Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) |
→A-Class review: promoting Kesselring and Midshipman (latter was just done by Joe) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/K. Subrahmanyam}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/K. Subrahmanyam}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/130th Engineer Brigade (United States)}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/130th Engineer Brigade (United States)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Midshipman}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Albert Kesselring}} |
|||
<!-- Add new entries at the TOP, please! --> |
<!-- Add new entries at the TOP, please! --> |
||
Revision as of 08:53, 23 May 2009
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
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.
Peer review
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/Peer review instructions
- Please add new requests below this line
History of the United Kingdom during World War I
I believe this article may be A class but would like a peer review first its been expanded by about 10 times by User:Jarry1250 and myself. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. (20 times actually.) It appeals to me as an article that could attract a great deal of interest among the greater public. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
I like what you have done with this article. I don't think I can add much to the review, but have one question:
- In the citations (see # 66), you have included the full bibliographic details (Gibbons, Verna Hale (1998). Jack Judge: The Tipperary Man. West Midlands: Sandwell Community Library Service. ISBN 1 900 689 073), where all the other citations seem to use abbreviated format in citations, then full format in references. Is there a reason for this? My suggestion would be to move the full details to the references section and use abbreviated form in the citation to maintain consistency. Also, there is no page number for this citation.
That is all I have at the moment. I will keep looking for those pesky hyphens and dashes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hartfelt
Having myself today requested a peer review, I thought I should conduct one. Overall, I am favorably impressed with your article, but there is of course room for improvement. I have no expertise in your subject, and my comments reflect a single, uninterrupted read-through without written notes.
(1) Obviously, you have written with British background, spellings, and style. You might remember, however, that many of your English-language readers will be Americans, etc. and ask yourself whether you sometimes take too much for granted for non-British readers (as in not immediately identifying the sitting King in the royal family section, in discussing the maneuvers of government formation, and in assuming familiarity with the women's movement in England).
(2) Consider the flow of your outline. Does it make sense, for example, to interject "propaganda" between newspapers and magazines. Maybe propagana should go before or after both or be in its own category. There may be other such items. Given that you cover a grab-bag of topics, your effort will benefit from having the most logical sequence, creating the greatest flow. Should royal family go before government? Has more color and might be of more human interest to more readers.
- moved propaganda left monarchy after government Done
(3) I suggest streamlining the introduction and making it more inviting. Eg, remove the stuff about the Tsar and the qualification concerning women's issues. Make it agree with your outline.
- Required per MOS
(4) The royal family section would be improved by stating who the sitting king was at the outset. Done by Jarry
(5) There are many formal items needing attention. These includes seeming inconsistencies in spelling out or not spelling out numbers (see fifty one v. 17 in same section); method of giving year spans; extra spaces or missing spaces in punctuation around footnotes, etc. It also seemed to me that there are sentences that should be broken in two. Done
(6) I am not familiar with the two-tier footnote approach and don't really care for it. At a minimum, might it not be better to include some of the shorter ones in the text itself, rather than divert readers into the footnotes?
- One added into the text the others are better off as notes I believe Done
(7) Question: Given all the ships sunk, were there really so few deaths as you give.
- Checked the source almost 15,OOO in the Merchant Navy does not seem a small amount Done
(8) Suggestion: Find a way to discuss Winston Churchill's role during the war, as he is such an important and familiar figure to so many.
(9) I like your additional information links. Should there be more?
- Added as many as possible Done
I hope the foregoing is of some help to you, and that you get some comments from people with more substantive expertise! Good luck from here. I am going to go back into the article and make one small editing change. Hartfelt (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah good, I was starting to worry about that whole in my schedule for tomorrow. :) I agree with most of the above, and particularly the outside approach ones (1, 2 and 4). (6) I'm not so sure about (include in the text itself?); and though Churchill is famous as a person, he really didn't feature enough in these adventures to realistically justify (8). Point (3) arguably goes against MoS guidelines, but I do get where you're coming from. (5) I will correct and (7) and (9) I will have to research tomorrow. Certainly points to think about there, appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jarry: Just wanted to clarify my point on footnotes. I am focused on the nb footnotes, which are textual rather than citations. Some are so short that they could be kept in the text, in a parentheses or worked into text, rather than diverting the reader into the footnotes to see a little piece of text. Then the reader has to check a footnote to the footnote. Hartfelt (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, now I follow. The problem is that a couple really are neccessary, so you'd never be able to get rid of them all. But I'll give it a go. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jarry: Re Churchill -- If Dardanelles caused govt to fall and Churchill responsible for Dardanelles, doesn't Churchill deserve mention? Also impt in naval readiness. You're the expert, but I think you would make your article more accessible by working him in a little, as compared to the forgotten figures who are now the whole focus. Just a thought. Hartfelt (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am by no means an expert, but the problem here is that there is a real temptation - that both Jim and I have been suppressing - to launch into accounts of the various battles and raids (such as in the Dardanelles). But I'm sure we could mention him briefly though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments I have done some I believe Jarry is working on the others --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry/Jim: I see you have been at work, but hope you won't mind some addtl thoughts, for what they are worth.
(1) My question about few deaths at sea related to the 900 or so "civilian" deaths. Is that an accurate figure?
- Yes according to the source there is another figure of 14,000 for the merchant navy which is seperate from civilian deaths --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(2) Churchill. Obviously, I'm just one reader, but I wanted to know more about Churchill. Without discussing the Dardannelles expedition in any detail, couldn't it be mentioned that Churchill was behind it, which you say caused the government to fall. Also, in the Navy section, why not mention that Churchill had emphasized preparedness before the war so the navy was well prepared, but he led the navy and army into the Dardanelles exp & lost his job. Also, his service thereafter in the army could be mentioned. In that connection, you have a single sentence about service by MPs. Should that be expanded? What was consequence -- did they remain in Parliament or have to resign? Was Churchill the most prominent? It is, of course, your article but I think you could make it more reader-friendly if you wove a little Churchill into it.
- We already have the Winston Churchill and Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939 articles which cover him in detail --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(3) Because your article is necessarily a "grab bag," it necessarily has flow problems (unlike an article that has a strong time-line). I think you could help this with some attn to transitions. Why not, for example, start the Monarchy section with a topic sentence like "World War I led to profound changes for Briatin's royal family, caused by their close ties to Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm." Something to reorient the reader's attn to a new subject and tell them why it's a topic of interest.
(4) The Pankhurst gang. This reader wants to know who all the Pankhursts were -- sisters, cousins, mother/daughter? Seems striking that they were on both sides of the divide.
- The danger is writing the History of the Pankhursts article which has been a problem all the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we can make room for a note about which one was the mother and which two the daughters. Duly Done. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, keep up the good work. Over & out, hoping this is of some use. (I'm going into the article to make a specific change; feel free to revert.) Hartfelt (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry/Jim: I have belatedly focused on fact that you have a subsection on recruitment and draft; then a section on CO. Why not combine them into a single section addressing recruitment, draft, and CO all in one place under an appropriate heading. As it is, draft is mentioned in the subsection, then again and more informatively in the CO section. Also, the mention of parliament members in the military where it now resides is rather disruptive of the flow of the government section. Prior treatment was less disruptive. Hartfelt (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Jim's moved the bits to their own section, and I've commented out the fact for now. We'll see how that develops. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry/Jim: I see you have made many expansions and improvements (e.g., discussion of the role of the royal children in the war). I also want to note that there are some very nice parts to the article, e.g., the nice meshing of graphics and text regarding the Tsar and the zeppelins. Of criticisms, you may have heard more from me than you want to. If so, I apologize. Two last comments:
(1) The conscription section does not hang together for me. The Jan-March-May dates seem out of whack; the statements about married-single seem out of whack. Someone should pin this down and straighten it out. What was the date of the Act cited? When did policies change? Could married men be drafted or not?
