increased if possible using different sources ie: not so much reliance on DANFS.
• One thing I have noticed across all of the Iowa class articles is that the infoboxes are not all laid out the same way. Perhaps now would be the time to figure out what to do with those before going for Featured Topic.

--Brad (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uriel Sebree

Just finished this article, have been working on it off and on since March 2007. Sebree was a rear admiral, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and 2nd acting-Governor of American Samoa. I am looking for advice on how to improve the article, places where the text needs to flow better, etc. My hope is to bring this up to A/FA standards. Thank you for your assistance!

[edit] JonCatalán

I am not one to comment on the grammar, but it looks very nice overall; well-sourced and well-written. I hope that someone offers a better peer review, since this is not much more than an attempt to motivate you to try to get the article featured. Here are some quasi-suggestions, however:

1. Is there any way the early life and career could include more on his life prior to military service? Admittedly, I have not looked over many biographies, and this is one of the best I have read so far, but it seems to me that the opening paragraph is quite short and there's almost no information on his life prior to service. In fact, there is only one sentence!
2. How were those Los Angeles Times articles accessed? If they were accessed through an onine database, I think that a retrieved date should be added. If not, then ignore this!
3. I would suggest to put the article through a Good Article review, as you will get someone to look at it in depth (at least, this was my experience) and may offer you even more help than a peer review.

I'm sorry that I couldn't offer some more helpful criticism, but it really does look good. JonCatalan (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jon, thanks for your comments. To point #1, his early life is somewhat difficult. Most of the writing that has been done on Sebree are from military sources or have a military bent-- that is where he spent most of his life and he did join the academy at 15. I have one source that talks more about his father, but not much about him. I'll keep looking. To point #2, they were ProQuest articles. I can add an accessdate, but I've not had to do that for any of the others since they are scans of the original papers rather than transcriptions. For #3, I hope to put the article through GA (and maybe eventually FA), after it gets a few more eyeballs on it through this peer review process. Thanks for the words of encouragement! JRP (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jackyd101

A very nice article that would not require a vast amount of work to challenge for GA or even FA. There are however some problems that I have listed below.

• The lead is OK, and does introduce the article, but I am not convinced that the level of detail devoted to his Artic expeditions in the lead is in correct proportion to his career. Undoubtably they were important, but were they significantly more important than his work in American Samoa or the major events of his naval career? When thinking about this consider breaking the lead into three paragraphs and reviewing the prose.
• Prose. The prose lets itself down in places. The article needs one or two thorough copyedits from experienced editors, but I have listed some of the points of issue below. The biggest problems are wayward and excessive punctuation and the tendency to repeat words within the same sentence, which breaks the prose up and makes it much more difficult to read.

• "This rescue mission was successful and gained Sebree and the other officers of the expedition a level of fame." - awkward
• "Two features in Alaska, Sebree Peak and Sebree Island, were named for the admiral." - should be "are named"
• "the group trudged slowly" - I don't think ships can trudge, try sailed.
• "returned to "civilization" at" - the inverted commas a little patronising, try removing it entirely (i.e. "the relief expedition sailed initially to Upernavik, Greenland")
• "Sebree and the other members of the relief expedition gained fame from the voyage." - Again, awkward. Try to think of another word other than gained.
• "his decision was not not act" - Not to act?
• "After caring for his wife," - to me this sounds a little like she died. Try "Following his wife's recovery" or similar. (Unless she actually died, in which case say so)

• Is any greater detail known of his background, upbringing or early life?
• No need to link "riot". It is a common enough word. Only link if there is an article on that specific riot. Check other common words that may be linked elsewhere in the article.
• Link Rear Admiral William T. Swinburne (if one doesn't exist, make one)

Despite these comments, this is an excellent article which could quite easily get though GAN and even FAC with a bit of prose tinkering. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tank

Reasons for requesting peer review:

1. The article has undergone a complete rewrite from Former FA, Start Class to B Class, trimmed from 60kB to 37kB, improved citations, references and links to 50kB with no increase in the text length of the article, added images, a timeline, external links - I think it's ready for peer review.
2. Co-editors Micheal Z. and Trekphiler seem to have no significant problems with the article and consider it greatly improved. Edit: see below Dhatfield (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I need feedback on style, content (or lack thereof), contestable statements, weakness in the article: the usual suspects.
4. I may be unaware of MilHist conventions that I should be using.

Dhatfield (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mzajac

Tank#Blitzkrieg and combined arms, ¶ 3, starting with "Operation Barbarossa started as an echo..."

This seems to be missing some important factors, and not quite right in the details. It may be hard to explain completely in just a paragraph, but there are some critically important lessons in tank warfare buried here.

I don't know about rigid structure, but the Soviets were completely surprised by the attack, were deployed without depth, and had poor training and tactical skill. They had tanks in huge numbers, but a dismal maintenance state and dire lack of replacement parts and even recovery vehicles did in much of the Soviet armour. The 1930s purge of the officer corps is also often cited, but there is some disagreement as to how important this was. In fact the Germans did precipitate a panic, but they had much, much farther to go than in France, and there was some bad weather.

Another often-cited idea is the shock of the Germans upon encountering the hitherto unsuspected T-34 and KV tanks, and "tank panic" which affected their infantry.

Finally, the Soviets' turned the war around in part thanks to their ability to completely overproduce the Germans even though they had to relocate their entire tank industry to the Urals and had significantly fewer resources. If you had to sum up the whole thing in relation to tanks, I would say that they fortunately had the best tank in the world and managed to concentrate on non-stop production while minimizing design changes to make it serve throughout the war. See T-34 and Operation Barbarossa for more detail and some good citations.

I have rewritten this section based on Operation Barbarossa#Causes of initial Soviet defeats and Operation Barbarossa#Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa. These are sparsely cited so I cannot determine which contains the relevant facts. I am keeping Deighton for now. T-34 statement now has an appropriate citation. Y Done, subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Firepower, ¶ 1: "A modern type of tank ordnance arising from the close range urban combat in Iraq is a 120 mm calibre "shotgun" round for the M1 Abrams which will fire 1,100 tungsten pellets."

The particular round may be new, or new to US forces, but canister shot and flechette ammunition for cannon, artillery and tank guns go way back.

Good point - this has been re-written to indicate that this is the a recent application of canister shot to the tank. As far as I know, no modern tanks have flechette ammunition other than the KEP. Subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have any references, but I still don't think that canister is a recent application to the tank, or that it has experienced a general revival. My understanding, based totally on hearsay, is that a tank would typically carry one or two for self-defence in wartime, but this may change for urban combat.

Edited to: "Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE rounds is unacceptably high." Acceptable? Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be poorly-publicized, because of the sensitive nature of antipersonnel ordnance. The only thing I can find off-hand is Flechette#Controversy for the Israeli use, and Beehive (ammunition) for US use in Vietnam. This question needs a better reference than USA Today.

As far as I know, Beehive and the Isreali flechette ammunition are fired from artillery pieces. I haven't seen any mention of tank AP flechette. Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tactics otherwise proscribe" urban combat also needs clarification or better context. Tanks have been used to good effect in urban warfare since at least WWII, and various armed forces have developed and codified the tactics. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:02 z

It was my perception, and I did not think it was contested. Since it is, it's gone. Y Done Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, urban areas where AFVs are vulnerable are typically bypassed by the first elements of an advance. But when it's time to clear the cities, tanks are a valuable asset, if used properly. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 01:47 z

I think the level of detail we are talking about needs a Tank tactics article to do it justice. Dhatfield (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another possible approach here. We could roll 21st century and urban together? Dhatfield (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Water operations, ¶ 1: "Combat engineering teams require large quantities of specialised equipment and hours or even days to construct pontoon bridges capable of carrying the weight of a main battle tank in combat conditions."

But this is not necessarily typical after WWII. Although the need for reconnaissance and preparation should be taken into account, bridging tanks can be deployed in mere minutes, and I understand that some of the Cold-War Soviet pontoon bridges can be erected across substantial rivers in well under an hour. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

I cited lotsa Soviet water-crossing info at talk:Tank#Water operations. Executive summary: 17-m tank-launched bridge in 1.5 mins, a motor-rifle battalion can conduct a crossing from the march in 45 mins (but tanks usually take longer), a division can build a 119-m pontoon bridge in 17 minutes, which tanks can cross at 30 kph! —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 07:46 z

Excellent data. Y Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Tank power plants, table: might be interesting to add the weights and/or power-to-weight ratios to the table in "tank power plants" but best not make it too complex. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

Y Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JonCatalán

Hey Doug,

The Tank article looks a lot better, but here are some things that I think could be improved. I would like to here your opinion if you think otherwise, as my suggestions may or may not always be the best! But, in any case, here it goes.

1. I think the 21st Century section under History focuses too much on U.S. involvement in Iraq. Apart from M1 Abrams and Challenger 2s, the Italians deployed the 4th Armored Regiment to Iraq under Operation Antica Babilonia, from late 2005 to sometime in 2006, when the regiment was supposed to leave due to Italy's decision to end involvement in the war. Due to Leopard 1s and 2s being deployed to Afghanistan, including Canadian and Danish tanks, perhaps this should be mentioned, as well. I think it would be better to avoid exact details about country's involvements with tanks in assymetrical warfare, since the list is big (those already mentioned, plus French Leclercs in Lebanon and tanks used in Kosovo and Israel's experiences in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank). Instead, in my opinion the article should focus on tank warfare in assymetrical warfare, in general. Perhaps, avoiding exact instinces will also avoid potential heat from people who are opposed to certain countries and certain wars, thereby avoiding conflict in the talk page.

I completely agree, although a list (a timeline?) of conflicts shouldn't be too contentious? That section of the history is by far the weakest. You seem very well informed, maybe you'd consider writing a section? I'm more of an amateur images, cleanup & copyedit kind of guy. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start here. Would you take a look and tell me if you think I'm heading in the right direction? Dhatfield (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The article needs referecing, and soon I will take some time to add as many as I can.

Brilliant. You are a referencing genius. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled bricks that detonate when damaged by HEAT fire, bending or disrupting the incoming molten metallic jet. - A HEAT jet is not really molten metal, it's just an extending-penetrator (as some papers have called it) moving at hypervelocity relative to its own medium and the medium its penetrating, and so it can be called neither solid nor liquid. I have a source that can be used when it's reworded, and if you'd like I can reword it myself. Furthermore, explosive reactive armor is made up of flier plates, more so than just explosives. In fact, I will work on the sentence myself and we can discuss how it looks here. The comment on tandem warheads can be expanded by giving some information on Kontakt-5, but unfortunately I only have the patent in Russian and have not yet paid anybody to translate it (I planned on doing so after finishing basic training, here in Spain).

