Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles talk  → Nominations for deletion talk The Academy talk
Departments Assessment talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ  → Assessment requests Contest talk Logistics talk Review talk  → Review alert box
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active / Inactive  → Banners and userboxes Awards talk Stress hotline talk Portals talk Project banner talk Project category
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge talk  → Military award talk  → Military conflict talk  → Military memorial talk  → Military person talk  → Military structure talk  → Military test site talk  → Military unit talk  → National military talk  → War faction talk  → Weapon talk  → Command structure talk  → Operational plan talk  → Service record 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 land vehicles 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 Lebanese military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Pakistani 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 Cold War 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. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.

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

Finally, as part of our reciprocal peer reviewing collaboration, the department lists partner peer reviews for articles maintained by the Video games WikiProject.

[edit] Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Hello! I have just finished writing this article, on one of the most crucial albeit somewhat forgotten conflicts in Byzantine history. I would like to take a shot at A or even FA status eventually, but before, I would like to have some opinions on its present quality, both in terms of prose quality and comprehensibility of the narrative, as well as on whether the coverage of the subject is comprehensive enough. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 08:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• "During the ensuing winter, heavy snowfall rendered campaign was impossible." Does this sentence have two verbs or is it just my bad English?
• "Kantakouzenos set out into Macedonia, hoping to break through to his wife, who was holding out at Demotika against the forces of the regency." Wasn't she in prison?
• Check the copyright status of File:Byzantine empire 1355.jpg.
• "To a lesser extent, the conflict acquired confessional overtones as well, as the supporters of Hesychasm were usually equated with the supporters of Kantakouzenos." I don't see any elaboration on that in the main article.
• Check the sources of the article's images. For instance, I cannot access the link of the source of File:John V Palaiologos.jpg.

I liked a lot the article. It flows very well; it is well-referenced; I think it will be soon FA!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the review. I fixed the first one, and clarified that Kantakouzenos' wife and children were actually at Didymoteicho, which was his base and residence. I also fixed the info & sources on the images. They are indeed PD, I hope it's OK now. As for the Hesychasm, traditionally, there was the equation pro-Hesychast=Kantakouzenist, which the later Byzantine writers themselves espoused. However this is more polemics and less fact: the actual record shows that the sides chosen during the conflict had little to do with one's preferences towards Hesychasm. True, the victory of Kantakouzenos also led to the adoption of Hesychasm by the Church, but that was not why the war was actually fought. I am still uncertain as to how exactly include this in the article, which is why I only mentioned it in the lead, with the "to a lesser extent" qualifier. It will be elaborated upon, but I need some time to think it over, and it is either way not crucial to the understanding and development of the conflict. Constantine ✍ 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnai

This is generally a good article. Good work! There are still some problems though. First with the lead.

• The second paragraph seems a bit too detailed for a lead, particularly the second half. I realize the need to explain circumstances, but a lead is suppose to be a summary explaining the main points.
• The last paragraph also seems to have some information unreferenced and not supported fully by the rest of the article, particularly the last 2 sentences.
• A few problematic statements that might be close to violating WP:NPOV. FE:
  • its strength was allowed to wane under his successor Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328)
  • It was a good choice: Angelos was loyal and effective, and soon managed to bring Epirus into the Kantakouzenist camp as well.
  • On 11 July 1345, Alexios Apokaukos, perhaps the main instigator of the civil war, had been murdered.
  • "In spite of the this, his subsequent reign saw numerous of successes that shored up the tottering empire."

    This statement is fine, the statement later, "Several towns in Macedonia were lost in 1334 to the Serbs, led by the renegade Syrgiannes Palaiologos, but the murder of Syrgiannes led to a negotiated settlement that limited Serbian gains." Does not appear to support the notion that it was a success. The Serbians still, according to the text, made some gains.

• There are a couple of statements I added ^{[according to whom?]} to. If they are by the author lated cited, then say so in the text as those statements are otherwise WP:OR (this is because those statements are attributing what the state of mind of a particular person was).
• I have also done some additional copyediting. I would have this looked over by a copyeditor before proposing for a GAN, especially on comma usage.陣内_Jinnai 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review & the copyedits. Now, on the lead: I have shortened the opening sentences of the second paragraph, but I cannot reduce them further except to the effect that "the civil war broke out in early autumn 1341.", which I won't do, since the process by which the war came about is important. As for the last paragraph: the disruption of trade and devastation of the countryside are mentioned and cited in the Aftermath section, while the gains made by Dushan and Bulgaria are so throughout the text. I have however added a citation just in case. For the POV statements: I have revised the first three. On the fourth, well, the successes followed before that (Thessaly and Epirus) and after. I have repositioned and rephrased the sentence on the war of 1334, it should be OK now. As for the ^{[by whom?]} tags, I edited the sentences accordingly, except in one case: "In July, he left the capital at the head of the army leaving Apokaukos, whom he believed to be still loyal, in charge." The source here is Nicol, cited later. I don't see OR here, it's common sense: if Kantakouzenos had not held Apokaukos to be a reliable servant, he would certainly not have let him running the capital. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, aside from the style issues, what do you think of the article as a history? Are there any sections that ought to be covered in more/less detail? Any issues left unclarified (aside from Hesychasm)? Constantine ✍ 08:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, and as I told you above, the story flows very well. You have an excellent structure in your history, and you narrative style is nice (σε κρατάει as we say in Greek!); unfortunately, and this is a strictly personal opinion, the WP NPOV policy and the way it is applied leads to dry and boring articles; this one is an exception to the rule!

Although I am not a history expert, I can't find anything missing. The article looks comprehensive. The only thing I could think about, from a strictly military point of view, is this: is there anything worth mentioning in terms of military tactics and strategies? Something innovative? Any more details about the (pathetic?) status of the Byzantine army after the end of the disastrous civil war?

As regards the economic impacts, I see that you cover them quite satisfactory in "Consequences" (where you cite Laiou, maybe the best expert on the field). Maybe, if there is availability in terms of material, you could expand on the social (-class structure) impacts. You say that Ioannis VI was supported by the aristocracy. So, what were the repercussions for the middle and lower classes (if there were any) after his victory? And what do we mean exactly with middle and lower classes? For instance, merchants (Byzantine and even non-Byzantine if the latter had a say or a means of influence) supported whom?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, although your good grasp of the English language is more than obvious, I would agree with Jinnai that it would be nice to have a native speaker check the prose. But I would also advise you to go straight for FAC (after all your preparation is done), and forget GAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a map from 1350 rather than 1355, that would be preferable, but if not its not a big deal. Other than that, I have to agree with Yannismarou.陣内_Jinnai 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding the military aspect, the war didn't really result in anything new. The methods employed were those common throughout the Palaiologan era, so there isn't anything noteworthy, except of course for the great reliance on foreign forces, but that is noted throughout the text. I don't feel that going into details of the Byzantine military system of the time is advisable here. Ideally, at some point the Palaiologan army article will be brought up to a satisfactory standard. I also clarified (hopefully) a bit the distinction between classes in the "Outbreak of the war" section. As for repercussions, there were few: it was business as usual, except that the state's authority was weakened, and that large parts of the Empire were under Serbian control (where Dushan largely retained the pre-existing social and administrative order). The only truly radical social change of the period were the Zealots, but the nature of their movement is poorly understood - echoing the (usually aristocratic) Byzantine historians' own incomprehension of it - and the subject of considerable controversy, so that conclusions differ according to each scholar. I'll contact some copyeditors, and await further comments by other users. Thanks again to both of you for your time and comments. Regards, Constantine ✍ 06:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus

Passes my checklist of "looking good at first glance" :) In other words, it has good layout, appropriate categories, ilinks and map/pictures. If I were to nitpick, I'd say - add a picture to the lead/infobox :) Not being a specialist in the relevant history, I cannot tell you more - but keep up the good work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First Battle of Charleston Harbor

I have done just about everything I set out to do with this article, and now think that it meets B-class criteria. Another set of eyes may detect shortcomings, so suggestions for improvements are welcome. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to properly capitalize all your sources' titles. Will reply later with more substantial comments. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This style (i.e. sentence capitalization) is permitted by the manual of style. I use it because I copy and paste most of my bibliography from the Library of Congress online catalog, and I deem it too much trouble to revise it. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnai

A quick glance over and it looks mostly like it just needs tightening up, ie removing excess words. The lead should be reduced to just explaining the main points. FE, the whole fourth paragraph could largely be reduced to a 2 sentances and merged with the last paragraph. Just tell people that the war didn't go as planned and on either side resulting in defeat for the union forces. Details should be left for the inidivisual sections.

red links should be avoided and the number the article has may be a bit too much.

Finally there are a few words that may should be removed. FE: "Keokuk sank during the night, fortunately with no loss of life,[...]" or "Later, a so-called "boom" was laid between Forts Sumter and Moultrie." a few others, somewhat, although, however, only, etc.

Other words to you can look to remove are ones like thus, in addition, etc. Finally do not start sentances with even, because and of course although (see above).陣内_Jinnai 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention.

1. I have revised the lead to accommodate your suggestions.

2. I have cut out the words you want me to get rid of, with one exception: the "Even Keokuk" in the last paragraph is left in to emphasize the fact that it would be unexpected.

3. The red links dismay me also, but I think the cure is to create the articles they would link to. I am particularly surprised that articles (at least stubs) for Battery Gregg and Fort Johnson do not already exist. As for the naval officers, I think that all three that are now red-linked are notable enough to be worth their own articles.

PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Woody

This is a good article, a few comments from me:

• First off, don't worry about the red links, certainly don't remove them. It indicates articles that still need to be made.
• Could you split up the battle section, perhaps adding in sub-sections. At the moment it is a very large block of text.
• The section headers in the background section aren't very intuitive for the non-American. Could we change it to Union and Confederate or something along those lines?
• Could we get an image made up of the battle, a diagram?
• Make sure you use consistent date formats, I note you use 5 April (rather than April 5) in the battle section. Some people at FAC can get very worked up about date formats.
• "Four monitors led the way; first was USS Weehawken, Captain John Rodgers." This doesn't flow very well, maybe USS Weehawken under the command of Captain John Rodgers. or something to that effect.
• Do we need to list all the commanders in the text? Perhaps a separate order of battle section and put this in list form. That is a stylistic preference though, something to think about. How do other battle articles deal with it?
• Can you take Passaic class monitor out of see also and link it in the text somewhere; perhaps it would be more appropriate to link it instead of the lead ship in this sentence: "The Passaic class gunboats were designed"?

So, a few suggestions for you to ponder. It is good work so far. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Badr (1973)

Around six months ago I made a rewrite of this article and since then, I have been continually adding to it. This [1] is how the article used to be. I think it might qualify for GA. I'm particularly concerned about prose and any NPOV issues. Any suggestions and criticisms are welcome. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the initial stub on the topic many years ago, and am really impressed by the expansion you have undertaken. One thing I find lacking is any discussion of the political ramifications of the battle. Sadat became the "Hero of the Crossing" securing his internal position and that of the Egyptian regime. This gave Sadat the ability to sign peace with Israel, while the initial defeat also convinced Israel of the need to negotiate towards peace. - SimonP (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The sources I have at hand do not go into the political impacts of the battle, so I can't back up anything I add on this topic, which is already sufficiently covered I believe in the Yom Kippur War. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added something about the political impact of the battle. I realise it has little to do with Sadat's widespread popularity after the war. This is something I'll certainly be able to do once I have new books on the topic. Thanks for your review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AustralianRupert

I haven't read the whole thing through yet, but so far it looks comprehensive and well cited. A couple of points I have so far (mostly just nitpicks, but can help get it rated higher):

• Endashes are required for date and page ranges (check the citations list as there are many that require endashes), e.g. pp. 101-102 should be pp. 101–102);

Y Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some sections are quite long and aren't broken up by an image, if possible I would suggest trying to find a few more images so that you can break up the long sections of text. I know you have quite a few images so far, but it would probably make the article a bit more visually appealing;

Articles on the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War have a very visible lack of images. There are tens of photographs available online, but only in forums, blogs, and the like. I just can't find any images with a suitable copyright.

• Emdashes are required in text rather than hyphens (e.g. "etc... - before any bridges were set up" should be "etc...— before any bridges were set up"

Y Done I made a few exceptions however (for example: anti-tank, air-to-air, and weapon designations like T-55, MiG-21...) --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• possibly try to use convert tags for distances and measurements as some parts of the world use kilometres and some use miles. If you put in a convert tag it makes it conceptually easier for all readers. For example: 100 kilometres (62 mi) is achieved by adding the following: {{convert|100|km|mi}} .

Y Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the citations list please check that all page ranges are denoted by "pp.", as I think some have just "p." which would indicate only one page (another nitpick, sorry).

Y Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway that is it for now. Hope it helps. I will have a more comprehensive read over the article soon and provide more feedback if I can think of anything. This is not an area of history that I have much knowledge of, so unfortunately I can't really help with any of the content, mainly just technical stuff. Good work so far, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I really needed someone to point out the various technicalities that needed to be fixed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Fuchs

• Admittedly, there's the year of the operation in the disambig title, but it still reads odd that no mention of the actual date of the operation is made in the lead's first paragraph, especially when you start talking about when they planned it. "initiating the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel" or similar would fix that.
• "Under the restrictions of Israeli air supremacy, Egypt laid down limited objectives to pursue. Preceded by exhaustive preparations, meticulous planning, and an extensive deception operation, Operation Badr was launched in conjunction with Syria on October 6, 1973, a day that coincided with Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, and also coincided with the Muslim month of Ramadan." This reads as jargon. I know that what you're probably trying to say is that since the Israelis had the advantage in airpower Egypt planned a more limited offensive, but these statements don't necessarily link together well, and don't in fact seem to square with the body text (which says that due to air superiority the Arabs planned a multipronged strike to dilute the air force's effectiveness.) It's in this paragraph that I start seeing a major problem throughout the article, that of improper tone and POV language. This might in fact be an issue with the actual sources, which is also a worrying sign. The sentence tries to smash too much information on the significance of the date into the paragraph and sounds bad.
• POV, hyperbole: " daring assault that caught Israel and the world by surprise", "the supremely confident, even arrogant view"
• "A certain number of Egyptian commanders", if it's a certain number, why can't you tell us?
• File:Operation Badr.png missing key information, such as where it was originally published/date/author. As it stands it's licensing tag is invalid.
• "On October 6, at 14:00, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began." I'm pretty sure it wasn't immediately called the "Fourth Arab-Israeli War". Just tell us that's when they attacked. We're not a history channel special.
• In keeping with tone problems, there's a bunch of weasel words and qualifying phrases which undermine the text, such as "all in all", "apparently", "Nevertheless", and such.
• Another worrisome issue, "discovering the Arab intention to go to war only nine and a half hours before the outbreak of hostilities"... the text that runs before makes it clear they didn't just open a door and "discover" that they were going to be attacked.
• MoS issues: incorrect use of em/en-dashes and hyphens throughout.
• Rundancies abound: try User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises (for example using the more verbose "as well as" instead of a simple "and").
• "It reached the opposite bank around 14:40 without losing a single casualty"; you can't lose casulties, only sustain them (or lose men); reword.
• "brought forward to breach a way through"; 'a way through' is redundant with the word breach, which if used in such context ("to breach") should be followed by a noun (what they are breaching). Reword.
• "By now company and battalion—size units of Israeli tanks and infantry begin reaching the Bar Lev Line, but are ambushed by Egyptian troops who prevent them from reaching their positions."; spot the tense errors.
• The article appears to use American English for most of its length, but randomly uses the BrEng "kilometre" spelling.