(2) More important, please forgive me for saying frankly that I find the introduction off-putting. It seems to me rather disjointed, jumping around, and would not encourage me to drive on into the article. I urge you to spend some time to polish it. Shorten it some if you can, but in any event give it a better, more inviting flow. I have been tempted to try something myself, but it's your article and you can do a better job than I can if you put your mind to it. Remember, you only have one chance to make a first impression. I reacted negatively to the introduction when I read it first, and I still do.
Congrats on a worthwhile and improving article. Best of luck from here. Hartfelt (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Abraham, B.S.
Very good work. Just a few initial comments for now:
- Lead
- The opening sentence in the lead doesn't sit well with me. "United Kingdom during World War I (1914–1918) was one of the Allied Powers" - this seems to be saying that World War I was one of the Allied powers. Could this be tweaked? Done
- It should be clarified in the lead when H. H. Asquith is mentioned that he was PM. Same with George. Done
- Government
- "and the internal divisions within British politics that had plagued the pre-war years continued." - requires a cite.
- "failed Gallipoli Campaign in the Dardenelles, when many thousands of men had been lost for very little perceived gain" - "many" --> "several". Done
- It should be clarified exactly when George took over as PM. Done
- I think I've taken care of the few in this section, but remember that Acts of law should be in italics.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review I think between Jarry and myself we have covered them all --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
This article has changed pretty much out of all recognition since the previous peer review (archived here), and has now reached Good Article status. I'd like to get this article up to FA standard by October this year at the latest, since after that I will be hard pressed to devote much time to it, and would appreciate any pointers or advice. Benea (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
I guess you have forgotten to remove some of the hyphens for ndashes.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Skinny87
The Trafalgar and subsequent sections are rather thin on the ground - I'd like to see some expansion there, as they're quite anemic compared to the rest of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Military career of L. Ron Hubbard
I have completely rewritten this article from scratch following concerns that the previous version - not written by me, I hasten to add - was excessively POV and based on original research. (Compare before and after.) The replacement article documents the military career of L. Ron Hubbard, who served in the US Navy from 1941-45 (active service) and 1945-50 (reserves). I would like to get it up to at least GA standard and preferably FA standard, and would appreciate feedback on the current text. I've avoided, wherever possible, quoting from primary sources but I should say up front that there are some primary source quotations simply to meet the demands of NPOV - the account would be extremely one-sided if Hubbard's own POV could not be quoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
- In number ranges, you're supposed to use a ndash instead of a hyphen.
- Usually multiply used books are listed in full in the a separate section and in the notes section it is just "Miller, p. 50." without needing to use ibid, especially as only one book is used for the given author
- Lead is a bit short and I don't think that US should be used three times in the first sentence; after the first mention of USDF, the fact US doesn't need to be stated before the MC and N. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I've actioned the first two points. I'll have a go at expanding the lead later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Jayen466
I commented on the article's talk page earlier today, unaware that this peer review was ongoing. Is it possible to place a more prominent reference to this peer review on the article talk page? Anyway, here a copy of my comments.
- The "Marine Corps Reserve" section states,
"Although he was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety,[4] he received an honorable discharge on October 22, 1931 along with the annotation "not to be re-enlisted."[5]"
- This synthesises two sources: Miller, who states,
"Ron returned to Washington to report for two weeks' annual training with the 20th Marine Corps Reserve and was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety".
- The other cited source, Atack, states,
"On October 22, 1931, Hubbard received an honorable discharge from the Marine Reserve. In his service record, there is a handwritten note under the character reference: 'Excellent.' In another hand beneath this is written, 'Not to be re-enlisted.' There is no explanation of either statement."
- I suggest we lose the "Although" in our text, because it editorialises and subtly suggests there was something wrong with his performance. 1931 was peace time, so I wonder what "not to be re-enlisted" means in such a context. Could it mean that he simply had finished his stint of reserve duty? And Hubbard obviously was re-enlisted in 1941 (although not by the Marine Corps, if that is what is meant).
- "He got no further than Brisbane" seems to imply it was Hubbard's fault; sources say his ship was diverted to Australia instead. Suggest we use a more neutral phrasing.
- Streeter, who is cited, also includes praise Hubbard received from a senior officer for his navigating skills, "excellent personal and military character", etc.; I think to be balanced, that should be included too.
- This passage, along with some others, has an air of synthesis about it:
According to the Church of Scientology, Hubbard was landed on the island of Java "in the closing days of February 1942" to search for "stockpiled weapons and fast, shallow-draft vessels." He was cut off by invading Japanese "and was only able to escape the island after scrambling into a rubber raft and paddling out to meet an Australian destroyer."[9] Another Church of Scientology account describes Hubbard as "Senior Officer Present Ashore in Brisbane, Australia" and states that "after fracturing an ankle in subsequent action, he was flown stateside (in the Secretary of the Navy's plane no less) as the first American casualty returning from the Pacific Theater."[10] The US Navy's files do not record this episode.[1]
- The sentence "The US Navy's files do not record this episode." appears to be sourced to the sentence "The US Navy files do not record the time that Hubbard is supposed to have spent on Java" on page 207 of Streeter. I think it would be better to move that sentence to before the sentence on the flight on the private plane, so it is used in the context in which the source is using it.
- Some sentences seem to be designed to elicit guffaws, e.g.: "The PC-815 sustained some self-inflicted damage when a misaimed burst of gunfire shot away the vessel's radio antenna and injured three of the crew." (unsourced; questionable relevance unless sources say Hubbard was the one doing the shooting and was censured for it); "Other documents on Hubbard's medical file stated that he had injured his back in 1942 after falling off a ship's ladder.[43]" (sourced to "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International.", no further details given).
- A number of sentences don't have references, making verification difficult; given the contentious nature of the topic, I would recommend placing a ref after each sentence.
- In an earlier discussion on the talk page editors agreed that Melton was not a historian, and that there was no need to include his version of the submarine incident. I think I would like to have another look at this issue, for two reasons. Melton's account has since been re-published by Oxford University Press [1]:
"It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war".
- Secondly, this present article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack, and Frenschkowski, in the Marburg Journal of Religion, wrote,
"- Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, New York 1987. London 1988. The most important critical biography of Hubbard. Like Haack's and Corydon's books it is extremely polemical and very much tries to pull Hubbard to pieces who is seen as a dangerous megalomanic and notorious liar (especially when talking about himself). Miller has definitely exposed some inflated statements about Hubbard's early achievements, as they are represented e. g. in the preface to Mission into Time. On the other side the Church of Scientology has been able to disprove some of Millers assumptions. Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-Faced Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection). The Church of Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander Thompson", the source of his early acquaintance with Freudian psychoanalysis. Joseph "Snake" Thompson (1874-1943) was Commander in the US Navy Medical Corps; his personal relation with Freud is documented by a letter written by Freud and addressed to him (in the Library of Congress, Washington. Copy in my possession). This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard."