We look forward to your input. I'll be on hand, I'm currently going through the images on the page and doing enhancing them. I haven't forgotten about the Challenger 2 smoothbore - I'm just gathering my strength for another go at EasyTimeline. Anybody know how to centre and frame a transcluded page on WP?

Otherwise, it looks good! JonCatalan (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and input Jon. If we keep going, maybe we can bump up to GA assessment in a bit. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Dowling

Nice work on the article. My comments are:

• The lead photo (of an M1 in Iraq) should be replaced as it's low quality (the image seems to be a bit out of focus and the colours blend together) and shows a tank operating in the relatively rare role of urban counter-insurgency.

• Very interesting you mention this. Two points:

1. I am working on an image that will show the parts of a tank and this may be a good choice for the lead image once it's finished. See image on right.
   

   

   Diagram of M1A1
2. We are currently debating the content for the 21st Century section. I desperately need input (preferably someone to write the section), because I'm just learning and hacking together whatever I can find on the net - not the best recipe for a good section. The start of it is here, but Jonathan (see above) tells me this is mostly nonsense - not surprising - and is sending some refs, so hopefully I can improve it.

• More citations are needed, especially for the 'tank design' section

• Again, references have me stumped. I have scraped together whatever I can find, but I don't have the library that an expert does. I've said this before about five times and I'll keep saying it, any assistance you can provide with references would be much appreciated.

• Some bits of the history section are missleading - eg "Operation Barbarossa started with the Soviets having a superior tank design, the T-34" (true, but T-34s made up only a small part of the Soviet tank force in June 1941)

• That may or may not be true (I honestly don't know), but Soviet mass production quickly made good any lack of numbers. They did, however, start with the design. I'm not defending this sentence to the death, if you can think of a better (referenced) phrasing, please make the changes.

and Shermans "were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks" (this is arguable given their greatly better reliability and somewhat irrelevant given that Shermans operated as part of combined-arms teams).

• Now written as:

When entering WWII American mass production capacity enabled her to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap Sherman tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank vs tank battle they were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks.^[1] Numerical and logistical superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to overpower the German forces during the Battle of Normandy. The Sherman Firefly was introduced to improve the Sherman's firepower, but concerns about protection remained.

The 21st Century section of the history section needs to be reworked as it is too brief and doesn't discuss tank development. The 21st Century section should discuss the recent debate over whether heavy tanks are still useful in modern warfare. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• True, I'll look into this. Dhatfield (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Persian Wars

After extensive rewriting of the article, I need some feedback, and a "cooler" look than mine. What is left to be done? What is missing?

I don't know if there can be any help with the translation of these two excellent maps in the German wiki, that would enrich the English article, Bild:Julian vs Persien.png and Bild:Justinian Byzanz.png.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oberiko

It looks quite good, well referenced and having a sensible framework. A few suggestions:

• I think it'd help to have a "background" section, briefly discussing the rise of the Romans and Persians and how they initially came into conflict.

• Background section treating the Roman ambitions in the East and the Persian revival under the Parthians added.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to include "See also: Parthia#Conflicts with Rome", almost of that content should already be included in Roman-Parthian Wars and it would look cleaner to have just the one link.

• Removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maps which show the relative size of both empires would be beneficial, right now they're a bit sporadic and include only one of the factions at a time. Ideally, an animated map showing the fluctuations of both empires over time would be best.

• The two German maps above would be of great profit for the article. But any way to translate them?!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• For such a broad topic spanning centuries, I would recommend pruning out the names of all but the most important individuals (emperors and such). Most of the time it appears that an individual is introduced, with no background, and then not seen again.

• Trying to keep the names of the emperors and of the most important general.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Roman-Sassanid Wars section goes into too much detail. I would imagine that it warrants its own article (which it mostly has), especially as the Romans had divided into two quite independent political entities.

• Trying to implement WP:SS and transferring material to the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The tactics section should include a few more of the relative strengths of the two empires. Superior Roman engineering (i.e. siege equipment and fortifications) should likely be mentioned.

• Relevant info are gradually incorporated.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhatfield

This comment has moved to a historical map tutorial.

Reasons why this does not look the same as / as good as Captain Blood's German version is that the projection is different - Captain Blood uses the source elevation maps and texture data and renders the projection himself. That is too hardcore for me. Sadly, he is inactive. As for the rest of his techniques, you now have the answer. Good luck, if you have any problems drop me a talk. Dhatfield (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this great advice!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Brevity

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigma strikes back

well not really :)

Am glad of the mangaling of my edits :) That is my main problem at the moment and i fear somewhat will be a major problem once i start my uni studies is that my grammar, on the whole, sucks!

I've struck through two of the points above as they have now been worked though. I would have struck through the section headers but am still not too sure if what is there now, is sufficient.

As for the point regarding Rommels epiphany on the importance of Halfaya Pass, i will have to reread his memoirs and the information in Jentz book and will get back to that one soon.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, i have just re read your remaining point - Rommel could not fortify Halfaya Pass following Brevity as it was still in his pocession. He did so after Skoprian, which am going to start a new article on. I will however mention in the aftermath section his realisation on how important the pass was.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the pass though, is it? If you read Operation_Battleaxe#Axis_preparation you'll see that Rommel fortified other positions as well, and this is still lacking from the Brevity article. Presumably this can be redressed by simply lifting the relevant statement, which is sourced, from the Battleaxe article? --FactotEm (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted, i agree it should be noted and lifted from the article but only in relation to the ridge and other point - not Halfaya Pass. The entire statement from the Battleaxe article cna be dropped in the Skorpion one though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oberiko

A few points.

* Try to use plain language. What you have looks alright at a glance, but I would imagine that words like "whilst" are not used in typical conversation by most our readers.

• AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.

* I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place. * I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.

Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factotem

Oops. Displaying my ignorance of the MilHist peer review process here by completely missing this page! I've mangled a lot of Enigma's efforts with a couple of days worth of copyedits, but hopefully that has improved the prose. Ain't nothing wrong with "whilst" in English usage, but a moot point as every instance has now been changed to "while" as per the original editor's usage. --FactotEm (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the section headings/organisation, how about the following...?

• Rename "Opening moves" to "British advance"
• Eliminate the "Afternoon fighting" section, incorporating the 1st and 3rd paras which detail British actions into the "British advance" section, and incorporating the 2nd para which details German actions into the existing "German reactions" section
• Rename "16 May" to "British withdrawal" --FactotEm (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, ill rename the two sections. However for now i will not remove the afternoon section as it will require some bits and bobs to be rewrote and am not up for it at the moment. If anyone else wants to, go ahead! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. How's that looking now for everyone? --FactotEm (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhatfield

Checked grammar & style. Generally good. As far as I can tell, the map you provide shows Rommel's offensive, not the Allied counter-attacks. That would require a much smaller scale.

A few other general comments:

• Add flow - I struggled to get a sense of the flow of the battle through the attacks and counterattacks. The best way to do this is with a notated map. You can use Inkscape to do this quite easily. You will probably need a better map of the immediate area in svg or pdf format. As second prize, a timeline or even a summary list of major actions on each front would clarify the flow somewhat. Is there a MilHist convention on this? I'm not a battles expert, I generally stick to tech.

Am at work so i cant download this programme just yet, does one load a map into the programme and then use the programme to put placenames/lines of advance etc on it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It is best if the image is in a Scaleable Vector Graphics format. A couple of arrows, a few X's and some text should do nicely.

You may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve and request a raster to vector conversion of your map, then label it. Alternatively, take a look at the historical map tutorial. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add scope - sometimes you refer to Coast, Central and Desert forces, sometimes to actions at a place with no indication of who was fighting there other than a regiment name. To link up a place-name combination with a force is making your reader work hard.

In the plans section, these three units are mentioned and what battalions/armoured units made them up is detailed. Following this, when place names are mentioned it is only (i think) in conjection with the battalion/armoured unit names. Could you give me an example of where it is confusing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is all there in detail and for that you are to be commended, but detail is very difficult to read, especially when one is expected to skip between sections to get the picture. Example:In 'British Advance', a Company (A Company?) of 2nd Scots Guards advanced towards the Sollum barracks (paragraph 4). G Company of the 2nd Scots Guards is listed as the third element of a group heading to Halfaya Pass in paragraph 2. From Plans, I can infer that the 'Halfaya Pass' group is the 22nd Guards Brigade Group (paragraph 3). Then I must look in line 4 of paragraph 2 of Plans to discover (in brackets) that 2nd Scots Guards is part of 22nd Guards Brigade Group. Now I know that 2nd Scots Guards is part of the group tasked with taking the Halfaya Pass (also known as the central group). The Plan says that they were going to swing north to Sollum after taking Fort Capuzzo. What are they doing at Sollum? How on earth did they get there? Oh, I can see on the map that Sollum and the Sollum Barracks are on different sides of the Halfaya Pass. The details are still fuzzy in my mind but it seems to make sense, and I've spent a lot more time trying to figure it out than the average reader. Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the main author of this article but have done some extensive copyediting, which may have generated some of this confusion. A map will certainly help, but can this also be resolved simply by organising the "British advance" section better; either by merging the narrative for each battle group (coast, centre, desert) into a single paragraph for that battle group, or by introducing section headers for the actions of each battle group? Also, some points that may well be adding to the confusion...

• The plan actually says that 2nd Scots Guards were to swing north towards Sollum, not actually to Sollum, two different beasts.
• Although the above refers to the town, when it is covered in the Battle section, it is reported as an advance towards Sollum Barracks. Further, the objective is reported ambiguously, leaving the impression that it is the barracks that are being fought for by the (non-specific) Scots Guards company. The fact that this section ends with the statement that following the action "...the advance continued" leads me to suspect that the action was fought for some intermediary position, and not Sollum (town or barracks) itself.
• The plans section reports that it was actually the Coast Group, not the centre group of which the Scots Guards are a part, that was tasked with taking Sollum Barracks. --FactotEm (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Company the Scots Guards sent to the capture the barracks is called somelike "left force". Looking through an article the other day, it mentioned that companies in some guards battalions were labled as such instead of being given a letter. I ommited the name they gave the company as i felt it could add some confussion to any reader.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-organisation is a good idea. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add context - was this fought between the entire Western Desert forces on both sides (what proportion?), or advanced elements of both? The reader, accustomed to European battles may be confused. Was this near the start, middle or end of the Western Desert campaign? Your background is too dense and detailed to get 'the big picture'.