Overall it is my opinion that the prose needs a significant copyedit and audit for POV language. The article does not come off as neutral, and if the problem is with the sources themselves, a deeper appraisal of the article foundation may be in order. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of your comments have been met. I don't know how to change the spelling for kilometre without removing the conversion template (in use throughout the article). I'll probably ask someone to copyedit the article and check for POV language. I suppose I'll have to further elaborate on why Egypt pursued limited objectives. How would you rate the article's neutrality on a scale of 1 to 5? (5 meaning the article is outrageously biased and 1 representing the complete opposite) Take into account the latest edits when making your rating. Thanks --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would give it an overall 3. Most of the issues seem based in the prelude, strategies, and preparation sections, which I think is probably due to the sources trying to "color up" items. But we shouldn't be saying anyone was "mauled", and if we're calling the Six Day War "disastrous" we should spell out why it was. Sections of the preparation seem overly pro-Egyptian (the deception bit) and I think need to be substantially reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to tone down the POV in the first few sections, and ask someone to copyedit for prose. This has been very fruitful. So thanks a lot. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnai

[edit] Montana class battleship

Previous Peer Review is here

Its been about a year since this article made FA, and now its time for its annual peer review. This is a routine maintenance peer review, I do not expect the article content to have shifted drastically since the FAC last year, but I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Hi, Tom, just a couple of points:

• There are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs, and a paragrah or two themselves, that a without a cite and could probably do with one.
• As there are so many actual notes contained in the "Notes" section among the citations, it might be worth separating them into two different sections; one "Notes" and the other "Footnotes" or some such.
• If possible, it would be best if a few more of the images were aligned to the left, as the majority currently sit to the right.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ed!

Same, just a few things to point out.

• The "Armament" section is the main place without citations. Some paragraphs could use more thorough citations while others (such as the first paragraph in the section) aren't cited at all.
• The books in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections should be put into {{cite book}} templates.
• I see a few links that appear multiple times in the article (Iowa-class, Battle of Midway, etc.) I would suggest skimming through the article's links again and making sure each link only appears once.

-Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cam

Just a few things here and there

• Yamato and Musashi need to be wikilinked in the third paragraph of "history"
• Could the Panama canal restrictions be worked into the article a bit earlier (or at least mentioned in more explicit detail in the "design" section)?

Can't find anything else worth mentioning. Still a superb Featured Article. Well done! Cam ^(Chat) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I Corps (United States)

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!^(talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Just a few minor points that stick out:

• All dates should be delinked.
• Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations.
• Level headings should not begin with "The" per MoS.
• I'm not sure how those listed as "Notable commanders" in the infobox have been ordered, but I think it would be preferable if the were ordered chronologically by the first of those men to command the corps down to the most current of them.
• The "References" section should probably be renamed "Notes", and "Sources" to "References".

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patar knight

I just skimmed the article, but I did pick up some things:

• In the Korean War section, only two engagements are wiki-linked (Inchon landings & Operation Ripper)
• In the Cold War section, you wrote: "The eastern half of the border was handled by the South Korean Army while I Corps took charge in the east.[30]" Is the 2nd east supposed to be "west"? Or were they in command of the South Korean Army in the east? This should be fixed or clarified.
• Honours section should be cited

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Just a few things:

• There are a lot of identical links in some sections, this need to be sorted out
• Years could be added to the notable commanders in the infobox to make things clearer
• The image that shows the structure of the Corps is not clear. It needs to be made bigger or moved.
• The history section is very large, it may need trimming down a bit.

Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 45th Infantry Division (United States)

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EnigmaMcmxc

1. I have had a look at the refs and sources they look a-ok to me. Internet sources all appear to be US military or Gov, the one that isnt cites it sources.
2. "After a brief deactivation, the division returned to duty in the Korean War, defending U.N. lines against repeated attacks from Chinese forces" - This is in the lead, does this mean that the division did not have an offensive role in the war?
   1. By the time the division got to Korea the fight was mostly trench warfare, so not really. I clarified the lead to say that the division was "on the UN lines" -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Too many dead links, they should be removed until the articles have been created.
   1. Removed most of the less important ones. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
4. "Brigades were disbanded in favor of regimental commands" - what does this mean?
   1. From that point, the division contained three regiments instead of two brigades. I have clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
5. "On August 1, the Division withdrew from the front line for rest and patrols." - it withdrew from the front to patrol? I think this needs to be clairfied a little.
   1. Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
6. "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was detached from the Army Group and assigned to land behind enemy lines at Anzio, Operation Shingle." - Can this be reworded so Operation Shingle isnt tagged on the end?
   1. Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
7. "part of a buildup in preparation for an invasion of mainland Europe in southern France to coencide with Operation Overlord.[15] The 45th Infantry Division, along with the 36th and 3rd Infantry Divisions were pulled from the line in Italy, however the planned attack, Operation Anvil, was delayed until August.[15]" - i think Operaiton Anvil should be introduced earlier, when talking about the division being withdrawn.
   1. Dome. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
8. "The 45th Infantry Division participated in its fourth assault landing during Operation Dragoon on 15 August 1944, at St. Maxime, in Southern France.[10] The German Army, reeling from the Battle of Normandy pulled back after a short fight" - These 2 sentances need to be clairfied; surely the Germans facing this division pulled back after a short fight and not those up north that took part in a 3 month long slogging battle. I think it should be mentioned that the Germans were not simply just pulling back but something about their strategy should be mentioned as it seems they hightailed it back to Germany following Normandy and Dragoon.
   1. Clarified that the german's retreat was part of a larger overal withdrawal east. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
9. "During this time much of the division's artillery assets fell under the command of the 44th Infantry Division" - what does it mean fell under their command? Where they transferred? The following sentance "It returned to VI Corps on New Year's day", is this in regards to the arty or the division - can this be clarified?
   1. Clarified both. The Artillery was attatched to the 44th Divison - it wasn't permenantly assigned to them, but it was sent to them temporarily to support their own assets. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
10. "The division captured Munich during the next two days, and remained there until the end of the war on V-E Day.[10] During the next month, the division occupied Munich " - 2 points, the bit about VE day seems a bit awkward. 2, the division captured Munich and stayed there but only occupied the city after the war - that seems a little confusing.
    1. Tried to reword both points to make them more clear. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
11. "Post-War Drawdown" - drawdown means?
    1. As the second grapgh in the section states, "drawdown" refers to the Army's massive reduction in size, cutting around 80 divisions of the force. I can't think of any better word for this in the section header so I just renamed it "post-war" -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
12. "The 45th Infantry Division was reconstituted as a National Guard unit" - the pre war section states this division was already national guard?
    1. The division was activated into the Active duty force from the national guard force during the war. I've tried to emphasize this at the beginning and end of the WWII section. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise the article looks good and i dont see why it doesnt go right to the FA review now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I hope to put it up to FA as soon as possible, but first I am going through GA and Peer Review, then A-class, then FA. That way I can absorb as much constructive criticism as possible while improvine the article gradually. -Ed!^(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skinny87

To me, it just strikes me as a bit bland and lacking in detail, especially for a division that fought through many of the major campaigns of the Second World War. Where's the use of the official history of the division, or more secondary sources like Atkinson that examine the various WWII campaigns? To me, it just doesn't seem to have enough detail; I realize there aren't exactly many divisional pages of a high quality to base this on, but I think more could be done. Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some other sources to spice it up, but I'm not sure how much I can do. What parts do you think should be improved with more sources? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnai

My only comments, as much has been covered by the reviewer, is that some of the info in the After Korea section might be better moved to the legacy section, specifically those about the 45th Infantry Brigade. Also there is some minor prose cleanup. Its not major though, so for a GA its probably okay.陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the article, are there any prose issues you still see? and as for the legacy section, I thought the information on the 45th brigade belonged in the history because it is, by definition, an extension of the 45th Division's history. Which parts should be moved? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The opposing viewpoint is that the 45th Inf Bde is a separate formation almost entirely, sharing only a number. Unless anyone objects, I will move almost all of it to the 45 Inf Bde article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really necessary. Consequently I've also put the 45th Infantry Brigade up for GA, and it covers its subject reasonably well. I just assumed that, since the 45th Brigade shares the 45th Division's lineage it would be appropriate to include more details of the 45th Brigade since it is technically the same unit. -Ed!^(talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, (1) both are formations, not units, being brigades/divs. Units stop at the battalion level, as far as I've ever heard. (2) One is a division and the other is a brigade - how can they be the same formation? IoH makes it clear - 'predecessor organization' - not the same formation. Buckshot06(prof) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you for providing the source! It looks like you're right and the 45th Brigade info wasn't necessary after all. -Ed!^(talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Info about them passing on the lineage and heradly is still relevant to this topic though. However that's imo is more of its lasting legacy, ie that a brigade has taken the lineage and heraldry of a division which shared its number.
as for the prose, the only one I'm still wondering about is this line under Salerno and Anzio -- After linking up with the British Eighth Army that had advanced from the south, the combined force, under the Fifteenth Army Group was stalled when coming on the Gustav Line. -- Is the combined force refering to the 15th?陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Buckshot06

Was the 45th Division the only one singled out for disbandment in 1968? If I remember rightly, the answer is no. A better answer may be at Manouver and Firepower: Divisions and Separate Brigades [2] which might give a picture with more context. Buckshot06(prof) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Ed!^(talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sturmvogel_66

I'm a little confused about the transformation of the OK Militia Regiment into the 142nd. Was it simply renamed as the 142nd or was there something a little more complex going on? At any rate reassigned doesn't seem to be the proper word to use. Fix this sentence: On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was activated into the Active duty force. Clumsily worded, use either mobilized or federalized. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Just a few points that stick out:

• Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article.
• The "Honors" section is completely without any references, and requires them.
• "Alledged War Crimes" - the "w" and "c" should not be capitalised.
• I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 24th Infantry Division (United States)

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!^(talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

A very nice article, overall. A couple of questions and suggestions:

• Is globalsecurity.org the best available source for the division's later career? I would have assumed that there must be more conventional coverage of the Gulf War in recent literature.
• "A division in name only" seems a bit glib for a section title.
• The article needs to be copyedited before moving to FAC; there are a lot of sections where the prose is very choppy (likely due to sentences being split along source lines).

Keep up the good work! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cla68

Although the section on WWII is probably long enough already, you might consider using the following online sources to reinforce the information you already have and to check for any important details that should be added:

• Smith, Robert Ross (1953). "The Approach to the Philippines". United States Army in World War II. U.S. Army Center of Military History. http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Approach/index.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-10. 
• Smith, Robert Ross (1993). "Triumph in the Philippines". United States Army in World War II. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the (US) Army. http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Triumph/index.html. Retrieved on 2008-08-18. 
• United States Army Center of Military History. "The Campaigns of MacArthur in the Pacific, Volume I". Reports of General MacArthur. http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/index.htm. Retrieved on 2006-12-08. 
• United States Army in World War II: Leyte: The Return to the Philippines

Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Just a few points that stick out:

• In the infobox, the presentation of the endashes is inconsistent, with the first being spaced and the following two not. Please make all three consistent.
• Level headings should not begin with "the" per MoS.
• The "Honors" section is completely without any references. Please remedy this.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy

I have done a lot of work to this article, and I wanted to know what needed to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Patar knight

A couple of points:

• The intro should start off mentioning the actual subject (US Aircraft Carriers) from the first paragraph, rather than going straight into a description of US Aircraft carrier history, which is confusing for readers, and doesn't provide a good summary
• The section headers are misleading. Most people would expect Yorktown to be in the WWII section. Also, the Pre-World War II section contains information on Pearl Harbour, which definitely during the war.
• In the WWII section, "On September 2, 1945, Japan signed the surrender agreement abroad the USS Missouri, ending World War II.[9]" does not pertain to Aircraft Carriers whatsoever, unless its paired with some factoid (e.g. By the time Japan...ending WWII, the United States had x amount of active carriers).
• The "Escort Carriers" section should be a sub-section of WWII, since all the escort carriers are from that time frame.

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PKKloeppel

According to mynameinc, the person who requested this review no longer intends to edit Wikipedia articles, presumably including also this one. It is clear that he has not responded to Patar knight in more than two weeks. I have made some of the changes suggested by Patar knight, but have neither the time nor the resources to do a good job. Either someone else will have to jump in and do it, or we should forget about it. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From a logistical standpoint, the review will be getting archived at some point, once it drops to the bottom of the review list. I'm not sure there's any benefit to explicitly ending it before that point; even if nobody is actively making the suggested changes, the list of suggestions may prove useful to future editors in and of itself. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy

I have done a lot of work on this article, and I wanted to know: what needs to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sturmvogel 66

You might want to expand on the flush-decker explanation; I don't find flat-deck anything close to a reasonable translation. I'd explain that they lacked the forecastle used by most contemporary ships and this single deck from stem to stern was called a flush deck in naval terminology. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Y DoneThanks, do that tomorrow. Did you notice anything else wrong? mynameinc (t|c|p) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If anybody notices anything else wrong, please tell me here, the article talk, or my talk page. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] McComb

I perceive your approach is to compress multiple linkable source articles into a single article as a framework for your table. I am not a regular Wikipedian and only by accident discovered this page; also, I lack time for much more than review -- but in the interest of historical accuracy, I'm all in favor of seeing this done well. Accordingly, I took the liberty of making some edits of my own last week but misemphases remain. I'd be pleased to offer comment in the spirit of continuing education in lieu of making further edits of my own; is that what you're looking for? If yes, would it useful to point you toward resources other than what's available on the web? If no, would you tolerate reworking of some sections? I ask the question as the author of many of the articles you've cited in your REFERENCES and I'd be willing to work with you if we could find an efficient way. McComb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Indian Air Force

Nominator(s): Sumanch (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because —

• this article is already a B-class article and I believe exceeds GA requirements
• this article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations
• article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the Indian Air Force; it neglects no major facts or details
• the article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
• the article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant
• the article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

Sumanch (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Five websites are reported as suspicious, including at least two computer confirmed dead links. Please check and advise. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.