— [2] - This creates enough doubt in my mind to make me feel that we should not be relying on Miller's version exclusively; we have to represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence. At the least, I think we should attribute material that comes from Miller to him, and find room somewhere for Frenschkowski's assertion that parts of Miller's narrative have been disproved. Jayen466 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I'll go through them in more detail later on today, but I'll make a few interim comments.
- We decided in the earlier discussion to exclude Melton not simply because he's not an historian but because his claims about Japanese submarines are not corroborated by any other reliable source, and in fact are actively contradicted by the standard histories of the Japanese navy's submarine fleet. There is literally no other source that suggests that any Japanese submarines were sunk off the US coast, by Hubbard or anyone else. I refer you to WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." This viewpoint is presented in no reliable sources other than as a claim made by the Church of Scientology. Note that Melton cites no sources to support his contention - he says it's "substantiated" without saying what substantiates it. It's a textbook case of a red flag: a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" and a "claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." If Melton is correct, then it overturns 65 years of scholarship and research and disproves all of the previously published evidence from official sources - US, British and Japanese - concerning this issue. We can't ignore the fact that there is a huge weight of scholarship contradicting Melton's assertion.
- As for Miller, unfortunately Frenchkowski doesn't say in what respects "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show." He doesn't actually dispute anything Miller says about Hubbard's WWII career. If there were specific issues of dispute, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but Frenchkowski doesn't give us anything to work with - it's just a non-specific general disagreement. It would be interesting to know what his specific concerns are, though. Maybe someone should ask him?
- Regarding Thompson, I don't see the relevance of that point - that was well before Hubbard joined the Navy. It's relevant to a general biography but not to an article concerning his military career.
- Thanks. I am in two minds myself about the Melton passage; other scholars, while praising Melton's book as a whole, have remarked that in his bio of Hubbard, he may have been too credulous. In the end, I just don't know. I wouldn't even mind mentioning that Melton has received such criticism, but we shouldn't sweep him under the carpet. Melton's book is used in many university courses on Scientology, and Oxford University Press is in the academic mainstream. Melton also mentions the dispute about the number of medals. Jayen466 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- (The Thompson reference is indeed irrelevant to this article. It was just included for completeness' sake. Jayen466 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
- It's nothing to do with how "mainstream" Melton is. I'm sure he is regarded as a mainstream sociologist, and I have no doubt that his work is used in an educational context as you sau. The issue here is simply that he makes an unsourced claim in an area outside of his professional competence - military history rather than sociology - that no other reliable source supports, and that basically every other relevant reliable source actively contradicts. Let me walk you though this. Melton asserts, without any substantiation, that a Japanese submarine was sunk 15 miles off Oregon in May 1943. Only a handful of Japanese submarines were even capable of crossing the Pacific in the first place. Their service histories are well known and their losses are recorded in detail by the IJN, the US Navy and the Royal Navy. The specific submarine that Hubbard claimed to have attacked was recorded as having been sunk a year later. No Japanese submarine is recorded by any reliable source as having been off Oregon in May 1943, and no reliable source of any kind records that any Japanese submarine was sunk off the continental US coastline at any point in the war. Melton's assertion is not only made without evidence, it actively contradicts all of the published military histories of the US and Japanese navies. It's as if Melton was asserting that the Russians attacked Pearl Harbor rather than the Japanese. He's literally in a minority of one in making his claim. In that situation it doesn't matter that he is a mainstream sociologist or that his claim has somehow got into an OUP publication (their editorial standards have evidently slipped) - it's a textbook case of a red-flagged fringe claim from someone way outside his area of expertise. If we're trying to write a serious piece of military history Melton really does not have any place here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are arguing from personal knowledge here. What you say may be true, but it is not verifiable from what you have written above. As you know, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Oxford University Press is the exact opposite of a fringe source. Even if we believe in our hearts Melton is wrong, I still think we should mention him, along with such criticism as his bio in the book has received in RS, as suggested above.
- As for Miller, he is not always correct either, according to Frenschkowski, who says that the Church has been able to disprove some of his account, as quoted above. Given that we rely so heavily on him, would you object to attributing the material cited to Miller in the text, i.e. "According to Miller, ...", and adding that Miller's account has been disputed as well, as per Frenschkowski?
- I feel to be NPOV on this we should give no source complete credence. We should describe the dispute as accurately as possible based on what RS have said and refrain from setting ourselves up as its arbiters, knowing full well that none of our sources may be correct in every detail they assert. It might be worth adding a paragraph just on the available sources on this topic, and how their reliability has been assessed. If you like we could mention Melton's version of the submarine there, rather than in the actual military history section, along with a mention that his account was deemed too credulous by some. We could also mention Miller in the section describing the available sources, and say that Frenschkowski asserts some of his details have been disproven. I think that would help getting to an NPOV presentation. What do you think? Jayen466 09:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Marine Corps Reserve, Brisbane, Java, PC-815 damage and casualties. I've reworded these section to address your concerns.
- Miller. It's not accurate to say that the article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack. I count 36 separate sources - Hubbard's military career has been tackled by non-Scientologists for nearly 40 years, well before Miller and Atack got into the act. I've expanded the article to provide some more context (see Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Documenting Hubbard's military career). Miller and Atack are simply the most recent and comprehensive treatments, but I've purposefully sought to include as wide a range of sources as possible.
- Sentences without references. If you can identify specific sentences that you feel need referencing, please do so and I'll see what I can add. Generally, if a sentence is without a reference the next reference you will find will be the one covering that reference. Multiple sentences (and in a few cases, paragraphs) are covered by individual references.
- Melton. It doesn't matter that Melton is a mainstream sociologist published by a reliable source. WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions are in some respects more important than that - even if a source is reliable it may not be suitable for inclusion. Fringe claims are inherently unsuitable for inclusion, particularly when they are textbook examples of red flags. Don't confuse fringe claims and reliable sources - a fringe claim can be made by a reliable source, particularly when the author is writing about something outside his area of competence. It doesn't make the claim any less fringy. The Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine force has been written about numerous times; the activities and particulars of loss are well-documented from Japanese, US and British records, as are the details of the IJN's activities off the US coast (which ceased after 1942). A number of books give the details: Retaliation: Japanese Attacks and Allied Countermeasures on the Pacific Coast in World War II (Webber, 1975); The Imperial Japanese Navy (Gordon & Watts, 1971; ISBN 0356030458); Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (Carpenter & Polmar, 1986); Submarines of World War Two (Bagnasco, 2000; ISBN 1854095323); The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II (Boyd & Yoshida, 2002; ISBN 1557500150); and Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-45 (Bryan and Stille, 2007; ISBN 1846030900). Melton's claim contradicts all of these sources and the official war histories of the US and Japanese navies. I don't propose to waste any more time on it since it is so clearly an exceptional claim and Melton's unsourced, virtually throw-away line is not remotely an exceptional source. It does not belong in the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Close to half of our citations are to Atack and Miller. Frenschkowski is positive that Hubbard's church has disproved some of Miller's assertions about his military history. That deserves a mention somewhere. Are there any other sources detailing the disputes that followed the publication of the book? We should mention them.