An entire order of battle is provided, the info box also states it is elements of which particular Corps and the number of tanks involved, that 3 infantry battalions were the main allied force (similar information for Axis forces is to sketchy, otherwise i would have noted). What exactly is it your suggesting, am confused somewhat?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you provide excellent detail, but the text should contain some sense of scale. Something like "The battle involved the majority of the Allied forces outside Tobruk and approximately half of the Axis tank forces." (or whatever the numbers are) Now I know that this was a big deal as far as the Desert War was concerned. Did the Axis lose 20% of their tanks or 2%? How severe were the losses to the British in terms of their fighting effectiveness? Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Dhatfield (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, some questions underneath your points for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Lenape (ID-2700)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class. Also, is there enough substance to think about FA-class? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

I think there's enough to make a reasonable attempt at FA status, although you'll likely face at least some complaints that it's too short. A few things to fix before then:

• The lead should be at least two full paragraphs, even for an article of this size.
• Is there a reason why the pre-Navy career elements are omitted from the infobox?

Keep up the good work! Kirill ^(prof) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've since found sources that detail the ship's demise, and will add that information soon. That should fill out the article nicely. Responses, in order, to your other points:

• I'll work on expanding the lead.
• No reason for the pre-Navy elements not to be in the infobox (other than laziness, perhaps?)

Thanks for taking the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giggy

Here from the WP:VG project.

• The infobox image caption... I see a weird character, which the wikitext says is  . Not sure what it's meant to be?
  • Appears a few more times in the article, actually.
• The lead definitely would be criticised for length at GAN/FAC/whatever you go for. As Kirill says, it needs expansion.
• "...and, on 28 May,..." - it'd make a bit more sense if you said what year this was.
• "U.S. destroyers based at Queenstown, Ireland, and French destroyers joined to escort the convoy." - check commas here, the wrong meaning might be sent across (or maybe it's just me... that's likely).
• Are all these redlinks notable?

An interesting read, thanks for your work. Hope this helps! giggy _(:O) 11:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order, to your points:

• It is a unicode "thin space" character that keeps the non-wiki apostrophe/single quote from crashing into italicized text for a possessive form of the ship. It's not so important here because the ship ends with a lowercase letter, so I'll remove it. Is there any way you can take a screen cap and e-mail to me so I know what you're seeing? (My e-mail is in my profile.)

• Just took a look now and it's not showing. My computer has been playing up today so I dunno... I'll take another look some time in the near future and get back to you if there are any more issues with it. giggy _(:O) 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I definitely need to work on the lead.
• I see your point. I'll work on a better wording.
• I did up a quick article on armed yacht this morning, and the remaining redlinks are the steamship line and other Navy vessels. All would be considered notable and would be created (at least as stubs) before going forward with, say, an FA nom.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this promoted to A- and FA-class. I had an informal review by several editors at WikiProject Israel in regard to possible NPOV terminology for the American Palestine Line era, and I made some changes based on their suggestions.

Some questions I'd like to have addressed:

• Is the lead too long? If so, what can be done to shorten it?
• What are some alternatives for the really long infobox? One thought I'd explored was to have a separate box for each owner/operator, but I'm concerned how that would interfere with image placement throughout the article.

Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TomStar81

• If I recall correctly the infobox sections can be made to collapse; I am not sure how to do this but MBK004 may know, so I would suggest asking him for help on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be a great solution. I'll ask. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually don't know if this is possible or not. The person to ask is TomTheHand (talk). He works with the infoboxes quite a bit developing new features for them. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Finland (ID-4543)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class and possibly FA-class. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JonCatalán

Very interesting article! A question to begin with though, and not necessarilly for the edit, but what does USAT stand for? Regardless, here are some comments:

- In 1912, Finland was chartered by the American Olympic Committee to take the U.S. team to the 1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm, Sweden. -- Perhaps a citation? It's nothing that I would consider 'arguable', but I would think that perhaps it would be interesting to see a source and it's a specific fact. Looking at the rest of the introduction, it seems citations are avoided because the information is presented below. From my experiences with the T-26 I found that people were still interested in citations in the introduction, despite the information being covered in detail below; this may or may not present itself as an issue when you present it for FAC, although admittedly none of the information is horridly questionable, or something someone would question.

- Although this is another one of those 'it may or may not be an issue', maybe making articles for the red links? You could create them into stubs.

All in all a very well written and well cited article, on a little known but very interesting (at least to me!) subject. It should be mentioned that while I don't normally read naval history, especially on a topic such as this one, it actually was extremely interesting - so, in my humble opinion the writing is wonderful. Good work! JonCatalan (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order:

• USAT stands for "United States Army Transport". I usually make that more clear when introducing it, but must have missed this one. Thanks for catching!
• I do try to avoid cites in the lead, if possible. The chartering itself is specifically cited below.
• Most of the other redlinks are for other Navy (or otherwise notable) ships. Before proceeding with an FA nom, all would be created (at least as stubs), or de-linked.

Thanks for taking the time to read and review, and the kind words. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neovu79

Removing a lot of the red ink would help; they are always an eyesore. Neovu79 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would help. I am following Naming conventions (ships) where it says "Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship" (see the section "Referring to ships"). The result of following that guideline—especially when it is considered that World War I ships, particularly transports and armed/converted yachts, seem to be an underrepresented interest of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS editors—is lots of red links. Any help you can provide in creating articles about the notable ships linked in USS Finland (ID-4543) would, of course, be welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Mercy (AH-4)

I would like to see what areas need to be worked on to get this to A-class. Also, is there enough substance to think about FA-class? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the incomplete USS Illinois (BB-65) can get to FA-class then this surely can too, its just an issue of getting all your ducks in a row. I'll take a look after dinner and offer suggestions for improvement then. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall; but a few things that might be improved:

• The single sub-sections aren't really the best thing to have.
• The listing of notable passengers might work better in a box of some sort, rather than as a rump section.
• The image with the footnotes essentially turns it into a three-column layout, which is somewhat cramped on smaller resolutions.

Kirill ^(prof) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses, in order:

• Easily removed. (see item below, also)
• I can easily prose-ify the notable passengers (and eliminate the section heading in the process)
• Good point. I'll remove an image so that doesn't happen.

Thanks for taking time to do all the reviews that you do, Kirill. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Operation Brevity

The article has undergone extensive work since it was last rated as a B, it now covers the subject more extensively, features new and better images and has been edited to death to spruce the grammar up and get rid of anything which was no needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Gott’s plan for Operation Brevity was to advance in three parallel columns. - this needs a ref, as well as: In the afternoon, A Squadron, 2RTR was ordered to conduct a reconnaissance patrol to Sidi Azeiz with its nine remaining cruisers.
2. A reference is needed in the strength section of the infobox (especially for tanks inventory)
3. Please use en dashes for page ranges in the refs, per WP:DASH.
4. The "Footnotes" section should be placed before the "References" one.

The article is very good per overall and I will support it after these minor issues are fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Gott's plan to advance in 3 parallel columns need a reference, given that the next paragraph details more exactly this plan, with sources? I'll leave it to Enigma to confirm whether the 2nd RTR patrol is sourced by the ref at the end of that para.

The information in the infobox is simply a summary of sourced information given in the main narrative. Does the infobox figure need to be sourced as well? --FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the changes as requested, including adding in a couple of extra citations just to make sure there is no area not covered. However i have not done point 3, after reading through the article you have linked to, well to be honest i have no idea what you need doing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain, instead of pp 23-25 (hyphen) you need pp 23–25 (endash). You can insert an endash by typing –. See dashes for other input methods. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Decent article. That said, a few comments:

• I know some people aren't fans of essays in the infobox (I'm not one of them). However, would it be possible to briefly expand on "inconclusive" in the infobox under "results"?, since inconclusive is a fairly ambiguous term.
• In ref #57, would it be possible to WL Operation Compass?, seeing as you've done it for the tank variants in ref #23.
• Would it be possible to remove the "this map shows" in some of the image captions? It tends to make the image text a bit on the choppy side.
• Would you happen to have a numerical strength of each force? Battalions can range greatly in size (especially in Africa, where units frequently went long periods of time without reinforcement).
• In the infobox, under the "part of" section, shouldn't it be "Part of North African Campaign (World War II)" rather than the other way around?
• There's a bit of inconsistency with regards to multi-ref formatting in the article. For example, ref #2 cites multiple sources within the same ref, while the block of 5 refs in "aftermath" all use separate sources. Would it be possible to format them the same?

Other than that, looks good. Great work on this one! Cam (Chat) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (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] Nguyen Van Nhung

Review extended until 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) to garner further comment. Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! My first visit for almost five months. This is probably pushing it a bit, but at 5.5k of prose (Tent pegging is 4.3k), it is all that exists on the subject. Captain Nguyen Van Nhung was the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who deposed President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in a military coup. Nhung's notability is solely derived from his actions as Minh's bodyguard - this amounts to executing Diem, his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces head and deputy, Colonel Le Quang Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu. All four executions are described to the maximum available extent, as is the assassination of Nhung himself. So, this is an exhaustive account of Nhung's activities, the other parts of his life and military career are not known at all, from my search of 15+ books of the Diem downfall. I guess this is a test case to see if things like this are too short. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments (on request)

• "he known for his role" - missing word?

'Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• No photo of Nguyen Van Nhung I take it?

No. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "a coup led by a group of ARVN generals" - what's ARVN?

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Tung shouted "Remember who gave you your stars!"[3][2][4]" - put the refs in numerical order (some FAC guys are picky on this).

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "into a jeep and driven to edge of the air base" - perhaps "and drove them over the edge..." (check the sentence as a whole)

Copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are some sections where it really talks about Nhung very little... more about the overall operation or the actions of others (eg. Minh).

Yes, to give background on the assassinations, and to be frank, a bit of padding wouldn't really hurt in such an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Is there any background information on the subject's life before becoming a military officer? If not, I can't see any real reservations about the article, although I might expand the lead a little. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no information apart from the four shootings that he did, and the shooting of himself. I'm not really sure what I can do in the lead...unless I should describe some of the gory details? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scraped out a few more generalities for the lead. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Even if it's a very short article, it meets all criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

[edit] Angus Lewis Macdonald

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for Featured Article status because I feel it meets the criteria and the editor who conferred Good Article status encouraged me to submit it. Bwark (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I suggest linking dates like "August 10, 1890" so they are formatted according to user preferences. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, given the nitpicky nature of the following:

• Prose is quite excellent throughout, especially in the lead, except for the second paragraph of the "Early life and education" section. This bit is awash with repetition and rather choppy sentences; surely it could be spiced up a smidgen…
• "Some considered him the best professor in the law school." Who is "some"?
• Please check WP:MOSQUOTE; I see some issues with logical quotation throughout. This is one example: "He deplored what he called 'the loss of responsible government.'" Since the quoted phrase "the loss of responsible government" is not a full sentence in itself, the ending quotation mark should go outside the period.
• "…Macdonald kept a key Liberal promise by bringing in Old Age Pensions for elderly people in need." Why capitalize "old age pensions"? The link and article do not.
• "He oversaw a massive increase in Canada's naval forces; played a key role in a political crisis that threatened to tear the Liberal government and the country apart and incurred the wrath of Mackenzie King, a political leader whom Macdonald grew to loathe." Awkward sentence—semicolon is odd here. I would suggest splitting the sentence, long as it is.