* Deadlinks — I went through the article. Looks like I am missing them. I will appreciate if you can list them.

* Suspicious links — I thought only 3 of them were (Bharat Rakshak, GlobalSecurity and domain-B). Can you please give the other two. I will address issues with each citations individually. Let me know if that will work.

* Disambiguous(?) links — I think I completely missed what you meant by that. Sumanch (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like, them are fixed. Sumanch (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

disambig links fixed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Third paragraph of the history section, second to last sentence: "During the war, the RIAF did not engage Pakistan Air Force in air-to-air combat; however, provided effective transport and close air support to the Indian troops.[14]" I think it would be better worded as "During the war, the RIAF did not engage Pakistan Air Force in air-to-air combat; however, it did provide effective transport and close air support to the Indian troops.[14]"

Done Sumanch (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Do you really need the table in the command and structure section? It looks great, but as the article is already big I wonder if you may be able to get by without it.

Fixed — Used a template instead of the table. Sumanch (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The above comments also apply to the officers section and airmen section.

These two templates and the template for Command & struct are necessary. These provide valuable info about the IAF. Now, for the size issue, using template instead of a table actually helps reducing the size because the article size is based on the characters in the article. These templates are contributing less than 50 KB in this article. The citations are one of the biggest reasons that this article is this big. Sumanch (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Consider alternating your images more, a lot seem to be aligned to the right.

I think this is sufficient. Sumanch (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Can we get away with the removal of the weapons section? I understand why its there, but to me it seems a little redundant since what the planes can carry should be noted on the planes articles.
  • Eliminate the gallery section. If you have a link to the commons then adding a gallery is a waste of resources, any image here should be there as well.

Agree — Eliminated Sumanch (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • See if you can trim the see also section by removing those article already linked from the main text.

I left 5; deleted rest. Sumanch (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Consider removing the video links in the external links section. Those links are not doing anything to the article, and may be used against you at FAC should you elect to go there.

I agree — Removed. Sumanch (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Outstanding article. Its nice to here about an air force other than the USAF, but I would like to see the above points addressed before penning an opinion on the article. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kaiser class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another one of my German dreadnought class articles :) This passed GA some time ago, and after a bit more work, I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • No problems reported with your external links. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.
  • First Intro paragraph, last line, "As was usual for German battleships of the period, the Kaiser class mounted main guns that were smaller than those of their British rivals". Why was this usual? I would recommend on elaborating on this a little, it strikes me as something worth going into.
  • Our article on the German naval laws do not explain why the service life of the battleships was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. See if you can elaborate on this point, it definitely deserves a greater mention.
  • Propulsion section, first paragraph, second line: "...an alternative to the Parsons turbine monopoly." I would recommend linking to the Parsons article, even if we do not have one, and elaborating a little on the monopoly aspect since it seems important to the history of these ships.
  • The last part of the armament section references torpedo tubes as being common to the design of German ships at the time. Why? I would recommend elaborating on this a little.
  • Although not necessary, I would suggest trimming a little from the Jutland section, it seems rather long for the article's subject matter. I list this as an optional suggestion, so I will not hold this one against you if you decide not to trim the section.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I got the two dab links. I'm looking into the first point you raised, about the "smaller main guns than the British" bit. I know I read somewhere the explanation for why the Germans preferred the smaller caliber gun, but I haven't yet managed to track it down. When I do, I'll add it in a note. The next two points I think I've addressed in the article, can you take a look and see if what I've added is sufficient? For the last one, the Jutland section is a bit long, but I don't know what should be trimmed without losing some important supporting facts. Like, the stuff about the BCs isn't really relevant to the article, but I think it would be pretty bad to just drop the reader into the "run to the north", without any explanation of what got the two fleets to that point. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. Still in the dark about the torpedoes, though; its seems a little odd (to me it does anyway) for a battleship with really big guns to have torpedoes in any respect. Any luck with this point? TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen anything just yet, but it does seem that most if not all BBs and BCs of the era carried a few torpedo tubes; all of the pre-Washington American and British BBs were equipped with submerged tubes, as did the Japanese, French, and Russian BBs of the period. It's probably a legacy of pre-dreadnought designs that were designed to fight at very close range (these torpedoes generally had a range of only a few kilometers). It does seem odd that they were retained. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• A few comments
• "However, the diesel was not ready in time to be installed in Prinzregent Luitpold, so the ship ..."

The diesel or the engine? It's just that (in my little, sleep-deprived brain) "diesel" and "installed" don't seem to go together... I'm 90% sure this isn't a mistake, but just checking.

• "At maximum elevation, the guns had a range of up to 16,299 m (17,825 yd). The mountings were later modified to depress to -5.5 degrees and elevate to 16 degrees. This extended the maximum range of 20,400 m (67,000 ft)."

Why first yards then feet? (I added the bold marks, to show what I mean)

• "The ships also lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees. The ships had a transverse metacentric height of 2.59 m (8.5 ft)."

Sounds awkward to begin two consecutive sentences with 'the ships'.

I wasn't able to look over the entire article, seeing as I'm going to leave for a little vacation tomorrow morning - what I have seen looks very good. Icy // ♫ 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've fixed the things you pointed out. It always amazes me how I can miss little, but seemingly glaring things like the yards/feet conversion thing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
• I saw a few redlinks in the article. Otherwise, it looks fine. Sumanch (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are encouraged, see WP:REDLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): Ed!^(talk)

The article is a GA and has seen a lot of work from me recently. Its peer review has recieved very little feedback compared to other articles I have up, and I feel it is time to move the process along. I will address any concerns directly on the review. -Ed!^(talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few points that stick out:

• Generally, only one review should be open at a time for an article, so I would advise archiving the peer review if you are finished with it.
  • I was under the impression that only GA and A class reviews could not occur simultaneously. I was hoping that the Peer Review would bring in suggestions based on FA criteria, while the ACR would address problems with A criteria. But if it is required to only have one review open at a time, I will close the Peer Review. -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is formally required, but it is best not to have a simultaneous peer and A-Class review open; it just confuses things. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've requested to close the peer review in favor of keeping this one open. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You do realise you could have done that yourself, right? ;-) I have just archived it, but remember that if you wish to open a peer review on the article again you will have to move the original to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/7th Infantry Division (United States)/Archive 1" and open a complete new review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• As I stated in one of your above peer reviews, I do not know how you have ordered those listed as "Notable commanders" in the infobox, but I think it would be preferable if they were ordered chronologically, with the earliest of the four placed first and the most recent last.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Now they require endashes. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• There are a number of puncuation typos throughout the article, with commas or fullstops missing. Please go through the article and fix these.
  • I have given the article a full copy edit, and looked over it again to fix what I saw. Are there any sections that you saw needing attention? -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have not had a full read of the prose, but skimming through I spotted a number of, as mentioned above, puncuation typos involving fullstops and commas. However, I think they have now mostly been addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've looked through most of the article and added commas and fullstops wherever I saw them needed. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Everything listed in the "Honors" section requires a cite.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Emdashes should be unspaced.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I am gearing up for the first week of Spanish 1302, and am uncertain of my abiility to get back here an and preform a thorough review any earlier than wednesday, but I do have a few comments for you in the maen time:
  • You have no errors reported in your external links or disambig links, well done!
  • You have one malformed citation, it says there no such cite as liniage. That needs to be fixed.
• I will take a closer look at the article when the opurtunity to do so arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Citation fixed. -Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good job. Now, as promised, the thorough review:
  • In the WWII section you have cited Field Artillery Battalions, a Signal Company, an Ordnance Company, a Quartermaster Company, a Reconnaissance Troop, an Engineering Battalion, a Medical Battalion, and a Counter Intelligence Detachment. While I grant that not all of these groups may have an article here I do think we could lik to the broader terms like "Engineering Batalion". See if you can find some articles to serve as suitable substitutes for the time being.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "...a bitter battle over freezing tundra against fanatically resisting Japanese." Having written WWII articles before I am aware of the extent to which the Japanese resisted the Allied advance, but as a coordinator I do feel obliged to point out that we do need to weigh our weasel words with care. I would suggest double citing the sentence if possible, or citing the words bitter and fanatical to a precise source just to be safe.
    • I agree. I simply removed the weasel words, tried to put more neutral terminology in there. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • battle at Chichagof Harbor, if the propser name for the battle, needs to be capitalized (ie :Battle of Chichagof Harbor), and if it is the culmination of the island action then we probably have an article on it here that you can link to.
    • It's not a formal name, just the statement of a battle taking place there. I found the article for the Harbor itself and linked it. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Leyete and Okinawa sections you have two pictures lined up to the right, I would suggest altering them so that one aligns to the left and one to the right.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Okinawa section you have the line "After the fight, the division began capturing large numbers of Japanese prisoners for the first time in the war". Why did these Japanese surrender? Thats worth going into a little since most choose to fight to the death.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Okinawa section, the second to last paragraph ends with the line "but these plans were scrapped after the Japanese surrendered following the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[36]" I would suggest linking to the article Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than linking individually to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just a thought.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it all looks good. well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I now believe this to be A-class. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article is close to meeting the criteria, but needs a little more work:
  • "The 12th and 13th Brigades did not reactivate" it might be worth noting that this was because the standard US Army infantry division organisation at the time did not include brigades
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "With the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, the division was sent to Camp San Luis Obispo to resume its training as a combat division" - what was the division doing before that? The pre-Pearl Harbor training exercises described look pretty standard for combat units
    • I just meant that the division was moved to a new location to continue its training. I have changed the word from "resume" to "continue" -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • When was the 53rd Infantry Regiment replaced, where did it go and was the 159th Infantry Regiment transferred from another division or newly raised?
    • It was a new unit from the California National Guard. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The 7th Division didn't 'drive' the Japanese from Attu - as the text correctly notes, the remnants of the garrison mounted a suicide attack and were not withdrawn
    • Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The statement that the division "drove them from the island" is still there - this should be removed as its incorrect (it implies that the Japanese force left the island). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the 159th Infantry Regiment later form part of another division?
    • No. The regiment stayed on the island for some time and then returned to the US where it remained until the end of the war. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Could this be mentioned in the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A map of the Okinawan campaign would be helpful if one is available
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you know why the ratio of wounded to killed was so low during the retreat to Hungnam? Normally more soldiers are wounded than killed - I presume that this figure reflects the division being unable to properly evacuate or care for its casualties during the retreat.
    • Around 2,000 of the killed were from Task Force Faith, which was completely destroyed by the Chinese, those who were too wounded to retreat were killed. Clarified this in the casualty count. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Was the entire division involved in the invasion of Panama? If so, limiting coverage to a single sentence doesn't seem sufficient.
    • Elements of the division participated in it, but as far as my sources say, all the 7th Division troops did was secure some of the northern military bases and hold them while the 82nd Airborne Division took care of the rest of the country. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What role did the division play during the LA riots?
    • Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The third para in the 'A division in name only' section is full of military jargon which needs to be translated (eg, what's a 'Small Scale Contingency Operations rotation', what was involved in the various training and evaluation functions, etc - I think everything you need to cover in the para is already there, it's just diffiult to understand as written). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've cut out military terms and replaced them with more descriptive ones. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support My above comments have now been addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
• File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif lacks author information
• File:Battle of Inchon.png Is there a specific source for this, ie website?
• File:Don C Faith.jpg lacks author information
• File:Einar H Ingman.jpg lacks author information
• I think the author issues should be easily resolved, all of the images seem to be good US public domain images so no copyright issues.
• The MOS states that it is preferable for the images to alternate wherever possible. I notice they are inconsistent in their placing, is that for any particular reason?
• Other than these little issues, I think the article is good to go for A-Class. Good job. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Images given info and placed in an alternating fashion. -Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Happy to support now, my minor issues have been sorted. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

[edit] Jack Coggins

Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have reviewed the constructive criticism from its first FAC and I have implemented many of the suggested changes, re-ordered some of the sections, copyedited the text, and brought more sources. At this time, I think that it is ready for another critical review as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • done I've added the rest; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - Prose-wise, word choice needs work.
• who is best known in the United States for his oil paintings of predominantly marine subjects and for his books on space travel. - remove the second for
• Coggins wrote and illustrated many books, covering a wide range of subjects, and provided numerous illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles, and magazine covers. - did he cover them or did the books?
• for YANK magazine in the United Kingdom and Europe - do you know which countries, you shouldn't just say a country then continent, it's illogical
• Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his long career, and taught master art classes for 45 years - master or Masters?
• He retired in May 2001 at nearly 90 years of age and died at his home in Pennsylvania in January 2006. - End should probably read, at the age of 94.
• Coggins was born in in his father's military barracks in London, England on July 10, 1911, - His father owned barracks?
• Coggins enjoyed "fiddling around with drawing" and his family had not discouraged him - Why would his family discourage him? I assume this is close to the source?
• Coggins's interest in military subjects was due to his father's military service and his early education in a military school. - Cite?
• Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a planned children's book about the U.S. Navy. The author was to be Fletcher Pratt, a well known military historian, and the publisher sent Coggins to meet him. Their common interest in maritime history created a lasting friendship and a fruitful association between the two men. - No citations at all
• Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his career. - Almost repeated from the lead, perhaps you could rewrite it?

I think that sums up my concerns. ceranthor 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Towner

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. The life and times of an Australian Victoria Cross recipient, this article has been passed as a Good Article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history A-Class. I am very grateful to EyeSerene, who has just completed an excellent copyedit of the article. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When in the world did this requirement come in? I have done it, but as it is the first time I have had to do so I'm not sure if I have done it correctly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You did fine, thanks, and I struck the comment. The alt= support was implemented back in October, and WP:ALT was recently modified to recommend alt text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay, I had never heard of it until now. Thanks for your input, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bosworth Field

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SCENE I. FAC.