- As for citations, honestly, I would suggest citing every sentence. Cirt usually does that, and it makes a lot of sense on topics like this. Jayen466 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the source on the I-76. However, this makes clear that the sentence
"The I-76 (later I-176),[35] named by Hubbard as the vessel that he had sunk, was in fact destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944.[36]"
- is WP:SYN. None of the cited sources presents this information in direct connection with the article topic. We need a source saying, "Hubbard said he had sunk the I-76. In fact, the I-76 was later renamed the I-176 and sunk off Buka Island in 1944." If there is no such source, then this analysis is original research. JN466 08:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hubbard himself said that he had sunk the I-76. This is quoted and sourced in the article. What is the difficulty here? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a novel analysis. That alleged Hubbard quote is present nowhere on the Internet (including google scholar, google books and questia) but this Wikipedia article: [3] We are not supposed to perform original research here, but merely to cover what others have written about the topic, in this case the Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. That whole combination of the alleged Hubbard quote, the source about the renaming of the Japanese submarine and how and when and where it was sunk after it was renamed is not in any of the sources cited and is in fact unique to Wikipedia. JN466 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I object strongly to your obvious innuendo that I have forged the "alleged" quote which, I remind you, is properly sourced. I'll invite you to withdraw that remark. Unless you are going to approach this by assuming good faith, I think this discussion is at an end. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Objection noted, and I did not mean to imply that you "manufactured" the quote. However, it is odd that it is nowhere available but this Wikipedia article, given that incriminating Hubbard quotes are usually liberally reproduced. I have obviously no idea whether you read the book yourself and can vouch for the accuracy of the quote, or if this is information inserted by another editor. I believe you mentioned you were not the original author of the article. More importantly though, the point still stands that even if the authenticity of the quote were confirmed, there is apparently no published source discussing any such Hubbard quote in connection with the renaming of submarines by the Japenese navy, and the sinking of renamed submarines. As such, the presentation we have in the article is original research as per WP:SYN. Our job is to present the points made in reliable sources, rather than combining sources in new ways to arrive at novel conclusions that so far have not been presented in reliable sources. JN466 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification about your meaning. This quote was in the original article and I'm not sure off the top of my head who added it, but I rechecked it (along with everything else in the article) and it is genuine. I have the original lecture at home (or more precisely, a published transcript of it). I'm away from home at the moment, so I can't check the fine details immediately, but it appears in a transcript published along with a set of cassette-recorded lectures that were published - if my memory serves me correctly - by Bridge Publications ApS of Copenhagen, Denmark, the main European distributor of Scientology publications. I don't recall the context of the quote off-hand, I'm afraid. I remember thinking it was rather random; Hubbard was in the habit of throwing in personal anecdotes to illustrate some point he was making at the time. The fact that it doesn't appear on Google Books is hardly a surprise, since Scientology is notoriously jealous of its copyrights. I don't think I've ever seen a Scientology book on Google Books.
- As for your WP:SYN comment, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what WP:SYN actually says. It prohibits us from "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources," or in other words "A and B, therefore C". This is not happening in this article. "L. Ron Hubbard said he sunk the I-76, but the US Navy said he didn't, therefore he was lying" would be an example of original research through synthesis. No source could be cited to support that conclusion. But of course the article doesn't state this. It states: A, Hubbard said he sunk the I-76 and B, military historians say the I-76 was sunk a year later. It does not reach any conclusion or state that either party is wrong, so there is no C - no conclusion that would fall foul of WP:SYN. This sort of treatment is exactly what WP:NPOV requires of us, i.e. to present fairly conflicting viewpoints without endorsing them. We're not judging Hubbard here, simply presenting the fact that his view and that of the military/historical professionals are in conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just re-read the Smith and Jones example in WP:SYN. I think this is pretty much exactly analogous to it – in the example too there is no explicit statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism. The juxtaposition is enough, and it's SYN because the second source did not comment on the Smith/Jones dispute. But I don't blame you for trying it with this wording; we'll discuss it with the GA reviewer later on and see how it goes. JN466 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're still misreading WP:SYN. The Smith/Jones example (and indeed the page as a whole) says nothing about juxtaposition. It cites two paragraphs, the first of which juxtaposes Smith's and Jones's positions, and the second which draws a conclusion about those positions. The second paragraph is "the original synthesis ... because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it" (emphasis added). By contrast, "the first paragraph was properly sourced" because it simply summarised the opposing claims as found in reliable verifiable sources. We are supposed to juxtapose rival claims without drawing unsourced conclusions. That's not synthesis - it's NPOV at its most basic. Smith/Jones would only be analagous if the Hubbard article was making a specific unsourced claim about the Japanese submarine, which it doesn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just re-read the Smith and Jones example in WP:SYN. I think this is pretty much exactly analogous to it – in the example too there is no explicit statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism. The juxtaposition is enough, and it's SYN because the second source did not comment on the Smith/Jones dispute. But I don't blame you for trying it with this wording; we'll discuss it with the GA reviewer later on and see how it goes. JN466 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Objection noted, and I did not mean to imply that you "manufactured" the quote. However, it is odd that it is nowhere available but this Wikipedia article, given that incriminating Hubbard quotes are usually liberally reproduced. I have obviously no idea whether you read the book yourself and can vouch for the accuracy of the quote, or if this is information inserted by another editor. I believe you mentioned you were not the original author of the article. More importantly though, the point still stands that even if the authenticity of the quote were confirmed, there is apparently no published source discussing any such Hubbard quote in connection with the renaming of submarines by the Japenese navy, and the sinking of renamed submarines. As such, the presentation we have in the article is original research as per WP:SYN. Our job is to present the points made in reliable sources, rather than combining sources in new ways to arrive at novel conclusions that so far have not been presented in reliable sources. JN466 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I object strongly to your obvious innuendo that I have forged the "alleged" quote which, I remind you, is properly sourced. I'll invite you to withdraw that remark. Unless you are going to approach this by assuming good faith, I think this discussion is at an end. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a novel analysis. That alleged Hubbard quote is present nowhere on the Internet (including google scholar, google books and questia) but this Wikipedia article: [3] We are not supposed to perform original research here, but merely to cover what others have written about the topic, in this case the Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. That whole combination of the alleged Hubbard quote, the source about the renaming of the Japanese submarine and how and when and where it was sunk after it was renamed is not in any of the sources cited and is in fact unique to Wikipedia. JN466 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Let me put the submarine passage in Smith & Jones terms:
Hubbard claimed in a lecture he had sunk an I-76 submarine.(on-topic [but primary] source a)
Now comes the original synthesis:
In fact, the I-76 was renamed I-176.(off-topic source B) The I-176 was sunk some time later, and elsewhere.(off-topic source C)
We do not have a published source on Hubbard's military career that presents this argument, encompassing these three logical steps, logically connecting these three items of information. That is why, in my opinion, the argument is original research. Also see WP:ORIGINALSYN. JN466 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- To avoid any suggestion of synthesis, I've tweaked the wording to read: "According to military records, the I-76 was destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944." Note that this is a straightforward presentation of claim and counter-claim. Hubbard makes the claim that he sunk I-76 off the Columbia River. The records cited in the article and by the referenced historians say that the same submarine was sunk off Buka Island a year later. I've removed the "in fact" which I agree was probably fringing on endorsing one side. I've also added a picture of the I-(1)76 to the article, moving across the citation that the I-76 was renamed to I-176. The picture comes from the same source as the citation. So what we now have is claim A, the I-76/I-176 was sunk by L. Ron Hubbard off the Columbia River in May 1943, and counter-claim B, that the I-76/I-176 was sunk by three US Navy destroyers off Buka Island in May 1944. There is no conclusion C, "therefore L. Ron Hubbard was wrong" - we simply have the claim and counter-claim without endorsement for either side. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort, though it does not change the basic problem that the source we cite for where the I-176 was sunk does not present this information in direct connection with the article topic, as WP:SYN demands. :( What you are doing may possibly be good original research, but it is not what WP is supposed to be doing. JN466 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Against my better judgment, I'm going to have one more go at explaining this to you.