--Kakofonous (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Some of these comments are echoed at Talk:Angus Lewis Macdonald#FAC. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Lissa (1811)

Self-nomination. An article on a little known naval action from 1811, I believe this is adequately sourced, well written and conforms to all other FAC criteria. It has passed for GA and undergone a Wikiproject peer review which generated a lot of comments. Any and all actionable suggestions welcome.Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: The article now has an excellent map created by User:Ruhrfisch.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the splitting of the sentence in the lead, so have made the change. Adacore (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - probably should mention that the Oxford dictionary of National biography is a subscription database, not everyone has access to it online (this doesn't mean you can't use it as a reference, just that you need to say that "subscription required" or something like that in the reference). Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Comments

• In background a sentence or two with broader scope than is given may be useful - the fact that this was in the context of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, is only explicitly mentioned in the lead and the infobox. I'm not sure where or how this should be integrated though.

I will get on this this evening.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a little bit of trouble with how to phrase this, I'll have to think about it. Which information do you think is most relevent here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be a very minor formatting problem with the table listing Captain Hoste's squadron. The entry for the Ship HMS Volage has a slight offset in the divider between the ship and rate columns for me.

On my screen it looks fine. Do you know what might be causing it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably just IE7 being screwy, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Total crew numbers for the ships would be useful for putting the casualties in context, if they're known, but I'd guess they're probably not. Both in the tables and in the Aftermath section.

I can probably find the British, but with the French it will be difficult to find anything precise. Would this unbalance the table, or shall I go ahead and insert the British figures anyway?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think any figures would be useful here, but you might want to get advice from another editor too. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given it has a name, I'd say "...the xebec Eugenio..." rather than "...a xebec Eugenio..."
• The phrase "...the cannon's discharge instantly swept the bow of Favorite clear of the French and Italian boarding party." seems a little unencyclopaedic to me. Is this a direct quote from the source and/or could it be rephrased?

Although its not a direct quote, swept clean is used by at least two of the sources. I will attempt to rephrase, how is: "the cannon's discharge instantly destroying the French and Italian boarding party gathered in Favorite's bow."--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably a little better, but if you think the original wording was more true to the source(s) then you might want to stick to that. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Similarly "...becoming a total wreck." seems a bit colloquial, however I suppose it may be appropriate in the case of a shipwreck?

"a total wreck" is a nautical term for a ship that cannot be salvaged and returned to service.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - I thought that might be it.

• In Conclusion, "...not without the death of five men and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." - Were the deaths and the burns both caused by the mainmast collapse?

I believe so. Does this needs changing at all?

Probably not, I just had to read it a few times to understand exactly what it meant. (If it wasn't the case then some clarification might've been necessary). Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the final paragraph of Aftermath, I'd start with "Following the battle..." or similar, and mention that the numerical superiority was of naval vessels (is it?), to put it in context.

I don't understand these points, could you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was merely trying to say that the phrase "British numerical superiority in the region was assured" is without context - is it talking about numerical superiority of men? Ships? When was it assured? As a result of the battle? Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording slightly. Does this work?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• And in the final sentence of "Aftermath", it's unclear which action "The action..." refers to - the Battle of Lissa, or the action of 29 November 1811?

Done.

• It might be beneficial to include the subtitle of the reference book "The Frigates" (An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars). Similarly with "The Victory of Seapower" (Winning the Napoleonic War 1806-1814).

Done.

Adacore (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have either addressed your points, will address them soon or have asked for further information. Your interest is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help - I've provided what clarification I can. I hope it's useful. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I made a few tweaks that might improve the flow for us on the other side of the pond. My only concern is the large format of the Order of Battle. Perhaps this could be re-arrange to reduce it's size? Other than that it's a great article, and I support FA even with the current OoB. Maury (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, I reverted one or two of your changes (mainly where you changed British spellings to American), but your edits and comments have really improved the article. I'm not a genius at tables I'm afraid, how would I go about shrinking the table to see what it looks like?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I wish I knew! I simply avoid tables whenever possible, which I'm afraid won't be terrible helpful. Maury (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps it should simply be moved to the bottom of the article? That seems fairly common in similar articles, and I don't believe it would effect the flow negatively. Maury (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - excellent prose. I can find no definite problems at all. Only one thing I'm confused about, and that's probably just my ignorance of the subject: Erm, naval action? That's really standard terminology for a conflict at sea? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There are a number of terms that can be used (battle, engagement etc.), but action is certainly widely used in the sources. Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lince (tank)

Self-nominator JonCatalan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Why are there two headers as of this revision?-Wafulz (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed! JonCatalan (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I grouped all references with the same title (if an online news article) or the same page number (if published on paper). I also expanded the dates, and replaced dashes with en dashes. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Image:Lince.jpg does not specify the author/copyright holder of the image per WP:NFCC#10a. Kelly ^hi! 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It specifies where I got the image from. I don't know who the copyright holder is. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - I'm afraid if this can't be found the image will have to go. Can it be replaced? Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the image is irreplaceable; I was surprised that someone found it, in the first place! JonCatalan (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate situations like this...if the image doesn't specify the copyright holder, it doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. I certainly agree that the image can't be replaced with a free one since the tank was not actually built. (I presume the mockup was destroyed as well?) Does an image with a verifiable copyright source exist in any of the dead-tree sources - Jane's, perhaps? Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't have it with me, I have Janes' Tank Recognition Guide and it doesn't mention the Lince. The Lince is pretty unknown, even inside Spain - not that many people interested in the subject. I'd like to know where that Czech site even got its information from (even though I can't understand it) - unfortunately, his email doesn't work. I am asking on tank-net, but that's not guaranteed to get any hits. I would contact the actual Spanish Ministry of Defense to see if this an archival photograph, but they are not likely to respond (I have tried in the past, concerning other issues). JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Couldn't "bidding for the Lince" be changed to just "bidding"?
• Non-breaking space between unit and measurement.
• Link decades in the lead - they do provide context.
• "To achieve this, the Lince would use Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 tank-gun and German composite armor from the Leopard 2A4." - why the future tense?
• "The Spanish government decided to upgrade its AMX-30Es in the late 1980s, which distracted attention from the program. It was eventually cancelled in 1990 when Spain adopted a large number of North American M60 Patton tanks retired from Europe in accordance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. " - it's unclear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. Consider rephrasing.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

1. Changed.
2. Any measurement in particular? The only one I could find was in the infobox.
3. Done!
4. Changed to past tense.
5. Changed 'it' to The Lince.

JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the Maquinas de Guerra ref Spanish language? Same for Candil Antonio Carros de Combate?
• Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher (La Familia de tanques Patton) and should specifiy the language is Spanish. (I see it's listed at the bottom as Susorail ... is that the author or publisher? Probably should be listed in the footnote as Susorail...)

I wasn't able to evaluate the Spanish language sources. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing here indicates reliability, a self-published site with collaborator input, no indication of fact-checking or oversight: http://www.militar.org.ua/militar/foro-militar-colaborar.html I can't find any indication that militar.org.ua would be a reliable source for any purpose. It should be replaced, particularly since it's being used to source hard data and gov't statements.

El País is fine, but it's a newspaper, hence should be italicized; it might also be linked.

I can't tell what this is, book? author? Is Planeta-Agostini a book publisher, magazine, what? (1984) Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos. Planeta-Agostini. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those references are in Spanish, but every reference uses the template relevant to what type of source it is. There is nowhere to put 'Spanish' in the book template, unfortunately. This is the same for italicizing El País; it's simply put into the template under 'publisher', but the template does not italicize it. The source La Familia de tanques Patton has been exchanged for an article published in Military Technology. Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos is an authorless book; it's similar to an encyclopedia. It was a series of 'books' which were published in the mid-80s on armor of the world (similar, but more in depth, to Janes' Tank Recognition). I changed the template to encyclopedia. JonCatalan (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the same icon which was added to the Verdeja article to denote that the source is Spanish. JonCatalan (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some misunderstanding here (I speak Spanish, by the way); italics is accomplished on cite news by using the "work" parameter in place of the "publisher" parameter (el pais can be in italics by switching publisher to work), es icon can be added outside the cite template but inside the ref tags, and what about removing militar.org, which doesn't appear reliable for any purpose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon, gimme a yell if you need help working out the citation templates. giggy _(:O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I think I got it. JonCatalan (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Looking even better after the peer review, and glad to see the image issue was somewhat resolved!
• "The Lince program was meant to complement Spain's fleet of AMX-30Es, like the one above." - perhaps "like the one pictured"... I'm not keen on the "above" since some browsers could display captions anywhere but below the image...
• There's an edit link midway through the Background section... WP:BUNCHED?
• "the Spanish Army had 299 AMX-30s, designated as AMX-30Es. 280 out of 299..." - "280 of these" would probably work better
• "However, this time they added the lucrative term of joint export." - would sound better without the however

giggy _(:O) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Everything done! JonCatalan (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. giggy _(:O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

The project started in the midst of modern tanks being introduced in Germany and the US, both of whom were pushing for major exports and more than willing to bend over backwards for things like local production (although the US was not willing to use the 120 at the time, an amusing story of its own). But no, Spain wanted to design and build their own. That's not unheard of by any means, but still deserves explanation.

Then, after about a decade of development, the Lince project disappears. Why? L2's being dumped on the market? Changing political winds at home? Budget cuts? Decreasing not-invented-here as Spanish politics grew more international after the 1980s? I'm sure there's some explanation, but again, it's missing.

Military projects are multi-billion dollar developments that often pour their money into a pit with nothing to show for it. The Lince appears to be one such example (there are many, I'm not picking on the Lince). Readers deserve to know what happened if they're going to be given a balanced view of the history. Spanish readers in particular would be well served by a complete description of where their tax dollars went, and why.

Don't get me wrong, the writing is pretty good, but its just not "complete". A quality for sure, but I simply can't call this FA.