Again many apologies to ole Willie... may the soft dirt cushion his turbulence in his grave...

Jappalang

Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality

Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.

In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,

Nor made to court the public's eye;

Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time

Into this project, scarce half completed,

Now this article aspires to comply

With all four featured criteria.

If you do replace a wrongful image;

You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,

If you do improve a dreadful sentence;

Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,

If you do help to fill in the blanks;

Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,

If you do chop off redundant words;

Your trusty sword serves the project well.

Then, for Wikipedia and free information's sake,

Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.

Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;

Jimbo and Saint Isidore! Bosworth and FA!

Aye, for those who would dispense with such iambic banter, come sit thee down and feel welcome to say your piece. Take a read of the glorious Harry-Dick battle, where Dick got royally shafted due to the circumstances that spun his fate. If you are in the know, your help to identify the location and creator of this glass window is greatly appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

I'll add my review here. This is a placeholder to remind me to come and review it when I've had some sleep. Great choice of subject matter. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) OK, here goes. This is a monstrously good article, and will take some time to review properly. The overall impressions are all positive - good use of illustration, good depth of referencing, tone looks appropriate. All of which is excellent. And now on to detail...

• There's too much detail in the Lead. Length in number of paragraphs is right, but each one is too crammed. Cut it down.
  • It's difficult to do this without becoming superficial (given the length of the article), but I've trimmed it a little. EyeSerene^talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comprehensiveness: if you're going to cover Shakespeare's treatment of the battle, which is a good idea, then you really need to cover its treatment by other notable artists, including film-makers not shooting Shakespeare (I'm sure the battle has featured in historical epics)
  • There lies the issue of reliable sources and weightage. Of films, the Battle of Bosworth Field was criticially talked about for Olivier's and McKellan's films (and even so, focus is not solely paid to the battle). The commentary in the article reflects the criticisms and are of the appropriate weightage given without undue weight. It is theatric (plays) version that has received the most reviews among academic and respected sources. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the image captions are overlong. Some fairly random decision-making in terms of linking/not linking in the captions.
  • I presume the overlong captions are the ones for the battle maps? I have trimmed them a bit, and removed the link to Ambion Hill. Links in other image captions are not found in main article text. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More anon as the Bard would have said. Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images all have alt text. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image as an example; could you please add alt text for the remaining images? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have read this article many times—following an invitation from the nominator, I made a series of minor edits during May–June of this year, mainly to help polish the prose. I accept the valid criticism of the length of the lead, but I can't see this being an obstacle to promotion. I think the article should stick with Shakespeare's dramatisation, since this is the most widely known and perhaps the only one that has misled history teachers. I agree that reliable sources could be a problem for modern dramatisations and add that there could be a danger of straying off topic; this is a history article after all. In my view, this contribution satisfies all the FA criteria and establishes a high standard. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support:Comments, leaning to support: Jappalang is one of our most resouceful editors, generous with advice and meticulous in his reviews. He is also one of our worst poets. However, fortunately for him that is not the issue here. This is a meticulously researched article with a gripping narrative, which I am reading with pleasure. I am picking up various minor points as I go through; before listing any details, can I add my voice to the concern expressed about the amount of detail in the lead? Also, there is rather a lot of clutter at the top of the article – image, infobox stuff, map. I wonder whether a slight repositioning, say of the map, might enhance the article's appearance.

Here are some detailed comments on the lead and Background section.

• Lead:
  • Nitpick: "...the battle was won by Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory..." Are battles won by individuals? Would it be more accurate to say "the battle was won by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by this victory..."
  • Grammar: "...while they decided which side would be most advantageous for them to support." Needs an "it" after "which side", and "for them" is unnecessary
  • "Richard's force outnumbered Henry's and the king divided his army into three groups (or "battles")" The two parts of the sentence are not obviously related, and shouldn't be connected by "and".
  • "This theme is most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations." I am unsure what is meant here by "a focal point for critics". What critics - film, theatre, historians?
    • I tried to address the first three points with these changes. As for "a focal point", it is supposed to mean the critics tend to talk about the battle in the film. Maybe a change to "a focal point of attention"? "Critics" is a general term; the article presents the views of a Shakespearian critic, a newspaper reporter, a military historian, and general views gathered by another Shakespearian critic. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Background
  • "extremely" weak smacks of POV. In any event, who alive at that time had a stronger legitimate claim? Edward IV's claim was pretty weak, too.
  • Another dubious "and": "His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne." Suggest replace "and" with semicolon.
  • "The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age." The sentence is too long, and needs splitting. Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the wording. "...the Royal Council who planned to rule the country" sounds a bit informal. I thought this was a statutory duty of the Council.
  • "secured Edward V" is not immediately plain. "Apprehended" or "took into custody" would be clearer.
  • "extrajudicial" is a single word
  • "Discontent for..." → "Discontent with..."
  • The verb "manifest" requires an object. Thus "manifested itself"
  • "started prematurely by 10 days" is awkward. "...started 10 days prematurely"?
    • I have edited the Background section. I hope these changes address the issues here. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map? Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have shifted the map into the Background section. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead trimmed further... EyeSerene^talk 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no remaining issues with lead or map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, who wrote this? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think User:Bishonen is an expert on this area, inter alia, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure. Tony (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand. Jappalang (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy them up. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

• Commanders: Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
• Yorkist
  • "Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
    • I was trying to point out specifically that Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors,[40] Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly." Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "His performance better as "His performances..."
  • "Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
  • Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?

I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn... I was aiming to show that Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry). Any suggestions on how to reword this to get the meaning across? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point, so go with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok) EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lancastrian
  • "Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
  • "whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
• Stanleys
  • "erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
  • "Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley was Henry Tudor's stepfather, a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
  • "Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
• Prelude
  • The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first invasion and the second crossing. Suggest first four words are deleted.
  • Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
  • Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more appropriate.
  • "...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
  • Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
  • I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification requested.

I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Engagement: a superb battle account; only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
• Post-Battle
  • Suggest link circlet, or descibe it as a crown
  • "100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
  • I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?

I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Will conclude later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey, Brian. I hope these changes resolve the stuff above. As for "Post-battle", these events take place after the fighting. Literally, they are suited for that section. Jappalang (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few last bits

• Legacy
  • "to deduce possibly valuable information..." Things can be deduced from information, but information itself cannot be "deduced". Would "insights" be a good substitute for information?
  • There is an apparently intrusive "but" near the end of the second paragraph.
  • Uncertain about the "However" that begins the last sentence.
• Shakespearian dramatisation: No comment - excellent and informative.
• Battlefield
  • Suggest "a dispute broke out amongst historians that has led many..." becomes "a dispute among historians has led many..." (neater)
  • Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "toponymical"?

Final Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support notwithstanding a few minor outstanding issues which are really neither here nor there. Congratulations, Jappalang, and I look forward to more of your historical tours-de-force, if not the "poetic" introductions. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, I have made these changes to address your final concerns. My future endeavour, however, would likely not be of English history, but your words have inspired me; I am going to serenade the FAC masses next with Vogon poetry! Ahem... "Oh freddled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me!" It is surely my calling! Okay, "don't panic!" That (Vogon poetry) was a joke. Jappalang (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unification of Germany

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after major revisions, it is broadly inclusive of the topic, plus focused specifically on unification, it is appropriately and amply cited, representative of a variety of widely accepted historiographic viewpoints, is well written and properly illustrated, and generally and specifically documents and explains the important factors leading to unification of Germany. In addition, it lays the ground work for problems that arose after German unification, and directs the reader to further articles on Kulturkampf, etc. I am the primary editor. In addition to informal assessments (see archive), the article has undergone several (archived) peer reviews, plus a good article assessment (listed). Thank you for your consideration. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.....the eng...lish language wikipedia? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

the file is from wikicommons, and is used in several articles in different languages. Are you suggesting that I should change the name of the file? (requiring everyone else to use an file with an English name) or perhaps duplicate it, and change the title on the picture? (equally pointless...why alter the image...?) The point of wikicommons is to share files, and that being the case, we need to share languages as well. Besides, the caption is in English. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Auntieruth55 - there is no need to change the name of the file. Note that the image description page uses both English and German, so there are no problems with accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the content of the file, placenames should either be English or bilingual, unless the document is of historic significance, which this is clearly not! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

this was unclear from your original post. I've switched out the file for one of far lesser quality in terms of information, but it is in English. This switch is against my better judgment, because the first file had far more information, showing far more explicitly the "kleindeutschland" solution of a Germany without Austria, which is not as clear from the new map. It seems to me that we can pander too much to people who must have everything in English; the other map was understandable even a couple of 10-12 year olds here with me now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Images should be high quality and accessible, it shouldnt be one or the other The source of the licencing in the current image is missing Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality? I'm not referring to the pixels of the image, but rather its ability to illustrate the subject of the article. The picture I took out illustrates this better than the one I put in. I didn't select it off the top of my head, but rather after some consideration of what needed to be in the map, and what was unnecessary. I would MUCH rather use the deleted image than the one I have. How about if I explain what the terms mean in the caption? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we ask someone to simply create a new map based on the original map but which includes English names? We could even have a dual-language map, if you think that would be best. Ruhrfisch has created some maps in the past - he might be able to help. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

that is a good idea. Ruhrfish makes great maps. I did tweak an old map I had, though, and replaced the "questioned" map with this one. See if you like it better? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua, what do you think? I thought the original map was much better. If we could get an English or English/German version of that, I think that would be the best choice. It is almost impossible to read the names on this one because the resolution is so low. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Okay, you need to standardize your references. Some are Location: PUblisher, year others are (Location, Publisher, year).
• On journal articles, we customarily put the article in quotation marks and the journal title in italics. So Jürgen Kocka, "Comparison and Beyond". History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 1 (February, 2003), pp. 39–44
• I'm unclear why you have a bibliography section if you give the full form of the reference in the notes section? Normally, when you give a bibliography section, it's to avoid giving the full bibliographical details in the notes.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an academic. We AlWAYS ise a bibliography. Are you suggesting I take it out? It includes sources that are not cited, but which I read. And I'll standardize the references now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, i'm more suggesting that if you have a bibliography, you just use a "short form" of the source in the notes. See Wilfrid or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. for examples. And if you did not cite a work in the article, it should go in the further reading section, not the bibliography. On Wikipedia, bibliography is only for works actually cited, and further reading is for works perhaps read but not used. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. I looked at OWH Sr and I don't see the difference between the shortform there and the shortform in Unification, other than minor punctuation differences? Once a source is cited the first time, unless there are two or more sources by the same author I don't use the title again, just name and page numbers. I would be happy to use a shorter form in the citations as long as it doesn't involve a-b-c-d etc. I don't like reading articles with the multiple cites using the a-b-c-d, because I find them very difficult to figure out. So, withint that constraint, I'm happy to change the citations to whatever they need to be.

re the merged bibliography and the "additional sources" or whatever we want to call them, I had them separated once, and a reviewer suggested I merge them for space. so I did. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between what you have now and what's in OWH is that OWH never uses the full citation in the footnotes. Instead they are all short form, with the full citation only occuring in the sources section. does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

not really. Short form is last name and page? I did look at it. There are at least a dozen, although not all, that have the full citation. It's not consistent at all. I also separated out the "Suggested Reading" (am I allowed to use that word, even if it isn't neutral?) again ;) and I went through the citations and made sure they were as short as I could make them. I guess a question is, what is the point of using the short form, is it just to save space??? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Example from your article. Footnote 1 is "David Blackbourn, The long nineteenth century: a history of Germany, 1780–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, Epilogue" but you also list the full citation in the bibliography, is there a need to list it long in the first footnote? Anything in the bibliography should only be listed in "short form" in the notes, if you list any short forms in the notes. You can also list EVERY note long form, if you wish, but right now you're inconsistent, some are long some are short, some are always short, some are long in the first footnote and short later. The idea is that you're consistent and right now it's not. And you've still got a few spots of titles not in italics (see notes 62 and 63). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying. I consistently listed every footnote the first time in long form, and after that, in shortened form, as I would do in a paper or published article. I've gone through and eliminated the long form on all first footnotes, however, so this should work, I think. I'll check back after lunch (I'm on vacation right now, and have to pay attention to some others.)--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

okay re citations and footnotes and bibliography. I went back through the entire article, and checked, rechecked, and fixed where necessary. Each citation, the first time, has a complete listing, and after that lists the author's last name, and the page number(s). If there is more than source for an author (such as for Blackbourn or Sperber), I've listed a shortened form of the title. In the bibliography, everything that is referred to in the text is included, but I did use the shortened form (shortened according to CMS, which I gather is the MOS here). I separated the material that is not directly referred to in the article, and listed it under further reading. If a journal article is the source, I've put the journal article in quotes and the journal name in italics, as you requested. So, everything is done consistently, according to style, by the book, so to speak. Hope this works. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the bibliography, please list the publication location and the publishing house for all books. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done this, put all the publishing houses BACK into the bib. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 I worked a bit on the images, but many of them need information that I cannot provide. Hopefully with some additional attention, we can retain most of them.

• File:Germanempire1871.jpg - I don't see any evidence of this map being in the PD, however I might have missed where it says that on the website. Could you point me to that? Thanks.

this one has been removed. A different one put in its place, authorship explained. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

a user named Wiggy did some translations on the original map I had up, but he didn't do all of them. You might take a look at File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.File:German Reich 1871.png --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Germanempire 1871 english plus language.jpg - This is the new image. I see that the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0. Can you show me where on the website it says that the maps are licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 and add a link to the source on the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hambacher Fest 1832.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.