- I appreciate the effort, though it does not change the basic problem that the source we cite for where the I-176 was sunk does not present this information in direct connection with the article topic, as WP:SYN demands. :( What you are doing may possibly be good original research, but it is not what WP is supposed to be doing. JN466 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're claiming that the sources are "off-topic". The topic in the paragraph in question is the fate of the I-176. Hubbard presents one claim about the submarine's sinking. Military historians and the US Navy present a different account. We are not saying which side is right or wrong; we are simply documenting what each party says about the submarine's fate. It would be unbalanced and POV to cite only Hubbard's claim; as WP:NPOV says, "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate your taking the time. We just have an honest difference of opinion on which sources are on-topic here. As far as I am concerned, the topic is Hubbard's military career, and we should quote sources commenting on that. Sources that do not present their information in relation to his career are out of bounds, in my view, and using them takes us into SYN territory. Now, you are putting together (1) a (fairly obscure, I think you'll admit) primary source from Hubbard himself, talking informally, swaggeringly, about a submarine he believes he sank, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that talk (2) a source not commenting on Hubbard, which says the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 while being built, but renamed I-176 when it was commissioned in August 1942 and (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard saying the I-176 was sunk at such and such a date (1944), and at such and such a location. Now, according to our article on it, the I-76 was only ever called I-76 during its construction. What grounds do we have for believing that Hubbard knew the I-176 was previously called the I-76, and that he meant to refer to this specific submarine? If he didn't know about the name change, or just made the number up, or got it wrong, or meant to say I-67, what point is there detailing the fate of the I-176? The talk you are citing from Hubbard was clearly off the cuff; has anyone made an exhaustive review of whether he ever told the same story at other occasions, giving a different submarine identification? If he did, should we follow up all of those submarines' fates as well to prove that each one perished somewhere else, or survived the war? The point is that a number of key points in our article's coverage – that Hubbard knew the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 during its construction, and therefore he was referring to the I-176 when he said I-76; that the talk we cite from him is the definitive source and account of his claim; or indeed that there was only one Japanese submarine ever named the I-76 – are not based on secondary-source coverage of Hubbard's military career. Their juxtaposition represents a unique historical analysis as regards the topic of this article, Hubbard's military career. Let's rather concentrate on what the sources commenting directly on Hubbard and his phantom submarine say. If they say, the Japanese Navy did not lose any submarines in May 1943, in it goes. If they say (and they do) that his superiors thought he was mistaken, it goes into the article. That is all we need to do: summarise the sources commenting upon Hubbard's military career. Best, JN466 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know that I am a bit late coming to the party, but in FAs I have used references that have nothing to do with the topic I am writing about to verify the accuracy of a point I am trying to make. For example: one source says that the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruisers would have been similar to Germany's Scharnhorst class. Including that in the article, I use a source that has nothing to do with the 1047s, but everything to do with the Scharnhorst's, to give the specifications for the latter that were not present in the first source. I see nothing wrong with this... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No. 410 Squadron RCAF
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, this has had a lot of time and effort expended into it, and now needs more work to reach the lofty goal of FA-Class. What needs to be done?
Thanks, TARTARUS talk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66
I wouldn't call the V-2 a rocket bomb, that's for sure. And it's pretty unimportant that that same missile landed in England. Otherwise looks good although I'll have to take a closer look when I'm a little less frazzled. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
Added a few links
- when the unit was renowned for its skill and number of victories.- needs a cite
- Change enemy to German
- Change kills to victories
- More cites needs Post D-Day section -
- shot down two Do.217 aircraft in twenty minutes
- Since D-Day the Cougars had destroyed twelve enemy bombers
- still maintaining their schedule of nine sorties per night
- During an operation that resulted in the thirteenth kill of the period, one aircraft crashed—its crew was unable to bail out
- Battle of the Bulge and the end of the war section -
- the Germans launched a surprise offensive in the Ardennes.
- This was done using the Luftwaffe, which caught many squadrons off guard,
- it was called upon to provide a special patrol of four aircraft as air cover for Armistice Day ceremonies being held in Paris
- Wartime commanders section - does the one ref at the end of the paragraph cover all the changes ? it would be better to cite all changes in command
- Post-Second World War section - the first two sentences need cites
Thats all for now will return later --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
I am not an expert on aviation articles at all, so I'm afraid I won't be much help. Jim appears to have covered most of the points I would raise, but I do have a couple more:
- Please check the official rank name for the rank that you have abbreviated (F/O). At the start (in the lead) you state that it means Flight Officer, but later you appear to use Flying Officer. I think it should be Flying Officer the whole way through, but could be wrong. In Australia it is Flying Officer, but I don't know about the RCAF at all. Just strikes me as possibly wrong.
- In the bibliography section some references use the {{cite book}} template and others are manually written, leading to different formats. Consistency is always best, so I would choose one or the other and make them all the same. My suggestion is to use the cite book style (as it usually gets brought up at A class review anyway).
- I suggest adding 'p.' in front of the page numbers. I don't know if it is required under the MOS, but it seems like a more standard system than author, #. Some people also use 'Author (Year), p. #'. The advantage of that is that is a little more user friendly, in my opinion at least.
- I suggest moving the picture of the JU88 to the left, in order to balance the sequence of the images. Not necessarily a must, though, but sometimes gets mentioned at A class review.
- Probably try to add a few more citations. I know you have lots already, but there are a few paragraphs where the majority of the citations are at the end, and there are chunks at the start of the paragraph that aren't cited. Even if it is the same source, at A class review they will usually ask you to put them in anyway.
Anyway, seems like a good article (without loading the term). Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Australian Defence Force
This article has been at FA status since July 2007 and is due for an update and general tidy-up. To help me with this I'd appreciate any comments on the article as it currently stands. Please note that the article was previously peer reviewed in March 2007 before it was nominated for A-class and then FA status. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
- The lead is quite short
- Odd usage of First-Last name, I'll get to work on that, and also some refs are repeated in long form in the footnotes when not needed as the full form is already in the multi-use refs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Date formats are mixed. I prefer yyyy-mm-dd if that's ok YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Military history of Australia during World War I
I am nominating this article for peer review as it has been listed as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight with a view to taking it to FA class by another user, although I am the main contributor (of course, however, there have been a number of other editors who have worked consistently on the article also and who have been invaluable in bringing it to where it is now). It is currently listed as a GA and has been previously been peer reviewed. Before taking the leap, I would like to see what the liability is before getting involved in an ACR or FAC, so am requesting opinions about what would be needed to get it to these levels. All comments welcome. Cheers. (Prior peer review here). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth
- They brought kangaroos with them to Egypt?? That is... incredible! Sorry. Back to the serious point of reviewing!