Maury (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've been working on it quite a lot and hope it meets all FA criteria currently. The article successfully undergone an A-class review in January. However, after the A-class review i've made some major improvements especially in the referencing and supporting materials sectors. The promotion of this important article would be a benefit for Wikipedia and the Military history WikiProject, as it is rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. -- Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some of your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. If you're using a work as a source, it shouldn't be listed in the further reading section, you'd list it in "Sources" or "Bibliography", which is a separate section from further reading. When the websites are formatted better, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Use "p." only for references with a single page, and "pp." for references with page ranges, so your references are uniform.
• Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES – the web references are missing important information including publisher and accessdate
• "Further reading" references should be in alphabetical order by last name
• Pay attention to where references are placed. "use it." [13] One" – remove the extra space before the reference
• "communists. [4]" – remove extra space
• There are a few more references that have extra spaces before them. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.
• Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
• There is American mixed with British spelling. Ensure you only use one type. "defense" is American; "defence" is British.

Gary King (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Section headers generally shouldn't repeat the title of the article. "Pre-Cold War" -> "Background," "End of the Cold War" -> "End".
• Also, section headers shouldn't begin with articles, i.e. "The 'Second Cold War'" -> "'Second Cold War'"
• Link decades in the lead - they provide context.
• "Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas: military coalitions; ideology, psychology, and espionage; sports; military, industrial, and technological developments, including the space race; costly defence spending; a massive conventional and nuclear arms race; and many proxy wars." - the prose list is.... awkward, at best. Consider rephrasing.
• You state that there were proxy wars twice in the lead. Avoid redundancy, please.
• Use en dashes for year ranges.
• "notably" (in the lead) -> "most notably"? The superlative seems to clarify it to me.
• "The Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980s following Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan, as well as Gorbachev's launching of reform programs: perestroika and glasnost." - consider rephrasing the last part to get rid of the colon; it interrupts the flow of the text.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done, with the exception of the "End of the Cold War" section header, of which I could not find another appropiate name, as renaming it to a simple "End" would be quite dull. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - All right, I don't really have a problem with that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Although the US and the Soviet Union had been allied against Nazi Germany... I think that should be against the "Axis powers". I know the SU was only involved in the war against Japan just before it ended, but I believe it was an important factor in their being able to gain territory and influence in East Asia, leading to things like the Korean War.
• As per MOS:IMAGES, you should avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.

Otherwise, looks quite good. Oberiko (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Images were relocated where possible (with small exceptions, where layout didn't permit relocation of images). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: The third paragraph of the lead is only a single sentence - it's probably worth expanding to at least three. Also, under "Origin of the term", another source would help ensure verifiability, and you should probably have a footnote directly after the quote, just so it can be attributed properly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://thoughtsonmilitaryhistory.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/why-did-truman-drop-the-bomb/ Looks like a blog
  • http://www.daz.org/enJamesFByrnes.html
  • http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm
    • I removed the first one, but as for the other two ones, I see no reason why they are unreliable. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 5 LaFeber ... that's a book, correct? It should give page numbers for the refs.
  • No, it's a work, therefore entire work is cited. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Same for current ref 13 Byrd and Current ref 16 Schmitz and current ref 31 Karabell and current ref 38 Palmowski and current ref 43 Hobsbawm and current ref 45 Link and current ref 54 Calhoun and current ref 77 Reagan and current re 90 LeFeber and Current ref 91 Palmowski and current ref 109 Nashel and current ref 112 Lafeber
  • Added page numbers to LaFeber (90) and Hobsbawn. Byrd, Calhoun, Schmitz, Karabell, Link, Palmowski and Reagan are works, therefore are entirely cited. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 102 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1567511945) Are you citing the book? Or a page in the book? I don't think you can use the product page for a book on Amazon to source "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the post-Cold War world is widely considered as a unipolar world, with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower." Same applies to current ref 104 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195150880 which is sourcing the same thing.
  • Done, page numbers added. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 108 Monty G Marshall and Ted Gurr, is that a book? Does it have a ISBN? Needs a page number also.
  • Done, weblink added to the work (pdf). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 116 needs a page number and you need to format the link to the NYTimes preview.
  • Done, page number added. The link was removed as it required a registration now to view the chapter. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sort out the references from the further reading. Usually there are two sections, Bibliography�/Sources which are works used in the sourcing of the article. Any other books/references that would deepen the understanding of the readers but that may be too detailed for use in the article would go in the Further reading section. Right now, there are works used as sources in both sections, which is confusing.
  • Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• A link is showing up as dead on the link checker.
  • Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• It would be nice if the plain url in the External links section was formatted like the other links.
  • Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Horrocks

Self nomination. This has recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. The subject is a general who commanded corps in a few of the key battles of World War II. Leithp 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 92 to an article on the IMDb dead links. Also, it needs to have a title, not just a tinsy little link.
• Current ref 93 needs a title on the link.

Otherwise sources look good. Other links all checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That should be both links fixed. Leithp 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• support - seems ok. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Has continued to improve since I reviewed it for GAN. Absolutely no objections from here! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. However I have some recommendations which I hope will be addressed - apologies for not reviewing at earlier stages when I could've brought them up:

• I think the intro can be improved a bit. Currently we have:

Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7, 1895 - January 4, 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.

Horrocks had an eventful life in which he served in both World Wars and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics and presented a television programme. In 1940 he commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]

• I find "had an eventful life" a bit trite, the reader can discern this from the info provided. Also the first sentence of the second para partly summarises what's been said in the first, like a summary of a summary (e.g. about both wars and the TV show). I suggest the following combination might work better:

Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7, 1895 - January 4, 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. He also served in the First World War and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, and competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.

In 1940 Horrocks commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]

• I always prefer to see Featured Articles sans red links. The only one in there is Sir William Horrocks. If he really deserves an article perhaps a stub would suffice for now, otherwise I think we could just lose the link.
• The article should have a WP:Persondata template at the end.
• There are one or two cosmetic tweaks I would like to make that will take less time to execute than to discuss.
• In any case, looks very good - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On Horrock's father he had a 30 year military career of his own and was appointed CB and KCMG [1], so he's just about notable in my book. Something very stubby could be put together iwth gazette refs if nothing else, but they don't really give much context to his service. David Underdown (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the barest details of William Horrocks' life from the autobiography and biography of Brian, no dates of birth or death etc. I didn't really like to start something that bare and wasn't able to pick anything else up in my search. Harlsbottom had expressed some interest in starting an article on William Horrocks a couple of months ago, he may have some sources. Leithp 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Harlsbottom has done a superb job in creating a well referenced article on William Horrocks. I think that addresses all the points listed above. Leithp 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about 'ask and ye shall receive' - request a stub and get a new article that's pretty well B-class straight off. Great (and fast) work, guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Took a sample way down that showed a high degree of gobbledygook civil-service-ese.
  • "Upon arriving, Horrocks was ..."—arriving where? You can't rely on the section title for that information.
  • "implementing the defence of"—can you think of one word to replace these four?
  • "Montgomery, mindful of the need to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, instructed Horrocks that he repel Rommel ...". I mean, why not: "to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, Montgomery instructed Horrocks to repel Rommel ..."? Straighter line, five words removed.
  • "came to attack"—why not just "attacked"?

Most sentences present easy ways to implement Plain English. Please fine someone else to strip it back to plain, elegant English. The whole article. (The lead suffers less from this disease, though.) TONY (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your specific points. I'm at a loss about what to do about your more general criticism, though. Leithp 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article. I don't know if it now meets your standards but I'd appreciate any further comments. Leithp 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: His platoon command guarding the ammo going to Omsk. A platoon with 14 officers is incredibly high. Is this 14 soldiers? Or were there additional attached officers because of the special nature of the task? If that is the case, it might be good to explain that, otherwise it looks quite odd. Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have changed the sentence to simply give the size of the party. Leithp 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Spot-check on one small part-paragraph. My oppose remains, I'm afraid.
  • "substantive lieutenant-colonel"—not actionable, but for my benefit, what does "substantive" mean? As opposed to what?
  • Caption: "Major-General Horrocks, then GOC of 9th Armoured Division, in his Covenanter command tank during an exercise, 18 July 1942." No period, since it's just a nominal group, not a full sentence. See MOS.
  • "After assisting in organising the new short course for officers,..."—Do we know already about this course? Why "the"? And surely "new" is an epithet (normal adjective), but "short" is a classifier (can't be a very short course, since short-course is a genre of course; thus, a hyphen is required to make it clear).
  • Not good:

"British doctrine of the time did not have heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations and instead kept them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, division."

Maybe "at the time"? And is "doctrine" the right word?

"British policy was not to use heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations, but to keep them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, the division."

• • May I suggest that you go through and add commas after most of the sentence-inital adverbial and prepositional phrases? This optional comma is more likely in longer sentences and more formal prose. For example: "After commanding the battalion for only seventeen days, he had impressed his superiors sufficiently for him to be given the temporary rank of brigadier and the command of 11th Brigade." More redundancy; why "11th" but "seventeenth"? Check whether "the" belongs before the title of the brigade. TONY (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Doctrine" is, I believe, the term used in the military for that kind of operational guidelines. 11th is because it is the form the British Army used to refer to its brigades. It would only use the form "Eleventh" for an Army. I have no idea why. Substantive is a form of temporary rank, I believe. I'll try and clarify that. I don't believe that "the" is appropriate in front of brigade numbers. It doesn't seem to be used in my sources, anyway. I'll try to address your other comments. Thanks for the feedback. Leithp 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I got it the wrong way round. "Substantive" is the officer's permanent rank, i.e. when the war ends and the Army is de-mobilised, the officer would return to that rank. "Acting" or "Brevet" are temporary appointments due to local circumstances or a shortage of officers of the required rank. It was not uncommon to hear of officers being reduced from acting lieutenant-colonel or brigadier to captain at the end of the First World War, for example. Leithp 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We do have an article on military doctrine, would it help to link that? On rank, British Army use has distinguished at different times (in order of "permanence") between "local", "acting", "temporary", "war substantive" "brevet" (though this seems to have fallen into disuse), and "substantive" (at some periods this might be referred to as regimental rank). I have been thinking that we could do with an article on this topic, but I don't really have the sources or knowledge to do it justice. David Underdown (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An article sounds useful. I'm damned if I can work out what all those terms mean. Leithp 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked an outside editor to copyedit. Hopefully it now meets your standards, Tony. Thanks. Leithp 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I returned wanting to be generous, but found too many deficiencies in my spot-check, too easily. Like ...