I've translated the German info on the file. The picture comes from a web page of the city, Neustadt, which is near where this festival was held. They are not claiming any copy rights on the images on the website. The commons page claims PD old on the copy right. this is a hand colored drawing from 1832.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found a different copy, this one not colored, and with higher resolution, and it has much clearer and more detailed sourcing information. --Auntieruth55

I've added a more specific source link and fixed the license for the new image. This is a better image! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Nationalversammlung.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.

this is a hand colored lithograph (from a newspaper) (mid 19th century). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz Use permissions here

As you will notice, it says that "All materials included in German History in Documents and Images are intended solely for individual, educational, non-commercial use." - This is not consonant with Wikipedia's free license, which also allow commercial uses. We can still use images from the website, however, as long as we demonstrate that they are in the public domain. To demonstrate that the above is in the PD, it would be best if we could get the death date of von Eliott (the original artist) since the copyright expires 70 years after his death. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Parliament Frankfurt Pauls Church 1848.jpg has been substituted for the Naitonalversamlung. Its sources are clearer, I think. Also have death date on artist. It may need some additional tweaking in the description page by someone.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Charicature stitching Germany together.jpg - "German wikicommons" is not the original source for this caricature, nor is Pischdi the original author. Since the PD license is based on the life of the author, we need to know the original author or change the license. Please also translate the description into English.

as close as I can tell, it was a caricature in a newspaper, and I'm not sure which one, either.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We really need a source here. Is this caricature reprinted in any of the books you used to research the article? Perhaps you could try and contact the original uploader and ask them where they got it from? If we can't find any documentation for this image, it will have to be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given it an invisibility cloak with those codes, so when I eventually find a source, I can add it back in. At this point, it should be "gone" (unseeable).Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:BismarckRoonMoltke.jpg - This image needs the name of the photographer since the license depends on the death of the author.

done some searching, the photo was dated 1860, but no indication of the author. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

more searching. A copy of this photo is located in the Archiv des WSA-Kiel (Archive of the WSA-Kiel (city in northern Germany). here This is an article on the construction of the north sea canal (water street=WS). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the date information and changing the licensing since we don't know the name of the photographer. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:1866 prinz-friedrich-karl-bei-koeniggraetz 1b-640x428.jpg - This image description needs to be translated into English. If you could clearly identify the author, source, and date, I'll assess the rest afterward that.

artist seems to be that world famous painter, "unknown." All other copies of it that i've seen have no author. I'll look in Wawro tomorrow, see if there is one there. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "unknown" is the most talented painter out there. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Battle of Sedan Surrender of Napoleon to Wilhelm.jpg - The source for this cannot be the "German Wikipedia" - we need to find the original source.

this is a drawing by Wilhelm Camphausen, 1878. This was an artist who made a series of pictures about the " national war." He died in 1885. He painted historical scenes (such as Bluecher crossing the Rhine, and a very famous picture of Frederick the Great on his horse). Under the category of historical painting and nationalist painting. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to have some sort of source here. Do you know a book that this is reprinted in or a museum that holds a copy of this, for example? Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Napoleon III Otto von Bismarck (Detail).jpg This is the actual file in the article. Someone had substituted another file, not sure why! There is a source in the description page (I put it there yesterday. Another source for it: Heritage History Famous Men of Modern times, John Haaren, New York, American Book Company, 1909. Count Otto von Bismarck, p. 344-. here Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This file checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Reichsgründung1871-AW.jpg - We need a date and a source for this image. For the source, the museum where it is currently held is sufficient.

Anton Werner was the court painter, and the picture appears to be in the exhibit at Wannseehaus Museum. Werner died in 1915.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no it's not at Wannsee, or if it was, it's permanent location is Schloss Friedrichsruhe. I found it listed in a catalog (Getty).

This is done. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Prussiamap.gif - The uploader of this map, Electionworld, is not the creator of it (as it states on the image description page). Electionworld has stopped contributing, so we cannot discover the contributor. This map will have to be recreated by someone else and this one will have to be deleted.

I'm not married to this photo.

Do you want to get someone to recreate it? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

that would be good. Or....we can just do without it I suppose, although it's good to have it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Kolonialbesitz.png - This image does not list an author, but the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years". Do we know the author? If not, we can find a different license.

this one was pulled out because the article doesn't deal with the colonies.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who the author of the map is? Note that the license states "life of the author plus 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

there is a Ruhrfish recreation. Beyond this, I'm not sure...

• File:Kaiser Wilhelm Deu. Eck Koblenz.jpg - The quotation from the website is not an explicit release of rights. I believe we need something more solid than this. The images need to be released under a specific license - this is too unclear. This image needs to be deleted or the licensing clarified.

the website gives a specific release of rights as long as the website is credited. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Notice that the website attaches specific conditions to the release of the rights (journalism and tourism). 2) There is no specific license here, making the entire release ambiguous. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem, lots of pictures of the corner, a very impressive and much photographed space. I swapped it out for one posted by a german user, it's his own picture.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

New image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am enjoying reading the article. These image issues will take some time to resolve, but they are not difficult. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've shifted someof the images around, using ones that have clearer sourcing inf. Hope this helps.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the images are sandwiching text, which is strongly discouraged by the MOS (see WP:MOS#Images). You might want to work on the layout a bit. Also, images are not supposed to be placed before === and lower headings. There are several of these in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of this, and the other issues you've brought up. I think sometimes the sourcing on some of these images is a best guess by whoever uploads (including myself). Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of the sandwiching, I moved some images to a gallery at the end (I like it, and they make sense there), I switched out the Frankfurt Parliament image with one that has clearer licensing, although I might need you to tweak that sourcing, I wasn't sure about it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments I was impressed by the scope and readability of this article. I do have some comments and suggestions.

• The critical role played by Blücher's troops, especially after having to retreat from the field at Ligny the day before, turned the tide of combat against the French. The Prussian cavalry pursued the defeated French in the evening of the 18th, sealing the allied victory. - After the Battle of Waterloo FAC, I realize that this is one particular POV. Since this article is not about Waterloo, we obviously don't need to go into great detail about the debates, but I think we need to acknowledge that this is a particular POV and that there are others.

I'll take care of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Crucially, both the Wartburg rally in 1817 and the Hambach Festival in 1832 had lacked any clear-cut program of unification. At Hambach, the positions of the many speakers illustrated their disparate agendas. Held together only by the idea of unification, their notions of how to achieve this did not include specific plans, but rested on the nebulous idea that the Volk (the people), if properly educated, would bring about unification on their own. Grand speeches, flags, exuberant students, and picnic lunches did not translate into a new political, bureaucratic and administrative apparatus; no constitution miraculously appeared, although there was indeed plenty of talk of constitutions. - This is entertaining, but I'm wondering a bit about the language. It sounds a bit sarcastic, especially the bits about the flags and picnic lunches. There are some other examples of this kind of language throughout the article which can be toned down.

I'll tone it down a little, but generally I don't think it is too sarcastic. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The historiography section at the end only mentions 19th-century historians. Is there a reason it stops there? If so, that should be explained. If not, the section should be expanded to include 20th-century views.

This last section on "building" is dealing with the problems inherent in "starting" a nation. Consequently, I left the nationalist historiography of the Empire and so on to the other articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pro-Bismarck - The article seemed a bit pro-Bismarck to me as I was reading. Statements such as the following gave the impression that Bismarck was a diplomatic genius who could do no wrong: This required political and diplomatic skill worthy of a Machiavelli, and Bismarck manipulated circumstances to suit his needs. - Again, I'm wondering about the presentation of the Bismarck material.

well, he did, and it's cited. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• All of the images also need alt text. (This requirement was just added for FA.)

Oh Joy! Oh Bliss! I'll take care of it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article in the future as these issues are resolved and I learned a lot from reading it. Thanks so much for working on such an important article! Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. As per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3, all images that are not purely decorative should have alt text. To get the ball rolling I added alt text for the lead image, and fixed Template:History of Germany[3] and Template:Table of states in the German Empire[4] to follow the alt-text guidelines. Please add alt text to the rest of the images in the article. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I'll take a look and follow the example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:LEDE, the lede should not exceed four paragraphs. I've joined a few paras to make four overall. JN466 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

okay, we ran into an edit conflict while you were doing that. However, I think I've everything I added while you were working on the lead back together.

alt text is done.

citations added at ambiguities re Bismarck

German enthusiasm for Prussian performance at Waterloo added, plus ethusiasm over Leipzig

a couple of places sort of toned down, but...Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts. The lede still seems a little long. I noted it has two mentions of Realpolitik, as well as two mentions of the Zollverein. I wonder if it can still be tightened up a little further, by referring only once to the role that each of these aspects played? JN466 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it. See if that is better.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, I think that flows better. JN466 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of stuff so far:

1. The lead has been fixed, as far as I can tell, yes? So everyone is happy with that?
2. Images are properly sourced and attributed, placed, sized, captioned, and so forth,. The one that is still problematic is invisible, and when I find the appropriate source on it, I'll add it. Meanwhile, it's not "there"... so we're happy with that?
3. Alt text is added to all images, so we're okay on that?
4. Bismarck material is properly (overly perhaps) cited, so it can stay? I think it needs to. His contribution was critical.
5. I'm adding a sentence to link to the "sarcastic" section, here here

So, what else needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Could you check the reference for our mention of the "prolific historian, Wilhelm Raabe"? Wilhelm Raabe was a novelist; I can't find any trace of a historian called Wilhelm Raabe. JN466 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheehan implies he is an historian; clearly he's a novelist and possibly he wrote historical stuff as well. I've clarified that. Also added a bit on roads and rivers at that point.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've corrected the German title of Lenau's poem, and have altered the description of it slightly. Pls review. JN466 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, that is fine, looks good to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I am calling it a day for today; I am about half-way through. Will still need a day or two to read through the rest of it, it is a long article. Interesting though, must have taken you yonks to put together. Cheers, JN466 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're finding it interesting. Yes, it is long, but it is a big subject and a top priority for the project. Not as long as the battle of Waterloo ;) One reviewer in the GA process didn't want to read the article, although he wanted to review it. Ummmm, not sure how that would have worked. It definitely was not a short process to put it together. Had to find all the references, etc. I'd done the reading as part of comprehensives, but then pulling out the specific pages, etc., was time consuming. Initially I tried to just "improve" the existing article, but at some point I realized the whole thing needed to be redone. So.... Thanks for taking the time to deal with it. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is still needed for the images in the The Nation in images: Germania depicted section. That section used to be a gallery, which doesn't work with alt text; I changed it to a table (which is better anyway), and somebody needs to add alt text there. Thanks for doing the alt text for the other images; I tweaked the text a bit and fixed some bugs. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered it didn't work in gallery. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re perception of emphasis on Bismarck. I've subsumed that section re him and Realpolitik into the previous section, which de-emphasizes him considerably. Text isn't remarkably changed.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

done. :)

[edit] Ba Cut

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting, infamous but obscure Vietnamese warlord of the Hoa Hao religious sect. Basically all of the research done on the Hoa Hao is on their religious/political aspects and the military wing is basically neglected, probably because most historians regard them as little more than brainless bandits unworthy of study. For example, the book by Hue-Tam Ho Tai that I cited is regarded as the leading work on new peasant religious movements and has about 50 pages on the Hoa Hao and only about 5 sentences on this guy. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting I agree, and I'd really like to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet for me. I'll give more detailed comments elsewhere if anyone's interested, but here are just a few examples of the problems I see, picked randomly:

• "Despite his weak military situation, Ba Cut sought to interfere with a fraudulent referendum that Diem was staging in order to depose Bao Dai as head of state." The phrase "interfere with" sets up a false expectation in the reader's mind that Ba Cut interfered by initiating the referendum, an expectation that's dashed as the sentence unfolds, and is therefore jarring.

• "Tho agreed to meet Ba Cut alone in the jungle, and was not ambushed." Why would a reader be expecting that Tho would be ambushed?

• "Ba Cut broke from the VNA in August 1954 with his 3,000 men, and began resisting it with force, whereas most of the other Hoa Hao leaders had accepted payments to integrate their forces into the VNA. The phrase "resisting it with force" seems strangely unidiomatic, and the tense switch between "broke" and "had accepted" seems a little jarring.

• "... possibly due to the fact that details of the planned attack ...". Everything here unless stated otherwise should be a fact, no need to underline that fact. "Possibly because ..."?

• "In mid-1954, General Nguyen Van Hinh, head of the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) of the State of Vietnam announced that he did not respect the leadership of Prime Minister Diem, and vowed to overthrow him. This did not materialise ...". What did not materialise? The vow or the overthrow"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed these and done another copyedit, please have a look YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it still needs some serious attention. Just look at the first sentence for instance: "Lê Quang Vinh (1923 – July 13, 1956), popularly known as Ba Cụt (Short Third in Vietnamese, referring to a shortened third finger), was a military commander of the Hoa Hao religious sect, which had operated in the Mekong Delta." Had operated before what? Shouldn't that just be "operated"? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should have been. Obviously I was careless yesterday and left a few random words/typo in there. I've swept it again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images fine, ideally should be moved to commons Fasach Nua (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Helgoland class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this article some time ago, and it has been working its way up the assessment ladder. It just passed MILHIST A-class review last week, and I feel it's at or close to FA standards. I welcome all constructive comments, thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything appears in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support Your pics are all right aligned. Starting from the top they need to be right / left without left aligned directly under a ===subsection===. In your Footnotes there are instances of pp. 23, 24 and pp. 23-24 (for example); they need to be consistent. --Brad (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, the problem with the pictures is that most of them are in short sections, and according to the MOS cannot be left aligned (unless they're starting in the second paragraph). For example, Iridescent moved one that was left aligned for this reason. As to the footnotes, I'll fix those up when I get the chance. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the one for "23, 24"; do you think I should do the same for "173, 175" as well? Page 174 is a map, if that matters. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. --Brad (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - last paragraph of the Jutland section needs a reference. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, thanks for catching that! I've added a ref now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am not impressed by the prose, which is far from FA standard. The article suffers from redundancy—count the number of "also"s. There are poorly constructed sentences, e.g. "Of the need to step up naval construction due to the fact that Germany was becoming increasingly isolated in Europe, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible." And, boring repetitions such as three consecutive sentences in the Lead beginning "The ships..". Some phrases are not complete, such as The ships had an armored belt that was 30 cm (12 in) thick at its strongest - strongest what? Here, The first major operation of the war that the Helgoland-class ships participated was the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914 there is a missing "in". The article needs a thorough copy-edit; it does not represent our best work. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Images checked out pre 1923, all are PD in the US, or have permission given. Are there sources for the infobox stats? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Siward, Earl of Northumbria

Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has received quite a lot of work, and I think it's ready for FA status. Most of the preparation was done several months ago, though then I held off nominating for a variety of reasons. I am satisfied the important points about this figure's life are now covered in reasonable depth, while the article has benefitted from the copy-editing and review talents of several other users, most notably Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) and Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs). You will note that the interesting but dubious saga-material about this figure has been included but not incorporated into the article by placement in text boxes. This is a good solution to the problem this poses, while it follows a growing convention in mainstream history writing to make use of such boxes (after the manner of Norman Davies) for such purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Edward the Confessor 1042 1066.jpg is in the public domain one way or another, but my thought is that as a reproduction of what is effectively a two dimensional work it should be tagged differently, as User:PHGCOM may not have had any rights to it in the first place to release into the public domain.