- I have a DVA book called Australians in Britain - Two World Wars which has some WWI stuff. Might that be of interest?
- I also have a book that contains listings of the Australian command structure during WWI - would that be too detailed for this article?
- I see that the Australian War Memorial is mentioned, but is there room to mention other war memorials with Australian connections? There is the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial, the V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial, the Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery, and Lone Pine Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery in Gallipoli, which is a start, but it is easy to add too much in this direction (there is also the Australian War Memorial in London).
- Overall, some of the sections feel a bit long. Is the aim to have the shorter actions and campaigns covered less, or to cover each area and branch of the armed services with about an equal amount of text?
May add more comments later. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I will wait before I do anything too drastic about the section sizes as I want to get a number of opinions before forging ahead. Cheers, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth. IMO the command structure is probably too detailed for this article, but I would encourage you to add it to First Australian Imperial Force if you feel so inclined. Likewise I think listing all the memorials may be a bit much also. They could be included in the articles for the battles themselves though (if they haven't already been added). Lastly I think the relative importance of each topic/battle/service should determine the level of coverage, not an arbitrary allocation of equal space to all topics. In this regard I think the article probably strikes this balance. Anyway thats just my two cents, others may disagree of course. ChoraPete (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
ChoraPete
Personally I think this article is quite good. Only a few minor points:
- There are some very short paragraphs which should probably be linked with other sentences to form real paragraphs, or expanded on to achieve the same;
- Maybe expand battle of Krithia and Turkish counter attack sections a little in the Gallipoli section
- Maybe the section on Es Salt could be expanded (just a couple more sentences perhaps), likewise for the battles of Rafa and and of Romani in the Egypt and Palestine section;
- The see also link to the article on the Australian official histories could be worked into the prose (IVO where you mention Bean probably) and then this could be eliminated and Done
- Is there anyway of 'right-aligning' the table at the end to remove the whitespace?
Anyway that is all from me for now, if I think of anything else I will let you know. Good luck. ChoraPete (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers for the review. I will see what I can do to address these. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Nick-D
This article is in excellent shape, and is probably nearly ready for an A class nomination. As an over-arching suggestion, I think that the article might be too detailed, and you should look to move some material into subsidiary articles. In particular, many relatively small actions of the first years of the war involving battalions and brigades are covered in what seems to be excessive detail compared to the succinct descriptions of the AIFs division and corps-level operations in France from 1916 onwards. My specific suggestions for improvements are:
- Some maps would be useful if they're available
- The single paragraph sections should be integrated into neighboring sections
- The lead photo lacks visual impact - while its a featured picture, this seems to be due to the rarity of high resolution pictures of World War I rather than any implicit value (disclaimer: I voted against it during its FPC). I'd suggest that it be replaced with something which more strongly grabs readers' attention.
- The first two paragraphs of the lead are a bit too detailed - this should be a high level summary of Australia's involvement in the war
- The 'German New Guinea' section is too detailed and should be trimmed to about three or four paragraphs
- I don't think that the first brigade commanders need to be named in the 'First Australian Imperial Force' section, particularly as this isn't carried through the remainder of the article
- The expansion of the AIF is repeated at the end of the 'Evacuation' section and start of the 'Egypt and Palestine' section
- Reference 73 ("The Turkish Rout at Romani — from a British illustrated magazine, published September 1916") seems like an odd choice given the availability of many post-war works. The claim that the Turks were seeking to destroy the Canal also is a bit surprising - was this even possible?
- 'Imperial Mounted Division' shouldn't be in italics
- The photo captioned simply 'Charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade' is potentially misleading given that there's been a long running (and as far as I know, unsettled) dispute over whether it is authentic.
- There's a bit of over linking in the 'Fighting around Gaza, 1917' section - 'Australian Mounted Division' and 'Beersheba' are linked twice
- The statement that "Five infantry divisions of the AIF saw action on the Western Front in France and Belgium, leaving Egypt in March 1916" is over-simplistic and not correct: this ignores the many corps level units and the 3rd Division was trained in England until December 1916
- The paragraph on the 1st Division's mechanical transport probably belongs in the article on the division and isn't worth more than a passing mention in this article
- The 'Royal Australian Navy operations' section repeats some of the content of the 'German New Guinea' section
- The 'Internment, censorship and other special measures' and 'Economy' sections are probably too detailed for an article on the military history of Australia during the war, and could be split off to provide an excellent starting point for an article on the home front.
- The simple table in the 'Statistics' section should be converted to prose
- The entries in the 'Footnotes' section need citations. Footnotes d and f could be removed (the first isn't necessary and the second is one person's view of a hotly contested topic which largely falls outside the scope of this article) Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nick. Some excellent points. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ian Rose
Concur with other reviewers that this is a very good article as is, and probably quite close to A-Class standard. I'll try and review in detail when I can, particularly the air corps section.
- Just as an initial comment, I agree with Nick that the lead picture lacks impact. The first two iconic images that come to my mind—which surprisingly don't appear in the article anywhere else as yet—are File:1stAustralianDivisionHooge5October1917.jpeg and File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. The Nek painting and the photo of Beersheba are certainly iconic as well, but a bit specialised for the lead IMO. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg would be a great choice, especially as it's also an FP. The Australian War Memorial's wonderful book Contact says that it "remains one of the most recognisible and widely reproduced images of this landscape, which has come to serve as an emblem of the Great War". Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Both are excellent suggestions, leaning towards File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. ChoraPete (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg would be a great choice, especially as it's also an FP. The Australian War Memorial's wonderful book Contact says that it "remains one of the most recognisible and widely reproduced images of this landscape, which has come to serve as an emblem of the Great War". Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty happy with the AFC section. I'd consider mentioning a few more names in the text, however, in addition to Petre and McNamara, namely Richard Williams, Oswald Watt, and Harry Cobby:
- Williams and Watt should logically appear after the line Thousands of aircrew from the other Dominions ... without gaining the benefits of command and the administrative experience which came with an independent air service, as they illustrate the contrasting situation for AFC men, namely that they both commanded wings (Williams temporarily leading the RAF's Palestinian Brigade as well). I can add the words and/or provide you a ref, if you like.
- Cobby should be mentioned as the AFC's leading ace of the war, with 29 victories.
- You could also drop the names of Robert Little and Stan Dallas as the top-scoring Australian aces of the war and as examples of Aussies flying with the Brits, but that may be overdoing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Took the liberty of copyediting the Half-Flight subsection, adding a new ref. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Ian. Some more excellent suggestions. Any and all help with the article is appreciated. I'm a bit under the pump this week in real life, so won't be able to put much time into the article until the weekend, unfortunately. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Werner Mölders
I rewrote the entire article. I think it is better than start class now. I am especially seeking feedback on style, grammar and language. My goal is to progress this article to GA and A-class shortly. Please let me know what you think. Thanks to all that help out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
Hi, mate. This is a very good article in my opinion. I have updated the rating on the talk page to B class (that is as high as I can rated without the formal review processes). I don't think that there is much I can add, though.