• "one hundred and sixty-seven successful applicants for cadetships, even including 200 bonus points"—figures or spelt out: which? I suggest figures.
• "which rather embarrassed Horrocks"—"Rather" is normally avoided in this register (it's what we call "interpersonal", grammatically).
• "He was also interviewed extensively for"—Have you told us already about interviews? No. "Also" is redundant.
• Caption fluff: "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting troops in order to provide front-line soldiers with an overview of the situation." Remove the hated "in order" (makes me do a Hitler salute). "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting front-line soldiers to provide them with an overview of the situation." Better?
• "and was knighted with his appointment as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire"—can it avoid the repeated word?

Not happy. It really needs a good hour or more by a a thorough copy-editor. TONY (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your specific points and will try and find a fresh copyeditor. Leithp 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm having to read too many sentences twice before I understand them. Here is but one example of many:

By mid-September, XXX Corps had been diverted to the east, while the First Canadian Army would be tasked with clearing the strengthened German defensive line stretching from Antwerp down both banks of the Scheldt River to the North Sea in the month-long, costly Battle of the Scheldt.

There are others like this where too many thoughts are being squashed into one sentence. It's hard work rather than a pleasure to read. GrahamColm^Talk 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Comments DONE Lead should be reworded to include his books and jounalism, and to remove the implausible claim that he gained "further fame" or whatever as Black Rod - who can ever name the current Black Rod, unless they are already famous, as Horrocks was? If anything he made the job more famous. The lead should also mention his two periods as a POW. The military terminology does get a bit congested at times for a general reader like myself, but I see others are addressing this. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have made a slight change to the opening paragraph, to address the point you made about his writing and Black Rod. The lead does say "was a prisoner of war twice" and I feel it might overwhelm the lead if I expand on that. Do you agree? Leithp 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have marked my specific comments done, and expect to support when some (not all) of the phrasing points of others are addressed - I seem to feel about 50% should be adjusted, others are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Prose seems sufficiently improved to me, although others may continue to winkle out points. Military history always means rather chewy prose in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since I have a military history article also winding through FAC, I'm not unbiased enough to support this. However, I want to say that you do an excellent job here with the material that you are given. Military biographies are tough! A few suggestions:

• Can you expand on his time as the Black Rod any? That seems notable, but it is given only the most passing of glances. If it's just ceremonial, that makes sense, but were there any particularly notable ceremonies that he was involved in that could be mentioned? Certainly not as important as a war record, but something interesting must have happened in 14 years?
• Should you add a "Works" section for the book(s) that he's written and the other things that he participated in? I don't know if this is in the MOS anymore, but it may be a good idea.
• You tend to end sections with one or two-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged into the above paragraphs?
• Your abbreviations in references are distracting, especially when you take it to the extreme with #37.
• You cite what his nickname means, but no citations to support your interpretation or that show that was his nickname.
• Take another look at the lead. The third paragraph reads funnily in context and there are other elements of his life that may deserve mention. POW, for example?

All in all, an enjoyable history. JRP (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking your comments in order:

• I have added a couple of anecdotes from his time as Black Rod, to expand on that a little. Let me know what you think.
• He authored two books, both listed in the "references" section, and edited a number of regimental histories. I'm not convinced that there is a benefit in listing the regimental histories, as he only wrote forewords for them.
• I have expanded one of the short paragraphs and will likely look at doing that to the others, rather than combine them with preceding paragraphs. Although I agree that all are a bit too brief, they all mark a change in subject to the preceding content.
• I have changed ref #37, as suggested. As regards the other abbreviations, I had thought that it was clear which book was referred to and that further expansion was unnecessary. This is particularly the case with clumsy titles such as the Neillands and Warner books.
• I have added a ref for the nickname. I must have missed that.
• I was rather fond of that third paragraph! Do you think I should combine it with the second? I'm not certain that his sojourns as a POW are important enough to be expanded on in the lead, compared to his Second World War actions.

Thanks for your kind words regarding the article and best of luck with your own FAC. I agree with you about military biographies, the terminology is a killer and it's hard to get beyond the "date-action, promotion, date-action, promotion" format. Horrocks' autobiography (a good read, by the way) manages this by using anecdotes extensively, something I was trying not to do too much. Leithp 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Generally looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• Oppose, the prose is not very compelling, but my main issue was just getting stuck in the unclear narrative with too many questions whose answers do not lie in the text. Examples:
  • "Horrocks attributed this rapport to the "respect for each other" of front-line troops." Grammar.
  • "Despite his capture, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 18, 1914." Double meaning, can't determine which it is.
  • "While imprisoned, he tried to escape, and he once came within 500 yards (460 m) of the Dutch border before capture." I thought he lost the use of his legs?
  • "To prevent further escape attempts, his captors placed him in a compound for Russian officers." I don't understand how this prevented escape attempts. Were the Russian officers prisoners? Why was their compound more secure?
  • "Horrocks used the time to learn their language." Why pipe this link and make the reader click it to discover what their language was?
  • "Horrocks had trouble adapting to peace-time on his return and spent four years of back-pay in six weeks, indulging in pleasure trips to London." Sounds like what every sailor I've ever known does every time we had shore leave. How is this having trouble adapting to peace-time?

These are all just from one section. A lot of fit and finish needed, plus work on the narrative. --Laser brain (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Laser's last point is another example of the throwing into a single sentence of ideas with dubious logical connection, joined by "and". TONY (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Minor question, could you clarify this statement: "The battle ended with the Germans in control of Himeihat hill, at a high cost, and the Allied forces unwilling to try to re-take it after a failed attack by the 2nd New Zealand Division on the withdrawing Germans" The end of this statement implies the Germans abandoned the hill, but the start of the statement says they were left in control of it. Can you clarify this? Maury (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I took out "on the withdrawing Germans". If I remember right, and I don't have the source in front of me, the counter-attack came as the Germans withdrew back to the hill. The sentence was unclear, as you say. Leithp 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment for now - please make sure that all the image captions make it obvious why the image is relevant to this article. This is most egregous with the Russian civil war image. Try reading through the article by reading only the image captions (maybe the first two lines of the intro as well) and see if it at least makes basic sense to people. Savidan 13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed that caption and made a slight alteration to another two. Hopefully that helps the situation. Leithp 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review

[edit] Isaac Brock

Notified: WikiProject Canada; WikiProject Military history: British military history task force, Napoleonic era task force, Canadian military history task force; WikiProject Biography: Military work group, Politics and government work group Ultra! 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the only significant editor (137 edits at the time of writing), and FA nominator, of the article, Scimitar. I have also notified Military history WikiProject, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Canada.

I do believe that this article no longer meets the criteria for an FA-class article. I believe that the article has broken, specifically, 1c and 1d.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1c, I would like to provide the following evidence:

• "best remembered as a brilliant leader and strategist for his actions while stationed in the Canadian colonies." This is a quote of a sentence in the introduction of the article. This opinion is not cited.

• "He earned a reputation during his early education as an assiduous student, as well as an exceptional swimmer and boxer." This is also not cited.

• "He kept a reputation as a physically commanding man throughout his life, and is said to have stood between 6 ft 2 in (1.9 m) and 6 ft 4 in (1.88 and 1.93 m) in height. he was amazingly strong and bright, he also excelled in the arts." Again, no citation.

• "quick rise through the ranks which many commented on at the time." No citation.

• "His nephew and biographer (Ferdinand Brock Tupper) asserts that shortly after joining the regiment, a professional dueler forced a match on him. As the one being challenged, Brock had his choice of terms, and so he insisted that they fight with pistols. His friends were shocked, as Brock was considered only a moderately good shot, while this man was an expert. Brock, however, refused to change his mind. When the duelist arrived at the field, he asked Brock to decide how many paces they would take. Brock subsequently insisted that the duel would take place, not at the usual range, but at handkerchief distance. The duelist declined and subsequently was forced to leave the regiment. This contributed to Brock's popularity and reputation among his fellow officers, as this duellist had a formidable reputation, and thus bullied other officers without fear of reprisal. During his time with this regiment, Brock served in the Caribbean. At some point during his service there, Brock fell ill with fever and nearly died; only recovering once he had returned to England." No citations presented.

At this point, I believe I have shown the article breaks 1c. It should be noted that the article only has 10 citations. This leaves a lot of the article unsourced.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1d, I would like to provide the following evidence:

• "he had the privilege of serving alongside Tecumseh". I think this comment speaks for itself.

There is more evidence that can be provided, but I do not wish to clog this request with a large amount of evidence. I hope that a quick visual examination of the article by editors will result in the realisation that this article is unworthy of FA-status in its current state.

Thank you in advance for reading, and for getting involved on this issue.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are undoubtedly some rather POV sentences, and not much inline citing. However, there are a number of online sources listed in References, and External links which can probably be used to provide inline cites. I've also just quickly skimmed his ODNB article, which certainly backs up some of the specific things you pick out above, so I'm not sure it's beyond redemption. David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep (sorry, unfamiliar with process) The sentences, admittedly, are POV in some instances, although it would not take much to correct them. All of the uncited references are backed up by the references at the bottom of the page; I didn't realize that inline citation was needed so extensively when I wrote the article. All that said, I can't say as I'm terribly invested in what happens to the article given that I've since pretty much abandoned Wikipedia as an editor.--Scimitar ^parley 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just cited a bunch of the opinions, thanks to Tupper's book (available at project Gutenberg, if anyone doubts my veracity). My wording is actually quite restrained compared to the praise heaped upon Brock by virtually every commentator in the field. I dare say that these citations (which took about 5 minutes) would have been done if it had been brought up during the FA process, and also that the editor who nominated this article for removal might have been able to do them himself from the provided references in less time than it took to nominate the article! --Scimitar ^parley 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, looking at the FAC for this article, I'm reminded of the fact that at that time nobdy seemed to feel that massive inline citation was a big deal, the article text is not controversial and is adequately backed up by the references at the bottom of the page. It's been quite a while since I was a serious editor here, so this is an honest question- when did inline citation become a requirement for non-controversial featured articles that are heavily referenced otherwise?--Scimitar ^parley 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"the editor who nominated this article for removal" Scimitar, I nominated this article for a review, as opposed for it to be removed.

I believe that Scimitar has made good progress in getting the article back up to current FA standards. However, the article still needs much more work, imho. For example, it is stated "The invasion was quickly halted, and Hull withdrew, but this gave Brock the excuse he needed to abandon Prevost's orders." Whilst I am sure this is correct, it does sound like something that needs to be verified. Listing what sources of information were employed in the writing of the article at the bottom of the page, is not sufficient for an FA-class article.