• Disagree with image review. The object is not two-dimensional. I had an image of a 4000 year-old shallow bas relief rejected as not PD-old because it was deemed to be 3-D and therefore the photographer's copyright, which seems bizarre, but technically the photo is the uploader's copyright to dispose of. jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The question is whether the threshold of creativity is met in photographing a work. For that purpose, I can't see how either a coin or a shallow bas relief would be considered as three dimensional. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion where this occurred? Anyway, it's public domain one way or another, so this isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to make sure the tagging's done right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sort of case was mentioned and the decision (relief of coins are considered 3D) in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, okay then. Striking this issue. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:EmpireNorth.JPG is derived from File:Cnut 1014 1035.jpg, which is tagged as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions in which copyright term is life of author plus seventy years, but the file has no information on the lifespan of the author (it's also unclear whether William R. Shepherd is the cartographer of that map, or the editor of the atlas, or what). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• William R. Shepherd died in 1934 and appears to have been the cartographer and author, so still scrapes in the 70 year limit jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The image in question isn't a big deal to the article. Just there to nice it up. I can easily replace it with another. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although the concern has been stricken, the explanation that Shepherd died in 1934 and scrapes the 70 year pma is not correct. Shepherd is American and the atlas is an American publication; by US copyrights, publication date is the primary criteria. Luckily, the map in question was published at least as early as 1911 (allowing hosting on Wikipedia). A German company (its country of origin) holds the copyright, but they have never identified authorship, hence allowing the assertion of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*Comments (minor: expect to switch to support)Support

• This article has developed well, since its already good standard when I reviewed it at GAN.
• That is a fabulous "sources and background" section.
• 1) Should "Uhtred the Bold" be wikilinked to Uhtred of Bamburgh?
• 2)...that Siward's attack may be interpreted in the context of royal aggression". Can this be more explicit in some way - is the point that Siward's attack may have been an action undertaken on behalf of his king against a rebellious Eadulf? My point is to go beyond saying "in the context of" and explain that Siward was siding with one against the other - if I have read this correctly, of course!
• 3)"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward had to call up reinforcements, but despite this, King Edward was successful..." The phrase "but despite this" here leads us to expect that, despite using reinforcements, Siward was unsuccessful. Better I think would be: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that, although Siward had to call up reinforcements, the campaign against Earl Godwine was successful and led to his temporary banishment."
• 4)"dating to 1053 x 1055". I'm not familiar with this symbol - what is being denoted here, a date range?
• 5)"...Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" There's that word again :-) Have you considered using the word "version", but wikilinking it to the entry on recension?
• 6)The very last para of this section on the "Expedition against the Scots" seems out of place (the one beginning "The Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham, written in the early 12th-century..."). This seems a discussion of the event that belongs near the start of the section, rather than after the analysis that precedes it. But I may be wrong.
• 7)"Siward died more than a decade before the death of Edward the Confessor, but despite this the Domesday Book recorded ..." I'm afraid as an ignorant person, I didn't get why this was "despite" anything. Something to do with chronology of events?
• 8)I work on two different computer monitors. On one the text in the text boxes is small but (just) readable; on the other it is literally too tiny to form legible letters. Add to that the possibility of a vision-impaired (not blind) user, and I wonder if something can be done about the text box character size? I realise this may create a layout issue, particularly for the long passage under "Emergence and rise to power under Cnut", and it may be that that passage would be best edited in some way. It is a colourful story, but not the shortest of extracts.
• Really enjoyable article, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Wikipedia article take their names after certain conventions. In articles of this nature and time period, these are hardly ever the best for the text of articles, thus I find it that I mostly use redirects or pipes. "Uhtred the Bold" is his nickname and probably how he is best known. Maybe that article should be renamed, maybe it shouldn't, but I just thought it made more sense to call him Uhtred the Bold in this Northumbrian context than "Uhtred of Bamburgh". Not a biggie though.

• I musn't have made myself clear. I am happy with Uhtred the Bold, it just wasn't wikilinked at all. Don't want you to change the name in the article, piping is good. I just wanted a link. I ran a search and didn't find it earlier in the article. Did I miss one? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• 2) reworded
• 3) reworded. The "despite this" was used for "despite having needed to call up reinforcements, Siward's side still won"
• 4) this "x" is used by historians to indicate that something cannot be dated to a specific year. Here "1053 x 1055" means [dates to] some point between 1053 and 1055 [inclusive].

• Suggest change to "between 1053 and 1055". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• 5) Recension is the standard terminology in relation to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is less ambiguous than "version". Actually, rendering it "version" might be thought misleading. I think if someone's gonna ponder the point, rather than just skim over it, it is worth learning the meaning of the word. Learning the English language is after all a life-long experience. While I don't ever support making things unnecessarily obscure, the rough meaning of "version" will surely be picked up from the context.

• OK, I'm pursuaded. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• 6) I will rework this later, probably using a new source (Aird, Normans and St Cuthbert)
• 7) The Domeday book records property owners and the values of property 1) on the day of King Edwards death and 2) in 1086. Thus, if Siward died ten years before Edward, he wasn't alive on the day of Edward's death. I added the date 1066 to make the contradiction clearer
• 8) Adjusted. Had to merge two paragraphs, but this worked out ok.
• Cheers for the comments. I drop a note here when I'm done with 6). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I trust you will deal with 6 and my minor other points, and have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Support - Much improved. The article currently has many problems. The largest being poor phrasing and organisation. Explanations throughout the article seem confusing and badly ordered.
  • The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:

Siward or Sigurd (Old English: Sigeweard) was an earl in 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri ("the Stout") and Latin translation Grossus ("the Fat") are given to him by near-contemporary texts.[1] The English name Siward or Sigeweard was cognate to the single Old Norse name written variously as Sigvarðr and Sigurðr.

Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations?

Siward's origins and early life, covered by some saga-like tales, is obscure to historians.

Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.

Probably of Scandinavian origin, perhaps a member of Earl Ulf's kindred,

We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses.

Siward emerged as a powerful regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut (1016–1035). Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of the many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath of that conquest.

This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.

By 1033 Siward was in control of what is now Yorkshire, governing southern Northumbria as earl on Cnut's behalf. Siward's entrenched his position in northern England by marrying Ælfflæd, the daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bamburgh.

Again, confusing. Would be better as: "..Siward was in control of southern Northumbria, that is, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf."

After killing a different Earl of Bamburgh in 1041, Siward gained control of all Northumbria. He exerted his power in support of Kings Harthacnut and Edward, assisting them with vital military support and counsel.

"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.

• • Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
  • Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
  • Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long. The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is:

Cnut died in 1035, while his son Harthacnut remained in Scandinavia. As Harthacnut was geographically unable to take the crown for himself in good time, Harold Harefoot was able to take the kingdom for himself. Although he successfully resisted trouble from the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready — Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later known as King Edward the Confessor) — Harold died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion.[43] Harthacnut reigned in England only two years before he himself died and was peacefully succeeded by Edward in 1042.[44] Frank Barlow speculated on Siward's position during this period, guessing that Siward assumed "a position of benevolent or prudent neutrality".

This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.

• • Another example: The section "Expedition against the Scots" has this passage:

The origin of Siward's conflict with the Scots is unclear. According to the Libellus de Exordio, in 1039 or 1040—a year before Siward attacked and killed Eadulf—the Scottish king Donnchad mac Crínáin attacked northern Northumbria and besieged Durham. Within a year, Mac Bethad had deposed killed (sic) Donnchad.

Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.

• • Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"? Xandar 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:

This is valid I think. I've reworked it, though I don't know how you want me to fit York in. I can't think of a way. :(

We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses

Earl Ulf is introduced in the text. The article summary in the lead links him. And yes, he is important as his kin-group is the strongest one in Denmark after Cnut's own, and indeed his descendants (as pointed out in the text) ruled Denmark after Cnut. :)

Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations

Hmm ... the normal translations of both words aren't identical, but I think it's fair to say that Grossus here means "stout" more than "corpulent", so I've merged the translations to avoid the possible confusion you rightly point out.

Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.

Don't see that. Yes, I wouldn't have written it in if we didn't.

This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.

We don't know that Siward came to England with Cnut. His first appearance in reliable sources comes when he is already a regional strongman. Put King Canute in brackets btw.

"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.

Yep, I agree. Fixed this.

Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.

I split this. I don't see the problem with the sources section. Could you elaborate? The explanations of earl and thegn are there because another reviewer asked me to put them there. I don't really know what to do; removing it might cause the other reviewer displeasure. I think the order in the background section is otherwise fine and logical: one para for England of the time and one specific to Northumbria. That makes sense ... no?

Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.

OK. Trimmed it.

Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long.

I've put most of the in-article stuff here into the footnote.

The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is: ... This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.

I've fixed this a little, and incorporated your suggested rephrasing. Regarding name dropping ... what names to you feel need more detail to be helpful?

Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.

There is no known linkage between the two events. This suggestive [subliminal] style--common in historical writing-- is one I'm fond of, works better if you follow the story. It was quite easy to change this though, and I have done so. This should be a more explicit read now.

Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?

Usually a church has two names, one of the saint and one of the place. E.g. St Paul's Cathedral is also London Cathedral (though that's ambiguous now). Should have just written "St Olaf's at Galmanho", which is what I've done now.

Thanks for the comments. Anything else? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Some issues remain though. I haven't time to do a thorough run through now. I will get back with more detailed responses, hopefully tomorrow. Xandar 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still quite a few problems with the prose. I may make a few smaller corrections myself, rather than list everything here, and you can see what you make of them. As to my read through:

Lead

It might be useful to add something like: "Several historic sites in the English city of York have connections with Siward."

Sources

"non-representative" - why not "unrepresentative"?

"annalistic" Confusing word. Why not "annal-style"?

"compilations of John of Worcester (compiled between 1124 and 1140)," Compiled used twice.

Background

"Beginning in the reign of Cnut, and lasting through Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the reign of Edward the Confessor, Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs." Would read better as something like: "Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs. It began during the reign of Cnut, and lasted through those of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the early years of Edward the Confessor."

"poor hereditary links to the West Saxon royal house". "weak" links might be better.

"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century." Too much digression to explain word-meaning breaks up the narrative of this passage. I would suggest:

"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls ".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century"

"(though there were other earls)" This bracket phrase is ugly and probably unnecessary.

Ancestry

"Historians generally claim Siward to be of Scandinavian origin, something supported by the Vita Ædwardi Regis which says Siward was "[called] Digri in the Danish tongue" (Danica lingua Digara)" Better to say "which states that" rather than "which says".

Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut

"There is little known about Siward's arrival in England," This is very vague. Why not put the more specific; "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown."

Xandar 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think we've dealt with most of these points. I've also made some clean-up edits to the article - which is actually easier than listing all the points here. Whilst doing this I noticed two very vague sentences:

In the English affairs under Edward the Confessor section: "Besides the help of their retinues, this act was carried out on the "advise" of the three earls." I'm not sure what this means? The retinues were the armies? We already know they joined in the attack. "advise"?? Does this mean "advice". or something else? Why the quotation marks?

In the Death and legacy section: "This, or something else about Siward's career, made the Anglo-Saxonist Frank Stenton declare him "not a statesman, but a Danish warrior of the primitive type." Again very vague. If there is no connection its probably best not to try to force a link with the previous passage, and just use Stenton as a summing up. Xandar 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support. Xandar 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Corydon

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put about three weeks into this article, made a few trips to the library, visited the battlesite, and used a book of my own for sourcing. It has passed a GA review, and an A class review from the Military History project. I beleive it is now comprehensive and ready for this process. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A fantastic article. The article is fully referenced, and I'm not asking any questions. I did some copyediting myself, and I find it to be well-written and illustrated. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article is appropriate for FA status, but have the following comment:
  • in the References section you have a subsection called "notes", however, just above there is also another section called "Notes". I like the way you've separated the two, but feel that they should have different names to avoid confusion. Perhaps the aside points should remain "Notes" and the actual page number references could be called "Citations"? Just a suggestion. Anyway, good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have taken your advice, and changed the page notes to "citations". —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image issues as follow:

• File:John Hunt Morgan.jpg: copyviolation. In short, although it was taken during 1860s, it was never published until 1999 (creation is not publication). By US copyright laws (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/), this means that it is copyrighted until 2047. Use File:The Late Rebel General John Morgan.jpg or File:John Hunt Morgan portrait.jpg.
  • I was under the impression that images were also public domain at 70 years after the creators death. If this image was taken in 1864, and the photragrapher was say 18 at the time, he would have had to lived to age 93 (highly unlikely in those days) for this image to still be protected. And in any case, each year that scenario becomes less plausible. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • US copyright laws are primarily based on year of publication, not death of author. 70 years pma apply only after the first publication is after 2002 or for works created after 1977 but first published with notice during 1978 to 2002. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:Alice Dean (1863).jpg: no information of its publishing, author, or date of creation? Is this a photo, a scan of an engraving? Lexington Rifles have not provided the source for this image, and it is doubtful they are the publishers of the image since Riverboat Daves has a worse but wider perspective scan.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where this image is taken from, (I have seen it in books and know it to be accurate) but the same rational would apply as above - since the ship was destroyed in 1863, if the photragpher was 18 at the time the image was taken, he would have had to live to age 94 for this image to remain protected. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Same as above, US copyright is concerned mostly with first publication, not year of death. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• File:Battle of Corydon with Morgan's Raid in southern Indiana copy.jpg: should be an SVG per WP:IUP. From where does the upper left portion (depicting the location on a larger US map) come from?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how to make an SVG, but anyone who does is welcome to convert it, I have the original image in a PSD format and could email it, and it is layered if that helps. Or if someone could tell me how to make it SVG in photoshop, i could do it. And the image of the breakoutmap was taken from a PD image on the commons. I can remove it if you think it is a problem. And in any case, it won't hurt anything to remove the two images. I can get others that are PD, but not of the same relevance to the article. There will be a reenactment next week and I can get some good reenactment photos as well. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced with an SVG. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I have remove the two images in question and put two different user-taken photos in the article instead. Hope to get some more relevant photos later next week at the reenactment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you are interested in verifiably public images of John Morgan, take a look at commons:Category:John Hunt Morgan. Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thats great! I didn't about looking there. Thanks. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Kesselring