I like your layout and style and believe that the article is well written. Certainly very well researched and referenced. My only suggestions are to make sure that all of the works listed in the references section have been cited specifically. If they haven't been, then they should be in a Further Reading section. Also, check that all the images have appropriate licences for use. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- Agree with AustralianRupert I would suggest moving the image in the Eastern front section to the right so he is looking into the article
- The Spanish Cross award with Swords and Diamonds would suggest three awards [Cross] ,[Swords], [Diamonds] but from reading the article it seems they were all presented at once ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
you need to change the cites to "and" rather than using the ampersand. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Binksternet
- Why do most of the images have hard-coded pixel widths? What screen resolution are you using on your own computer? I think most of the images should be left at thumbnail size. The more vertical portraits could be presented with the |thumb|upright| parameters.
- Photograph of Major Mölders should be one paragraph lower so that it corresponds with the promotion date in the text.
- Birthday photograph should be a couple of paragraphs down so that the chronological flow fits better.
- Two instances of "fulfill/fulfilling" in the same sentence. Replace one.
- Explain why Luise Baldauf no longer used her maiden name; was she a widow? A divorcee?
- Did Mölders know about the RAF 5-plane turn method from 1922? If not, take it out.
- "...flamed one..." That's magazine jargon, not encyclopedia. Replace.
- Explain "park position"... what did Mölders actually do during this time?
- How do we say "belonging to Mölders" with the possessive apostrophe: Mölders' or Mölders's?
- Please place a reference directly following each of these phrases:
- "...the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories..." (trim off "... during World War II.")
- "During World War II he became the first pilot to claim 20 aerial victories..."
- "During the Battle of Britain he was the first pilot to claim 40 victories..."
- "He is often credited with inventing the cross-over turn."
Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Rosiestep
This is a very comprehensive article. Being new to Peer Review, I'd like to mention two punctuation issues:
- The article has a few parenthetical date commas, but mostly it lacks them. Is the lack of them due to British English vs. American English usage?
- "Adolf Hitlers birthday" is missing a possessive apostrophe. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
Very nice article. I only have a few points to make:
- In the lede, why was Molders released after two weeks of captivity? Why was his name removed from the barracks? This could be expanded on.
- There are some grammatical and style issues, so a copyedit is recommended before a GAN
- The first two sentences of "Condor Legion" could be merged.
- In the Phoney war/Battle of France section, the theft of the Iron Cross is not mentioned until it is brought up that a French officer returned it
- The "Dates of Rank" section is unsourced --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
North Staffordshire Regiment
I've nominated this article because it's been assessed as B-class and mostly I'm trying to work out what needs to be improved/changed to either get it rated A-class or GA without virtually paraphrasing entire source documents.
This unit isn't one of the most well known in the British army and it's history isn't one of the exciting ones, so sources aren't that prolific and therefore I'm wondering if their is an overpreponderance on what source material there is. NtheP (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think all the points mentioned below have been accounted for except the comment about the summary. Any suggestions? And where do we go from here towards A-class or GA? NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
Hi, mate. Firstly, I'd like to say well done on this article. You've clearly put a lot of work into it. I have only got a couple of points:
1918–1939
- Could you perhaps expand a little on the Regiment's involvement in the Third Afghan War? It only gets a very brief mention (although I accept that it was a very brief war). From what you have written it seems that all they did to earn their battle honour was be stationed in India at the time, but I believe they were a bit more active in their involvement. The wiki article on this war has a little, but there is, as you say very few resources.
will do. Not at home so don't have the reference books with me.- I've added in a small amount (only one sentence unfortunately) from the only reference I had that mentioned it. I hope it helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Second World War
What happened to the 7th Battalion, do you know? It is only mentioned in passing, stating that it was part of the 176th Bde, but that it did not land in Normandy with the 6th Battalion as it had been transferred away in 1942. Do you know where it was transferred to?
1945–1959
You mention the new 1st Battalion (64th/98th) – was this the unit's official designation when the 1st and 2nd Battalions were amalgamated in 1948? Seems a little clunky, but if it was its official name, then it should stay as is, otherwise I'd just change it to 1st Battalion. Perhaps you could clarify the redesignation if that is what happened as the wording is a little vague in my opinion, by saying something like "Accordingly the 1st Battalion left India to take part in a ceremony officially amalgamating with the 2nd Battalion in Egypt in 1948, to become the 1st Battalion (64th/98th)..."- It's the designation as per the regimental history (not as bad as some - have a look at The Sherwood Foresters)
You mention that the 1st Battalion went to Korea after the war ended, but don't state what they did there. I take it that they were part of the UN garrison and were there to act as a deterent against a continuation of the conflict?
Anyway, that is all I've got. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, mate. Looking good. I just added a bit and tweaked a couple of internal links, but it looks like it is getting there.
- References
- a couple of the references do not have an author. Are you able to find out the author and add it in? That way the reference list can be sorted alphabetically. I checked google for the 1908 one and couldn't find it. For the War Diary, I would suggest perhaps using 'War Office'. Just an idea. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
What makes Orbat a RS? Seems like a hobby website- alternate reference used
*Other websites need publisher info for BBC, date of printing etc
ok, but out of interest why?
why are the decorations in all caps- They're not. Not all honours are entitled to be carried on the colours. To distinguish those that are they are in capitals as the section intro says
Summar section at the bottom should not be there. It should either be int eh lead or ina section, the quote can't stnad out by iteself like that
YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
1/5th Battalion TF -most readers will not know that TF stands for Territorial Force it should be added the first time it is used with TF in brackets afterwards 1/5th Battalion Territorial Force (TF)- done
*There are a lot of links that could be added the battle honours, 1st Division, Aden, France etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is worth doing. Poelcapelle , Passchendaele etc if a reader wanted to know what they were the link should be there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)I agree, definately worthwhile. I've done a few of them today to help out, but ran into some difficulty with some of them as I didn't know some of the search terms. If someone else could take a look and see if they can find some of the links, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
Just a couple of points:
- Just from a quick scan, there are several grammar and spelling mistakes, so a copy-edit should be done before a GAN.
- I've picked up some but if you see more please point them out to me or correct them, thanks. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can do a thorough copy-edit for grammar/spelling/style if you want. Best results not guaranteed, since my own grammar/style isn't the greatest. If you accept, notify me on my talk page. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've picked up some but if you see more please point them out to me or correct them, thanks. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's is short for "It is", if you want the possessive, you should use "its".- Watch out for your commas. In a complex sentence, if there is a dependent clause before an independent clause, there should be a comma between the two.
- please cite me an example. My grammar isn't what it should be ;-). NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- One example in the "Pre First World War" section, you have: "During the campaign the 1st battalion were based initially at Wadi Halfa but moved to Gemai to avoid a cholera outbreak." This should be "During the campaign, the 1st battalion..." --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- ok, thanks NtheP (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- please cite me an example. My grammar isn't what it should be ;-). NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
For the Victoria Crosses section, it would be nice to know which battle/action it was awarded in.The first paragraph of the "1918–1939" section is uncited.Rename the "1918–1939" section to "Interwar years"The dates of WWI and WWII should not be mentioned in their respective section headers- left in but bracketed - not everyone knows the dates. Is also consistent with out articles with a similar format e.g. Duke of Wellington's Regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright fair enough, there seems to be a precedent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- left in but bracketed - not everyone knows the dates. Is also consistent with out articles with a similar format e.g. Duke of Wellington's Regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rename the "1945–1959" section to say, "Postwar years", "Ammalgration", etc.- I don't' think that all the individual name changes for the regiment need to be bolded. Unoboled will do just as fine.