Other examples of sentences that do sound like they need to be verified include:

• "Detroit was a major victory for Brock because it wounded American morale, and eliminated the main American force in the area as a threat, while at the same time boosting morale among his own forces."
• "Finally, it secured the support of Tecumseh and the other American Indian chiefs, who took it as both a sign of competency and a willingness to take action.
• "However, Brock had gauged Hull as a timid man, and particularly as being afraid of Tecumseh's natives."
• "He was hampered in these efforts by the thrusts of Governor General George Prevost (Prevost replaced Craig in late 1811), who favoured a cautious approach to the war."
• "This hostility came from three sources: grievances at British violations of American sovereignty, restriction of American trade by Britain, and an American desire to gain territory by invading and annexing the poorly-defended British North American colonies." Some people will consider this statement controverisal, as some people argue that the American desire to conquer Canada did not exist to a great enough degree for it to be a reason for the War of 1812 occuring.

Scimitar, I do not know how the criteria for FA articles has changed exactly since 2005, but it is clear that they have changed. More is required of an article in 2008 for it to become FA-class, then it did in 2005. As one editor said regarding the FA review of an article called Brain Close, "Holy cow. It illustrates how much FA standards have risen in just a few years." EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I saw that this article was up for FA review, and have tried to make a few improvements. If the problems are only those listed above by EasyPeasy21 and others, they should be straightforward to fix. The four bulleted items listed just above by EP are what all the books say, with the possible exception of the last. It's just a small matter of referencing them properly. I hope to do more work on this myself between now and June 18. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structural history of the Roman military

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history

It fails 1(c), the section on the Manipular legion is innacurate — there were at least two reforms during this period, and two different ypes of legions with varying tactics and equipment, the refs don't seem to be reliable in that respect. The Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC) section could be expanded too, and it should really be a subsection of the Marian legion, and also, rather than being reffered to as "Manipular legion", "Imperial legion" etc, thy are normally named after somebody, like the Marian legion — the manipular legion was orignially a Camillan legion, but after some reforms became the Polybian legion, and the Imperial legion should be the Augustan legion.

{{Cite book}} and similar templates aren't used at all in the article, instead the refs are handmade, and the lead section lacks references (Okay, it is just a summary of the article but it should have the same refs as in the section is summarises, shouldn't it?)--Serviam (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the accuracy issue—I'm not really qualified to comment on that—neither citation templates nor citation in the lead section are required by any policy or guideline, and, with an article this heavily cited, simply collecting citations for the lead by gathering those from the relevant sections would make it unreadable in any case. Kirill ^(prof) 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sorta echoing Kirill here: footnotes in the lead section are a mistake rather than a requirement, last time I checked (which has been awhile). And there's really no need to use {{Cite book}} ever. But this particular article does use a weird {{bibliobox}} template, which is an odd and ungainly innovation that has no precedent in the published world, as far as I know. This is the only article that uses it—and the creator no longer edits Wikipedia—so anyone should feel free to reformat the "Bibliography" section to one of the standard Wikipedia formats. Having a separate "footnotes" and "citations" section is another unneeded oddity, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. Combining the two would be an easy improvement.

As for the inaccuracies, it might have been more productive to raise those issues on the talk page of the article first, rather than here, unless the nominator feels the article is too inaccurate to easily salvage. Reviewers here typically won't know enough about a given topic to judge if the nominator is more knowledgeable than those who wrote the featured article. —Kevin Myers 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the guy who did most of the work on it, and most Roman articles, stopped editing sometime last year (PocklingtonDan). I'll put a not eon the military history project talk page then. It may be possible to salvage it, though it would take a good bit of work, and I'm not prepared to do it at the moment, though someone else might.--Serviam (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Template:Bibliobox from the references. May I say that I don't think has any citation issues of any form. It seems to be one of the most well-cited articles I have seen. From an accuracy standpoint, it follows the sources; if you question those sources then you need to provide your own that contradict them.

If I am reading your concerns correctly, you think the Manipular region section should be renamed? I disagree, that section header adequately explains the content of the section, and as such it does its job. To add it to the "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)" section would destroy the chronology. Woody (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say to add it there, I meant that it should be split it into two sections; Camillan legion and Polybian legion, that's the main innacuracy, because half way through that section there was a large military reform which has been completely ommited, so I suppose it's more 1(b) than 1(c). It also doesn't mention Leves, light javelin armed infantry, predessesors of the velites, which don't seem to have received any coverage on wikipedia at all...--Serviam (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC)" section should really be a subsection of "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)", which actually lasted untill 27 BC, when Augustus came to power. "Introduction of vexillationes (76 AD – 117 AD)" should be a subsection of "Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC – 75 AD)", which should really be called "Augustan legion", and lasted up untill 117 AD, a bit of 2(b) there . The seperate citations and footnotes sections are also a little strange--Serviam (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As for my sources, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are all reliable, particularly the second link, that gives an in-depth history of the roman legions.--Serviam (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not that strange to have separate footnotes and citations, it is becoming more and more common on FACs as it is clearer to the reader. With regards to the subsections, I can't really comment yet as I haven't looked into it enough. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your comments anyway.--Serviam (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How are those sources reliable. They all look like they come from fairly unreliable websites, except maybe the second link which is an excerpt from a book from 1875 - not exactly the newest research. Surely the multiple book sources used now are more reliable? --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable in that they seem to agree with the stuff I know about the Romans, so I assume they are reliable. and regardless of refs, there is a good bit of stuff left out. Those books that are already in the article mention it, probably the author of the wikipedia article didn't think them significant (As they still faught in maniples, but had different equipment and weapons and some kinds of troops had disappeared)--Serviam (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS regarding sources. Web sources must be written either by a noted historian or noted organisation or clearly and transparently demonstrate their sources. Otherwise anyone could have written them without any academic legitimacy. These sources do not (at least at first glance) fulfill either of these requirements and as the person suggesting them, the onus is on you to prove their reliability. I think this issue is one that would be better raised on the talk page rather than here. To add, citations should not be used in the lead, the lead is an introduction and anything mentioned there should be cited elsewhere in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said, please, the books used in the article do mention this, but they have been left out in the article for some strange reason.--Serviam (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So use the books not the websites. Requesting expansion doesn't require new sources if the old ones have the info needed. Jay32183 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was asked for other sources, and I found them...--Serviam (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. Basically, if the books contain the information required then you (or someone else with the books) should use the information in them to deal with the comprehensiveness issues you raise and use the books to source this expansion. The websites you provided cannot be used to source an FA because (per WP:RS) they have no obvious indication that what they state has any academic legitimacy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My first and second links can be used, they meet WP:RS, the last three I just got off google. As I explained above, I'm not prepared to add in the additional information, though someone else might want to.--Serviam (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason that the footnotes are alpha, delta, beta, lambda, eta, xi? I'd have expected alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta. It's a minor concern, but since we're here, I'd thought I'd ask. Jay32183 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War of the Spanish Succession

Notified Wikiproject Spain, Germany, Military History, and User:DrKiernan

This article, one of the last unreviewed Emsworth classics, desperately needs inline citations as it has very few. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Whoah. When you said "desperately needs inline citations", you weren't kidding. Although the prose of the article is generally excellent, the total lack of inline citations is a bit disturbing. I'd suggest contacting the primary contributors, to see if anything can be done about it. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the original author is long since retired. Kirill ^(prof) 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt

[edit] Review commentary

Notifications:

All five editors with over 50 edits: SimonATL, Rjensen, Johnleemk, Shanes, & Gdo01

All projects on talk page: WP:Columbia, WP:MILHIST, WP:USPREZ, WP:WPBIO, WP:NY, WP:HSCH, & WP:FM

This article is a tremendous resource on WP. However, I was looking for a place to add an image and saw three {{cn}} tags withing a very short space.

• The article has at least a half dozen of them and many completely unsourced paragraphs. Thus, the article fails 1 (c).
• It fails 2(a) with a five paragraph WP:LEAD.
• It may fail 4 as the second longest article for an American Politician at WP:FA based on research I did a week ago for Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Additionally, the article refers to him as Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. in the lead and then mentions his son, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• N.B. The article survived a FAR two years ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  You're right. The article is full of unsourced statements (quotations, no less) and is way too long. It seems to have more than doubled in size since the last nomination. Bit of a shame given that it's about Teddy. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  Have you thought of trolling for some less active editors with more recent histories as well (three of the top five seem to be dormant). Zsero looks like a likely candidate. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • By all means, step right up and notify anyone you think will help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's probably time for a top-down review. While I'm a TR fan myself, some of TR's political mistakes, particularly after his departure from the White House are not adequately covered. I've spent almost a year reading every critical book on TR I could find including Pringle and Blum and we ought to consider these as well as the laudatory stuff. Sure TR was a great guy, but consider this - before he finished his last year, Congress was literally ignoring Presidential messages that they would usually read from the House Floor - "O Yes, O Yes, a message from the President to the House..." i.e. instead of reading, they were FILING them. What accounts for his almost "miserable" relations with Congress which can only be partially accounted by his lame duck status (I won't run a again) status. SimonATL (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AK-47

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Firearms, various other users.

The main problems here are 1b and 1c. I'll start with the former. This article is sourced by some 25 notes, with a few extra "further readings" below. Several sections (Illicit trade, Derivatives, Production outside of the Soviet Union/Russia, first paragraph of Variants, Ballistics) have no references at all, while others (Operating cycle, Design background, Design concept, Disassembly, Cultural influence) have only one or two references. In fact, the only section that would really pass for adequate, reference wise, would be Receiver development history.

1c (or a lack thereof) is mainly reflected in a few stubby sections (Ballistics, Legal status), as well as Design concept and Licensing, both of which I am sure could be expanded to be a great deal more comprehensive.

The subject of the article is not abstract; I am sure that through collaboration this article can rise again to meet current standards. I myself will be very willing to partake in the advancing of the quality of the article, in regards to the two criteria identified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The featured version shows us that while the prose has increased in size, organization is deteriorating and the list of references has shrunk by nearly 25%.

Here's a comparision:

Featured version: "During World War II, Germany was the first nation to develop weapons that embodied the characteristics of the modern assault rifle. The impetus for the adoption of the assault rifle as the primary individual infantry weapon was the knowledge that, in modern warfare, dismounted troops typically exchange small arms fire at ranges of fewer than 300 meters; in most firefights, combatants are within 100 meters of each other."

Current version: "During World War II, the Germans developed the assault rifle concept, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen at close range, within 300 meters."