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it is an important military history article, about one of the most famous field marshals of World War II. It has passed Good Article and A-class article reviews. An Australian-German-Italian collaborative effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a very interesting and comprehensive article which meets the FA criteria. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 153 (Royal Warrante of ...) needs a publisher
  • Done.
• What makes Bitner, Teddy Kesselring at Anzio a reliable source? Lulu Press is a self-publishing company.
  • It is not used as a source... Bitner added it to the bibliography himself a couple of days ago. I have removed it.
• Plochner ref needs a publisher listed.
  • Done.
• A note for other reviewers, note that Kesselring's memoirs are used as a source (not very extensively, mind you) so that should be watched out for. (From a glance at the number of times referenced, I'm not thinking it's gong to be a problem, but best to point this out now.)
  • They are mainly used for biographical details. There is the occasional reference to personal reactions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasnt' particularly worried, but better to point it out for others ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support–I performed the GAR on this biography and all pertinent issues were addressed. Apart from possibly a handful of serial commas (which I leave for the grammar experts to review), it remains in fine condition. Thus I support this page for FA promotion.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern needs clarification:

• File:KesselringDetentionReport.jpg: are we certain the detention reports are handled by the US forces? If the Museums' Reports are on courtesy loan from the UK archives, it would then fall under Crown Copyright, which expires in 1996, just nicely complying with the URAA. Of course, the reports could be jointly done by US and British forces. The document is in public domain, US or not, but we must make sure the license is correct.
  • Kesselring was a prisoner of and processed by the Americans. There was no joint processing of prisoners. He was later formally handed over to the British. The form is an American one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or free for use. Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you crop the images used the article to rid of the German archive side panel? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Kesselring was one of the most frequently listed German soldiers in the Wehrmachtbericht, an honour that was not bestowed frequently. I have the Wehrmachtbericht in front of me and he is listed 13 times surpassing even Werner Mölders. I think this needs to be added somewhere to the article. Secondly, I would like to see the footnotes separated from the citations. I gladly address both the topic if you find this valuable to the article. Kesselring also received numerous other awards like the "Order of the Crown of Italy", why doesn't the article mention any of those? Personally I would expect that a GA article lists all of them. my 2 cents MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another comment, all German nouns must be capitalized. There is one instance of Generalmajor in lower case.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This looks to be generally OK, but I have a few comments:

• The prose is rather staccato in places, with quite a few sentences beginning "He did ... He was ... He qualified ... He helped ..." very close together. Doesn't really make the prose flow as well as it could.

• "From Early life: "The regiment was based at Metz, and was responsible for maintaining its forts." Err, yes, so what?
  • FWIW, I don't see the prob with this - not fascinating info but at least we know something they did... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "As chief of administration, he had to create his new staff from scratch". He created his staff?
  • Yes he did... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, I'm guessing the point is that some could read this as creating the staff members, Frankenstein-like. No prob for the initiated but might look odd to others... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay. I changed it to "assemble". Thanks for that one Igor Ian Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role". The tactical role?
  • Yes... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• From World War II: ".. considered himself under Bock's orders" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "deferred to Bock in all matters relating to the ground war"?
  • No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! Obviously, the air component commander will have to defer to the ground component commander in ground matters. What it is saying here is that when the ground component commander wanted something done, the air component commander (Kesselring) did what he was told. Not told him that he was not under his command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Several instances of the awkward use of "would", such as in "Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force". "Suppress" also seems a little unidiomatic here, might something like "overcome" be better?
  • "Suppress is a technical term. It means to reducing the ability to attack or defend itself. It falls short of neutralisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Although earmarked for operations against the Soviet Union, Luftflotte 2 remained in the west until May 1941." "Arriving in the West, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's Army Group B." So which is it to be? "West" or "west"?
  • Changed to lower case Hawkeye7 (talk)

These are of course just a few examples of the kind of tidying up I think still remains to be done to this article.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The link to "Officer cadet": it goes through the anglophone countries in detail, but not a mention of Germany, let alone Nazi Germany. Is it misleading? And it's linked again to the same place 20 seconds later (and I'd rather have the German word first time—is it done to link to the German WP article on fahnenjunker instead?) Is a piped section-link possible instead to the article on "Germany Army" or "History of the G A"? In any case, why the A for "army", especially when in isolation ("remained in the Army")?
  • A good rule of thumb is the capital letter is required when "the" is used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A better idea would be to upgrade the officer cadet article to include details about Germany; or write a new article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• A wasteful link to "World War I": this is surely linked from the "Western" and "Eastern" fronts articles: WWI is just too vague to be useful, especially when specific related links are within half a second's read. I see "Western front" linked again in the lead. The text is on the high side of link-density, so opportunities for focussing the readers on the high-value links should be taken, if there are any. In fact, rationalising would pay for a slight expansion of blue for "Poland" (and by implication the succeeding link to "France"): pipe "invasion of Poland", and the reader will be more likely to click. (You've done this already for North Africa—good.) Linking is almost as skill-bound as writing prose!
• I'm trying to think how to make this sentence less clunky: "Albert Kesselring was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria, on 30 November 1885,[Notes 2] the son of Carl Adolf Kesselring, a schoolmaster and town councillor, and his wife Rosina,[3] who was born a Kesselring, being Carl's second cousin.[1] "
  • It could be split in two... I use this form for every biography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why is "honeymooned" linked? "Apocathery" I can just cope with as a link.
  • Apocathery was linked because I had to look it up! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Italy"—I'd remove that link. There are so many high-value ones already, and the article on Italy is rather vague in relation to this topic.
• "He was also involved in secret military manoeuvres"—Better without "also"?
• Unhappy about linking "Colonel", an article that deals with the term in so many countries, but not Germany (although oddly there's an icon in the gallery there). Does it, did it, mean the same thing as in an anglophone army? Again, is it acceptable to link to the German WP, or to remove the link from the main text and insert in "See also"?
  • Yes. Oberst means "Colonel" in both the sense of the rank and the position (ie "honorary colonel" in the British Army). So the translation is a very good one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't link to a foreign-language WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Was 6000 RM a lot of money?
  • Yes. The linked article on Rieichmarks says (without source) that there were 4.2 RM to the US dollar = USD $1,400. This online calculator says that was worth between USD $18,000 and $22,000 today. However, many other generals got much, much more: Milch, von Rundstedt and von Kluge each got RM 250,000; von Kleist received RM 480,000; and Keitel asked for and received a tract of confiscated land worth RM 730,000. Added a note to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the rest, but this suggests that a link audit and prose polish are desirable. It's still much better than the German WP equivalent: just out of interest, was it useful in the preparation of this nomination? Tony (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Originally the article contained a section translated from the German wiki which was based on a review of von Lingen's book. From there I found the German edition of her book. I contacted von Lingen and she told me that an English translation was in the works, so I waited until it was available, then replaced the footnotes with ones referring to the English edition. In the editing process, the original section was subsumed into the text.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Gave it the tick at MILHIST ACR, believe it deserves the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article is well written, well cited and illustrated and meets the FA criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - On the whole, this is a very well-written article. I just saw a one minor thing as I was scanning through the article and realized it was currently at FAC.
  • "Kesselring's evacuation of Sicily, which began a week earlier on 10 August, was perhaps the most brilliant action of the campaign. In spite of the Allies' superiority on land, at sea, and in the air, Kesselring was able to evacuate not only 40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles, 94 guns, 47 tanks, 1,100 tons of ammunition, 970 tons of fuel, and 15,000 tons of stores. He was successful because he was able to achieve near-perfect coordination between the three services under his command while his opponent, Eisenhower, could not." – The phrase "he was successful because" seems a bit unnecessary; is there any way that you could eliminate that?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't support this yet. The intro is not clear enough. It is perfectly clear to anyone who understands the history of the Wars, but it is not, to someone that doesn't.

It states that he was in WWII, in the first paragraph. Then talks about enlisting and WWI in the second parag. Then it talks about his role in 1936, but says he resigned.

Then suddenly he is invading Poland etc. There needs to be a clear statement that this invasion took place in WWII, and it needs a date. It needs to be clear that the events of this paragraph are events in the war that is discussed in paragraph one. This may seem obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to high school kids.

Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about now? It says: "During World War II he commanded air forces in the invasions of Poland and France..." This should make it clear enough. Some dates have also been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Ha! I do like those changes, Hawkeye7! I made them myself. Thanks for tidying-up. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well done! A fine example of WP:Bold! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Amandajm (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has Malleus been asked to revisit and see if his concerns have been addressed? Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall ask. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\

• See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The images should all have alt text, as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image, as an example. The remaining images still lack alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this has improved sufficiently for me to withdraw my oppose, but I still see problems with the prose, although not serious enough to persuade me to maintain my opposition. For instance:

• "He attempted to cut the Polish communications through air attacks against Warsaw ...". So the Polish were communicating through air attacks against Warsaw?
  • This interpretation had never occurred to me. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Like other generals of Nazi Germany, he received personal payments from Adolf Hitler; in Kesselring's case, RM 6,000, a considerable sub at the time." Should that really be sub?
  • Corrected to "sum". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on hampered air operations even more." Awkward repetion of "hampered".
  • Changed second one to "impeded". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "... taking personal command of the mobile units which he led around the southern flank ...". Should be "that he led around".
  • No, I wanted to say that he took all the mobile units, not just ones that he led around the southern flank. Re-phased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review

[edit] Algerian Civil War

WikiProjects notified
This article fails 1c due to a strong lack of citations and is not formatted consistently. It also fails BLP because a lot of the unsourced information is about the complicity of current warlords/terrorists/politicians in dubious activities like rape/slavery/fraud/terrorism etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A. E. J. Collins

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, User talk:Brookie.

FA from 2005, some minor referencing/1c issues - however this one is actually not that bad, and the issues could be remedied relatively easily. Some issues however with images, which also should not be too hard to fix:

1. commons:File:AEJ Collins.jpg - would be helpful to know the actual source for this image, instead of just "a picture in the public domain on the internet".
2. File:Aejcollins rpkeigwin lr.jpg - could use standardization with the template {{Information}}.
3. File:Collinsplaque.jpg - Also could use standardization with the template {{Information}}. This one claims to be "issued as fairuse", but is concurrently licensed with free use licenses?
4. File:Aejcollins.jpg - For this one, a fair use rationale is given, but the image may actually be free use.

Cirt (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the statements that need citations and image concerns, this strikes me as being in decent shape for an article that was promoted over four years ago. One thing that confused me was the brackets around most reference access dates. Were these common back then? Giants2008 (17-14) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lord's Resistance Army insurgency

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Ezeu, User talk:TreveX.

FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues throughout. Appears to have been some move issues as raised here. Also concern about small subsections and lack of comprehensiveness about the topic. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comments
  • Lead seems short.
  • Many sentences are unreferenced.
  • References" should be under "notes" per WP:LAYOUT.
  • Many of the newspaper articles are incorrectly formatted.
  • Regarding comprehensiveness: although I am not one to judge, as I know nothing about this, it seems to be a little short to adequately cover what is rightfully a controversial topic. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note Talk:Lord's Resistance Army#Merger proposal. I know of two people on Wikipedia who have the background to comprehensively upgrade the article: Ezeu and myself. I'm burnt out after five years of dealing with editors whose sole interest is itemizing how Christian or Muslim the LRA is, and Ezeu's March proposal to upgrade it was shot down by the editors who moved/split it. In my opinion, there's no need to drag this out for two weeks. Might as well stick a fork in it. - BanyanTree 08:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Images check OK. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, layout/formatting, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krag-Petersson

[edit] Review commentary

Article fails 1c. Apart from two hobby websites, one book is cited, and no details are given wrt page numbers, just the name of the book. Images are dubiously tagged under 100 years after death but the designer died in 1916. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Commons (which the files are duplicates of), the copyright was valid during the owner's life plus 70 years, and as he died in 1916, the copyright has expired.--LWF (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are many problems with this article; consider this to be a "delist" !vote when this moves into FARC mode.
  • There is too much of a reliance on one source.
  • Page numbers are needed.
  • Even when assuming that citations cover more than one sentence (and I'm not confident of that, with seeing multiple [2]'s in one paragraph), I still see much that is unreferenced.
  • I don't think refs 1 and 4 are reliable.
  • THis is without checking the prose... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per above YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus I

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force, User talk:Paul August, User talk:Sj.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to rely way too heavily on primary sources as opposed to secondary sources. Could use an overall copyedit pass and review for flow. Image review and cleanup/improvement of the individual image pages would also be helpful, images include: File:AtaloPergamo.jpg, File:Dying gaul.jpg, File:AttalusICorrected.jpg, and File:Attalus I coin depicting Philetairos.jpg. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeap, it relies mainly on primary sources, although secondary sources are also used. It was one of the first FAs I read before my own ventures, and almost 3 years later I still regard it as FA quality. I am willing however to help adding secondary sources (through googlebooking only), if that is ok with Paul.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start working, maybe as soon as now (!); definitely during the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions for changes to the article? Paul August ☎ 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Main concern iterated above is heavy usage of primary as opposed to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• O! We are fast here. As I understand the main argument for delisting is citations. I'll express my opinion about copy-editing as well, but, allow me to tell you, that, if somebody argues that the prose is not satisfactory, he/she has to present some concrete examples to support his/her arguments. Otherwise ... In the meantime, I'll start adding secondary sources. As I have made clear, I still believe that this is a FA, and for the time being I am weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• On this subject, from these sources, secondary sources are more likely to summarize Livy than emend him. Most of the obvious secondary sources seem to have already been listed; I would also look at the first chapters of Magie's History of Roman Asia, for an idea of what is important enough to list in comparable space. It would be a virtuous act to check them thoroughly; but it's unlikely to change the text much. Justin (for what he is worth) should also be a primary source, IIRC. Weak keep Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Turn to full keep. Most primary sources are now backed by secondary ones; and I don't think that any event still cited by only prim sources has been ever questioned. Agree with Sept: secondary sources don't add much; they just summarize Livy without amending him. I promise I'll check Justin.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• And, by the way, the copyright status of the photos mentioned by Cirt looks to me fine.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidates

[edit] List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Normally I wouldn't say this, but I think there should be a link to World War I.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "World War I (the First World War, the Great War), was a global military conflict from 1914 to 1918, centered in Europe." I'd recommend using the wording from the main article, with a few amendments: "World War I (also known as the First World War and the Great War) was a global military conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the Entente and the Central Powers." If necessary, you can borrow the references from the main article too.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 40 million casualties"-->More than 40 million casualties

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 60 million"-->More than 60 million

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd recommend moving the second and third sentences to the end of the first paragraph.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" Missing period after this.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "frequently it is presented posthumously"-->it is frequently presented posthumously

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "One hundred twenty four men"-->One hundred twenty-four men

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "who later became the basis for a movie by the same name" Ref?

Done. I reworded this a little so Let me know if I still need a ref. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and Edward Rickenbacker who became a famous flying ace. " I think a reference is needed for this, and comma after "Rickenbacker".

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and was the first Marine aviator to received the Medal of Honor."-->and was the first Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "When all the officers with his platoon had become casualties" Don't mince words. Were they killed?

Done. This was a quote from the citation. I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "beyond our lines, under constant machinegun fire, and rescued 2 wounded officers." Who is "our"? Per MOS we shouldn't use first-person language (we, our, us etc.)

This was a quote from the citation.--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The notes need to be proofread. I'll see if I can come by later this week and clean it up, but am not making promises. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html deadlinks, and what makes it reliable?

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm and http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/index.html reliable? Considering the info being sourced, it shouldn't be hard to find high-quality sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the items you mentioned above I fixed several other things, added images and cleaned up some notes. Please feel free to goo back through and or proofread the notes. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the quoted material in my comments above, please remember to put anything directly taken from the source in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The first one mentioned, ref 2, is still present. By the site editors own admission "it is not recommended that this site be used for academic reference purposes" however there is a lot of listed sources. I think this source is borderline, what about you Dabomb? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• Can you fix the image in the Infobox as it is not aligning to the centre properly and I think it looks really unprofessional.

Done. not sure I see what you are seeing but I measured it and it was a little off center to the left so I made a change that brought the image to center. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" ref 1 mentions gallantry etc. Quotes need cites.
• One hundred twenty-four men were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions in World War I, I know it is following MOSNUM by not starting sentences with numbers but actually a reword would be better. e.g. "The Medal of Honor was awarded to 124 men ..."
• Try and integrate "Thirty-three of the awards were posthumous." into the previous sentence for 2 reasons, one to avoid spelling out 33, and because it is a comparable quantity so should be consistent with the others.
• american flying ace -> American

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns in notes, now I won't pretend to have looked at them all but here are 3 examples I did look at and comments on them:
  • John H. Balch: Risked his own life to provide medical care to soldiers and Marines wounded in fighting, a good paraphrasing of the source
  • Harold L. Turner: After his platoon had started the attack Cpl. Turner assisted in organizing a platoon consisting of the battalion scouts, runners, and a detachment of Signal Corps. As second in command of this platoon he fearlessly led them forward through heavy enemy fire, continually encouraging the men. Later he encountered deadly machinegun fire which reduced the strength of his command to but 4 men, and these were obliged to take shelter. The enemy machinegun emplacement, 25 yards (23 m) distant, kept up a continual fire from 4 machineguns. After the fire had shifted momentarily, Cpl. Turner rushed forward with fixed bayonet and charged the position alone capturing the strong point with a complement of 50 Germans and 1 machineguns. This has no quotation marks and is copied verbatum from this. This is highly concerning and above all else copyright violation.
  • William B. Turner: "[L]ed a small group of men to the attack, under terrific artillery and machinegun fire, after they had become separated from the rest of the company in the darkness. Single-handed he rushed an enemy machinegun which had suddenly opened fire on his group and killed the crew with his pistol. He then pressed forward to another machinegun post 25 yards (23 m) away and had killed 1 gunner himself by the time the remainder of his detachment arrived and put the gun out of action. With the utmost bravery he continued to lead his men over 3 lines of hostile trenches, cleaning up each one as they advanced, regardless of the fact that he had been wounded 3 times, and killed several of the enemy in hand-to-hand encounters. After his pistol ammunition was exhausted, this gallant officer seized the rifle of a dead soldier, bayoneted several members of a machinegun crew, and shot the other. Upon reaching the fourth-line trench, which was his objective, 1st Lt. Turner captured it with the 9 men remaining in his group and resisted a hostile counterattack until he was finally surrounded and killed." Similar to the above in copying this verbatum, but in using quotations it does not give the impression that it is your work. However is the whole quote really needed, could it not paraphrased.

Summarising, you need to be very careful of copyright violations. Many of the notes can be paraphrased and unnecessary taking of text as wrote from here does not constitute fair use.

As far as the issue of being a copyright violation thats a non issue here because they are the actual Medal of Honor citations which is a freedom of information act and is fair use. But I agree that they should be paraphrased or in quotes if it cannot be easily paraphrased. I thought I took care of them but I will go back through again and look at them again starting with the ones you identified. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Freedom of Information Act does not by itself guarantee that the works of the government are public domain. It gives people the right to know what information is in government files, but it does not imply that any government work can be used by anybody without permission. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the citations as work fields were being confused with title fields and I standardised date format.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand could you give me an example of an article that has it? --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a new requirement, knowone has ever mentioned this before? I have not done this to ANY of the other MOH lists that have been approved nor have I seen it in any that I have reviewed recently.--Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. See this discussion. That the images in this list don't even have captions make alt text necessary, I think. Sorry for bringing this up now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list removal candidates

[edit] Non-article featured content candidates

[edit] U.S. 7th Infantry Division

4 articles U.S. 7th Infantry Division
1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division 2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Divison 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

Nominating these articles for a Good Topic. Consists of four GA's, one for the Division itself and three for the subordinate divisional brigades serving under it. All are, of course, very closely related. -Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Per 1(c): There doesn't seem to be either any common category that includes all four of the topic articles, nor does there appear to be a template that connects the four articles.
• Per 1(d): Given the name of the topic and the fact that the lead of the main article notes that the division is "best known for its exploits during World War II", I would fully expect the topic to cover World War II units (most of which, however, seem to be redlinks). Also, there's no inclusion of World War I units, either.

— Bellhalla (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A template has been created linking the four articles. As for the units, the three subordinate brigades were parts of the Division during World War I under different names. Each of those articles explains the subordinate regiments of the 2nd and 3rd brigades, while the 1st brigade existed as a much smaller formation with no subordinate units. As for the World War II regiments, I did not see them as relavant to the 7th ID, as they are not assigned to the division permenantly as the three divisional brigades are. Several regiments were rotated in and out of the division during those conflicts and have no permenant connection to it, while the three divisional brigades were built to be permenantly a part of the division, and have all remained a part of it for much longer. -Ed!^(talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly lay out here what other units have been part of the division, and which years these units were part? rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. During World War I and the years after, the division consisted of two brigades:

13th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 2nd Brigade, 7th ID)

14th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 3rd Brigade, 7th ID)

During World War II the division was organized under 3 regiments, as part of an army-wide reorganization. For the next 20 years, three regiments would be attached to the division. This meant that any three regiments could fall under its command at any time. This meant that the regiments assigned to the division changed quite frequently, particularly in World War II. Here are the regiments that were assigned to the division at one time or another between 1941 and 1963:

17th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

32nd Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

53rd Infantry Regiment (1941)

159th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1943)

184th Infantry Regiment (1943 - ~1947)

31st Infantry Regiment (~1947 - 1963)

In 1963, 3 divisional brigades were created and assigned to the division. The 3 were created from the division's old headquarters element as well as the 13th and 14th Brigades. As far as the army is concerned, these are the same units as were active from 1917 - 1941, they were simply renamed.

1st Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from old Headquarters element)

2nd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from 13th Infantry Brigade)

3rd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1994 (from 14th Infantry Brigade)

The reason the regiments don't belong in this topic is that they are separate units from the division. They were only assigned to the brigade on a tactical basis (which was why two regiments happened to stay with the division for awhile while, for various reasons, the third regiment changed frequently.) They could be reassigned to other divisions as needed. However, in the case of the brigades, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division are part of the division on a permenant basis; they can't be reassigned to another division. As the three brigades were part of the division for over 50 years (compared to the 20 years of a few of the regiments) and since they are actually a part of the division (as compared to the regiments, which act as completely independent units) this topic is, from an organization sense, both complete and correct. -Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I get that from an organisational sense, this topic is in some non-arbitrary sense complete, but I am wondering whether from a historical sense it is - 22 years is a long time to be associated with the battalion. And that span includes the whole of World War II and the Korean War. And the history is the most important thing - it's what the overwhelming bulk of each of the articles in the topic are about. As a result, I weak oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support I was going to quickly oppose the topic, but on a more careful look I realized that this is a truly valid topic. It is not featured, so I don't have huge expectations, and unless I am missing something I am supporting the topic. The only major thing I would like is to have a clear sentence in the intro of the main article saying that currently the division is composed of the brigade 1, 2, and 3. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this has been open for a month but has received very little feedback. More feedback would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Request made at WikiProject Military history - rst20xx (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - If this topic were renamed "7th Infantry Division 1964–1994", would the issues surrounding the validity of the topic be resolved? As far as I can see, the 7th Infantry Division has had three phases of existence, and this topic is complete in so far as the third phase is concerned. An argument could be made that the first phase is equivalent to the third phase, but it is clear that the 2nd phase is very different. Technically speaking, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd brigades only existed for thirty years (even if they can trace their lineage back further); as rst20xx points out, some of the regiments formerly attached to the division had nearly as long an association with the division as these brigades. I realise it isn't the most elegant of compromises, but it would remove some of the debate. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would be willing to compromise on that. -Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• If that were the case, I would definitely support the nomination. Right now, I do not oppose the nomination, but am somewhat uncertain. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I actually like this idea less than what we had before. It's cherrypicking by scope reduction, as particularly evidenced by how it came about - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Partner peer review

[edit] Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

In April, when I began working on this article, it was on the lower end of C-class. Now it recently passed GAN, and I am planning to take it to FAC soon. Any comments you give are appreciated, though I prefer ones about the Gameplay section, and if the article has any grammar, spelling, or MoS issues. For example, I'd prefer not to take the time to get the article copyedited, but if you think it needs it, tell me. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1 vs 100 (Xbox 360)

My work on this has stalled a little bit, I'd like some outside eyes to give me some pointers on what can be improved. –xeno^talk 05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Ugh... *shudder* game show video games...

• Obviously since the game isn't out yet, a lot of the content hasn't gelled and it's rather unstable (not to mention incomplete). One thing I've noticed so far is that the lead goes into too much detail about the mechanics of the game, while the gameplay section presumes too much familiarity with the game and goes into too little detail. Instead of starting off "At the beginning of each 1 vs 100 Live round," explain that 1 vs 100 is a (blankety-blank) game, et al. Look at other VG FAs for examples.
• Some stuff might have to be wikilinked, or at least explained (like what is Xbox Live Primetime?)
• You should refer to the hosts by their last names (Taylor instead of Jen, et al).
• The prose could use a copyedit
• I'll try looking through my print databases for any more refs that you can use. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mario

I recently replaced the Appearances section with more fitting information. A problem before was that the section talked more about the actual games and how their reception was then what Mario actually did in the games. I have fixed this and expanded the section. This article is a B at the moment, and can easily be a GA with some fixes. --Blake (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I am not a major contributer for this article, and might not have enough time or the resources to make all the changes that get brought up. --Blake (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For openers, take off the picture of Solid Snake and Mario. It makes it look like its forcusing on Snake. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I needed a picture of Mario in Brawl for that "other games" section and couldnt find one except for this. But I think someone will have to get standalone art of Mario to replace all those pictures anyways. --Blake (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs that image; it wouldn't pass NFCC. Neither would the one with Baby Mario and Yoshi. Just letting you know. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It just looks weird having all that text and no image. There is a giant part of the article that is bare.--Blake (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Club Penguin

I think everyone editing the following article would say that they would like to push the article FA. To help us achieve this, we would like heavy scrutiny to reach perfection (or near levels) on this article, and hopefully it would be featured one day. --Vinni3 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

I'd like an objective opinion on the status of this article, to see how much more work needs to be done on it to bring it up to a reasonable level within this category. It's hard to find (non-forum, reliable) sources for a lot of the information for these games that I know is true, but I did the best that I could with the limited sources I could locate. I'd like to see where the article falls on the quality scale. Gopher65_talk 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of Eastern role-playing games: 3rd generation systems

This is one in a series of articles attempting to list all commercially released "JRPG" / Eastern RPG games. As these have been split by console generation, I believe it is possible to create a finite list of such games.

At this time, I have completed a large portion of the work that I wanted to complete on the 3rd generation games. I would appreciate feedback at this time regarding ...

1) Layout (although, it should be noted that this follows the same layout as the Chronology of console role-playing games series, from which it was based.)

2) Appropriateness of references (I've tried to find specific review or review-like websites, all of which reference the listed games as either JRPG's or console-style RPG's).

3) Accuracy of data. I have started a my own review of the accuracy of the detail information, but much of the publication information was copied verbatim from the console rpg chronology.

Other constructive comments are greatly appreciated, especially general comments that can help influence my work on the remaining generations. Dawynn (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World

I have been doing some exstensive work on this this article and I'm hoping that I can push it's status as high as it can go. Sarujo (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put a GA checklist in here, because that is a good target for almost every article :). I'm heading off to bed, so I will start filling in the checklist tomorrow.

On second thought, I'll make a review page so that I'm not eating up room here. MacMed^talk_stalk 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a good article, and with a bit of work it could become a good article. The only things I saw after a quick skim were a lack of referencing in the Gameplay section (you could easily fix that with information from the reviews) and the lack of a review table as used in other video game GAs and FAs. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing about the gameplay was I was planing to get a hold of the official stratagy guide for this and a few other Dragon Ball games. But, I hit a few snags. Sarujo (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Super Punch-Out!! (Super NES)

I just finished cleaning up and expanding this article greatly. I am hoping to push this to GA in the near future pending any other fine tuning that may be needed. The big thing on this one was the Reception section, as I, for some reason, found it difficult to organize. MuZemike 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Development, section needs more expansion and the GameRankings reference is wrong. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the article was just promoted to GA. Any other suggestions that can further improve this article as it approaches A-Class or FA would be appreciated. MuZemike 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If Super Punch-Out!! won any awards, it should be added to the Reception section. I think it was in Nintendo Power's top 200 best games on an Nintendo platform. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Peer review

• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009

A-Class review

• 2006 (promoted / failed)
• 2007 (promoted / failed)
• 2008 (promoted / failed / demoted)
• 2009 (promoted / failed / demoted)