Seems to me that a improvements need to be made. Teh Rote (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good points above. Lose the silly little flag as well; it adds nothing and is specifically deprecated in WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. --John (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's also the one-sentence paragraph "Legal Status". Eklipse (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove >6 unsourced paras; legal status needs to expand. Ultra! 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Inadequate Lead. Unformatted citations. Non-reliable sources. Look at "Cultural influence" section for a sample of citations needed. Seriously deficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidates

[edit] List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipients list. This is similar to the featured lists List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy and List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army. It is comprehensive, it works (sorting all sorted), it is referenced and it as pictures. As such, I feel it meets all the criteria, I hope you agree. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH. Gary King (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed thanks. Woody (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list removal candidates

[edit] Non-article featured content candidates

[edit] Australian Red Cross poster, WWI

Reason

A period poster from the Australian Red Cross in its earliest days during World War I. A good representation of women's participation in warfare during the early twentieth century, of Australian culture, and of period poster art. Restored version of Image:RedCrossNurse.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Australian Red Cross, David Henry Souter

Creator

David Henry Souter

• Support as conominator (conominating with Steve Crossin; collaborative restoration).--Durova^Charge! 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as conominator Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is a really nice image, although I feel like the caption should do a little more to unpack the image; there's a lot to it for something so simple at first glance.--ragesoss (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comment/Question The caption should include the artist's name and link to the artist's article, David Henry Souter. He's a respected Australian cartoonist/journalist, including some renown for his WWI poster illustrations and other cartoons. This information probably isn't on-line (a quick search comes up blank). --Blechnic (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed link. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, thanks, it wasn't obvious without the link. --Blechnic (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Large, nice-looking image with clear encyclopedic value. faithless (^speak) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Tunnel Rat

Reason

This is a high resolution and intriguing original photograph from the war itself demonstrating the lowering of a 'tunnel rat' into one of the Vietcong tunnels, a highly dangerous job. It is in the public domain as it is the work of a US Army Solider/Employee.

Articles this image appears in

Tunnel rat

Creator

U.S. Army Signal Corps

• Support as nominator --Mattie^TK 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original, Oppose Edit 1, Neutral Edit 2. This is a high quality, informative, and dynamic image. It already passes the guidelines in my book. but would someone mind giving it a quick cleanup? NauticaShades 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that edit 1 has blown the sky, and edit 2 has removed detail from it, so I'm unsure about supporting it. That being said, good job to both of you on the cleanup. NauticaShades 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral very good image, but needs some cleanup very badly before FP IMO. The top right especially needs some help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent enc. and historical value. Could be improved with cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-12 20:39Z
• Comment Where did this come from? I see the NARA page, but can't find a copy this large. It looks like some ugly noise reduction filters have been run on it before some heavy sharpening, so it's low on detail and high on oversharpening haloes. I'd like to see a copy of the original before processing. Thegreenj 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This image has great narrative, and explains the event as well as any article could. I think the corrections improve without altering it too much. Pedestrian65 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've added Edit B and corrected the author listing. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's funny that we were both working on this at the same time. Nice job on the edit...you caught more of the debris than I did. But I think the debris in the tunnel rat's hair is part of the scene, not damage to the photo? Pedestrian65 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Good observation. The same thought occurred to me too. Part of my decision came down to whether he's being lowered into the tunnel or lifted out of it. If he were coming back from the excursion we'd see bits of straw in his uniform also, and body positions would be different (he'd be raising his right elbow etc.) Plus the marks on his head lack the yellow tone of the surrounding straw. So the marks that might be straw look more like artifacts of photographic aging in those contexts. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original and Edit 2 Excellent image ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 09:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Much better. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 per nom. I'm curious, though-- the image page says that the tunnel rat is being lowered, but it looks to me like he's being pulled out of the hole. I wonder what was really happening. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Lowered, I think. I mentioned a couple of reasons above. A third sign are the freshly lit cigarettes. Suggests these men have just sat down and expect to be there for a while. Durova^Charge! 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Mr. Holmes. ;) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support only edit without the straw removed from the tunnel rat's hair It probably is sraw on his hair and it looks better on it. Obviously he's being lowered: the tunnels were tiny, and he's bathtub clean. I don't like edits where real processes are cleaned up--it's the sort of photoshopping that wouldn't be allowed in an off-line encyclopedia.--Blechnic (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In order to explain the straw/no straw restoration choice I've selected three sample areas and invite reviewers to examine them, as I did, at 400% resolution. Analysis follows:
  • Example A: Obvious surface scratch. Sharp whitish mark contrasts with out of focus background and seems to float in the air.
  • Example B: More surface scratches. Subtler than the first example, but same basic characteristics.
  • Example C: Two surface scratches on another soldier. The one at left, at the tip of a downward-pointing helmet, has the same basic tone and characteristics as other surface scratches in the image. If it were straw instead of a scratch then it would be expected to fall off as the soldier looked downward. The scratch at right is similar: it exists on the surface of the print rather than on his clothes and wouldn't remain in place as he bends downward at that angle. No soldier had straw in the expected places (at the tuck where their pants meet their boots or in the folds of their clothes).
• Note also that all of these scratches are nearly identical in color and are deficient in yellow, compared to the actual dried grass elsewhere in the photograph. The marks on the tunnel rat's head have the same basic characteristics as photographic degradation elsewhere in the image and do not match the color of the surrounding grass. For these reasons I concluded that those marks on the back of his head were photographic artifacts rather than a natural element of the scene. Durova^Charge! 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Example A

Example B

Example C

• Comment I trust Durova's experience w.r.t. the restoration. However, my attention is now being drawn to the helmet of the exhaling soldier. The spikes on it could be evidence of retouching, or part of the vegetation behind him. Since the rest of the vegetation doesn't match the spikes, I'd say it's some kind of blunder or deliberate tampering - possibly an artefact of a despeckling algorithm. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm guessing someone used some sort of automatic denoising filter. I'm still waiting on the original, or someone to reply to my comment above about exactly where this version came from... I'm fairly certain this is noise-reduced version of a high-res oringinal not on WP, given that the NARA "source", which is much lower res, has a very good bit of grain. Thegreenj 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I sure didn't filter it. There was excessive noise in the sky when I worked on the image so I kind of doubt it went through any automatic filter. My default assumption was foliage, although I'm not 100% confident on that. The mild .jpg degradation had me more concerned. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:World War II

previous FPOC In my opinion this portal displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.21 featured articles,32 selected pictures ,10 selected biographies,13 articles for Selected equipment , and 18 selected battles.All of the articles and images are featured . Bewareofdog 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, averything appears to be in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tank diagram

Reason

Vector representation of a tank: simplified representation of M1 Abrams for clarity. Tank is rated as a vital military technology article.

Articles this image appears in

Tank, also potentially Glacis plate, Cupola, Mantlet and translations of these articles.

Creator

Dhatfield

• Support as nominator --Dhatfield (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also available as an international version with numbers replacing text. Dhatfield (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support assuming diagram accuracy. Very good quality illustration. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Accuracy confirmed through tank discussion. Dhatfield (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very detailed diagram for an svg. My only concern is that the line pointing at the return roller does seem to get lost crossing a large portion of the tank. --victorrocha (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This label was removed as non-notable (see Tank discussion for more details). Dhatfield (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unless it's better sourced. You have a source for the design from that picture... but there needs to be some source for the labels. It doesn't have to be perfect but there should be something to reference for them. (Otherwise I'd definitely support.) gren グレン 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. n00b: how would I show that a source applies specifically to this image? Can I place a comment on the image description? Dhatfield (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you can cite a source or link directly to a website from the image description. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I thought some of the terms were more technical than they appear to be so sourcing isn't as important for such generic and obvious terms--but, still a good thing. One more thing. The spikes on the inside of the track on the photo seem to go through the middle of the wheel and not on the inside of the wheel as in the SVG. Is there any way you can fix that? gren グレン 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• References added to image, thanks Trekphiler. Dhatfield (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well spotted on the teeth. The road wheels are also double thickness as shown in the new version. Dhatfield (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent. It'd be nice if you could just add page numbers if you have them to the references. I've already supported this but page numbers would still be nice. Great job on this. One of the best SVGs around. gren グレン 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see this image actually being used in the tank article. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Now here in the design section. Dhatfield (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• You could make the whole thing a lot more legible by spacing the labels out more evenly, e.g. the label for commander's gun is unnecessarily cramped with a lot of whitespace to its left. There are other examples of this. You may find that once you have done that, you may also be able to use larger type. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I reorganised and increased the text size. The text is now legible in context. Dhatfield (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent SVG diagram, and it even uses web safe fonts! Kaldari (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very well done! Clegs (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support but fyi, the bottom of the "g" in "Engine Air Intake" is cut off when I view in (nominal) full size, but looks fine in thumb and smaller views. Could just be Firefox. Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...or a minor rendering glitch. This is not reproducible outside of WP - really impressive that you caught this. Dhatfield (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support strongly, really well done. 72.94.13.165 (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG SUPPORT Very well done, very encyclopedic, plus it simply looks cool ;) Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: On the track on the right side, the links appear to be falling off (Near the caption with "link"). Also, shouldn't there be links on the inside of the left track? I'm not sure, and was just wondering. Oh, and by the way, Support. Spencer^T♦C 11:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Links inserted on the inside of the far track and minor shading changes to far track. I've changed the links on the right so that they're not 'falling off'. Technically, there are two connecting rods per link, but putting those in is one step too far for me. Dhatfield (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support very well done diagram. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support saw this over at the graphics lab and had to stop by to support. Very well done SVG. §hep • ¡Talk to me!
• Support A nice, clear and useful image which meets the criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H.M.S. Pinafore

Reason

A fine engraving, advertising an early American production, for an opera where the American popularity and the unauthorised nature of most of said productions were particularly notable: This led directly to their next opera, The Pirates of Penzance, premièring in America. And, yes, I know the caption is a little long. So sue me =).

Articles this image appears in

H.M.S. Pinafore

Creator

A.S. Seer's

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Nobody seems to be participating in this discussion, so I will :). The scan is not superb, but the large size of the image makes up for this. It illustrates Gilbert and Sullivan's famous comic opera well. NauticaShades 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good job with the sharpening. NauticaShades 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The text, in particularly, is distractingly blurry, and it's not that big (pretty small for a modern scan).--ragesoss (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a lithograph, so it's never going to be perfectly sharp, but I do think the Library of Congress also added some blurriness. Luckily, the Sharpen tool works very well with lithography, so I can force out some sharpness. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The sharpening is a major improvement. I'm still not convinced this is among the top tier of images on Wikipedia (and G&S is already very well represented in FPs). Neutral.--ragesoss (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Gilbert is well-represented, but not his collaborations with Sullivan. For G&S we have only the lead images for Thespis (opera) and Trial by Jury, to my knowledge. And, yes, I fully intend to try and get an FP for all 14 G&S operas. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Peer review

• 2006
• 2007
• 2008

A-Class review

• 2006 (promoted/failed)
• 2007 (promoted/failed)
• 2008 (promoted/failed)