- I agree for the individual battalion names but not for the name changes of the regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Like above, there seems to be a precedent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree for the individual battalion names but not for the name changes of the regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- For the Battle Honours section, some honours are uppercase and some are lowercase. I would think that lowercase is preferable and more uncyclopedic, but it should definitely be consistent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the first sentence of the Battle honours section. Not all battle honours awarded can be carried on the regimental colours. Those that were chosen to be carried are distinguished in capitals in this section. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you add this explanation to the introduction to that section? From what's there, it was pretty vague. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the first sentence of the Battle honours section. Not all battle honours awarded can be carried on the regimental colours. Those that were chosen to be carried are distinguished in capitals in this section. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Indian Air Force
We made quite a few changes and wanted to hear about other contributers' comments so that we can get it to GA or A status. Sumanch (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
I can see that a lot of effort has been put into this article so far. These are my suggestions for improvements to the article:
According to the Featured article tools there are two disambig links that should be fixed: [4];
- the final sentence in the Mission section needs a citation;
- Found a citation for assistance during natural disasters. Couldn't find one for assistance to maintain internal security. --Gremaldin (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
in the History section, you have the abbrievation "RAF" (for Royal Air Force), but haven't introduced the abbrievation yet. Thus, I feel here you should replace "RAF" with "Royal Air Force (RAF)";
there is a mixture of terminology, e.g in the lead you have "World War II" then later in the History section you have "Second World War";
the final sentence in the first paragraph of the History section needs a citation ("After the war, they were interned..."in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the History section "allies" should be capitalised as it is a proper noun, while "Couter-martialed" shouldn't be as it isn't;
in the History section, I think you should break up the paragraph beginning with "The IAF saw significant conflict" - I think you should split it at the end of the sentence ending with "when the UN mission ended";
in the History section, this sentence needs a citation: "At the same time, the IAF also started inducting Mach 2 capable Soviet MiG-21 and Sukhoi Su-7 fighters."
the last part of the Bases section needs a citation;
- the first paragraph in the Squadrons section needs a citation;
- Found a citation for "All fighter squadrons are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Wing Commander." Couldn't find one for "Some Transport squadrons and Helicopter Units are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Group Captain." --Gremaldin (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
the last sentence in the Garud Commando Force section needs a citation;
in the IAF personnel section this should be fixed "F H MAJOR" - I think this is meant to be a wikilink, can you please fix the capitalisation?
DoneSumanch (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
the last part of the Officers subsection needs a citation: "The IAF selects candidates for officer training from these applicants. After completion of training, candidate are commissioned as Flying Officers";
the Non Combatants Enrolled and civilians section needs a citation;
the last sentence in the Airborne Early Warning aircraft section needs a citation;
the last part of the Transport section needs a citation;
the last part of the Tanker aircraft section needs a citation;
the last part of the Training aircraft section needs a citation;
the Helicopters section needs a citation;
in the Footnotes section, some of your web citations are just bare urls (e.g. Citation # 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90 - these should be formatted as the others are with the {{cite web}} template.
Good work so far and good luck with improving the article. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sumanch
Need some clarification of this usage policy for images.
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. - Indian Air Force - Usage Policy Sumanch (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like the IAF maintains the copyright but the images can be used with a Fair use rationale. In terms of Wikipedia's image policy, this means basically that you need to be certain that you can't find a free (or non copyrighted) image to replace it. If a free image is available (i.e. one that's in the public domain), or it is reasonable that one might exist, then you can't use a copyrighted image with a claim of fair use. That's my take, but I might be wrong. This might help: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirk
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find any other articles about an Air Force which are FA (or A) quality for comparison. The United States Marine Corps is FA, so its probably a better template than the RAF article; in comparison to the structure to the USMC and USAF articles:
mission section is just a paragraph instead of having multiple subsections
Romanian Land Forces is a GA and it has a similar mission section.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)If you think that section meets A or FA quality, be my guest and use it, but I certainly don't. Also, Australian Defence Force is another FA article you can look at which has a different structure. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Done --Gremaldin (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
history section should have subsections
It used to have one. But this new structure was advised in the previous peer review.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)I scanned your review and I didn't notice that anywhere other than a desire for the article to be shorter in this section. Look at the United States Marine Corps article and the History article. The USMC article has some high level subheadings in the History section which summarize mutltiple sections in the USMC History Article. Origins, Partition of India, Summary of conflict 1961-1971 (I don't know what to call this), etc. would make it easier to read. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I divided the history section into subsections in my sandbox. I will wait for opinions before applying the changes to the main page. --Gremaldin (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Done --Gremaldin (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- personnel include 'the IAF', which probably isn't needed, and probably should use the same sub-sections as USAF: consider adding training, awards and uniform. The USMC article has uniform in a separate section.
- My understanding is Junior Commissioned Officer is a Indian Army term; I think the proper term in the IAF is Warrant Officer. Its distinct enough it probably should have its own subsection to explain why the IAF has Warrant officers when the Indian Army has Junior Commissioned Officers.
- Junior Commissioned Officer is a rank category. The Warrant officers in the IAF, Subedars in the Army, and Petty Officers in the Navy fall in this category. The category of JCO was created by the british because at that time Indians were not allowed to be an officer. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know what you are saying, but you need to back that up with a reference and its probably only worthwhile as a footnote. Just looking over the IAF website, I can't find any reference to Junior Comissioned Officers, so I'd remove that subheading on the table with Junior Commissioned Officers and Enlisted. Example: [5] Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Structure or Organization; seems to me organization is better since that's what the USMC article uses. And why does Aerospace command get its own section?
- It is a work in progress. Right now we are open to suggestions. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The future section is mostly a bullet list...not sure I recall seeing that in a FA article before. Note both USAF and USMC article have a culture section.
Done Converted it into prose. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The USMC article doesn't have a very detailed equipment section, i've noticed most air force articles devote a lot of space to detailing each aircraft in use, which probably isn't in line with WP:SUMMARY
Done Made the "aircraft inventory" section much more concise and comprehensive. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The info box could more stuff in there, but this seems to vary widely between Air Force articles. Maybe add engagements, I would guess the commander section could be more extensive, the personnel section could be more detailed with active, reserve, guard numbers.
- No, I think over-corwding the infobox creates distraction. Infobox should contain only the absolutely need to know and nothing more. USMC infobox is a bad example. Sumanch (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added engagements. --Gremaldin (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added the Vice chief of air staff under the commander section. --Gremaldin (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This is just high level stuff, hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Karl-Gerät
I've been working on this one pretty steadily and have pretty well exhausted the available literature. I think that it's well beyond B status and may well be eligible for A with some more work. I'd appreciate any and all comments to let me improve it up to A status. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey
Actually there is a lot that needs to be done, B-class generally expects at least a cite per paragraph
- Footnotes not cited consisted; pp and p are both used for multiple pages. Ndashes need to be used for numerical ranges
- Done
- The two websites that are cited seem to be amateur and have no information on their WP:RS status. Otherwise, the article is almost entirely dependent on one book, which can be a problem/
- This is a general problem as nobody had any real information on the weapon other than stats and its participation in the Battles of Brest-Litovsk, Sevastopol and Warsaw before Jentz released his book. I wouldn't have used the first one at all for the claim to be the largest self-propelled weapon in history except that I didn't want to be dinged for OR.
- Cites nees to be imediately after the puncutation
- Done
- Lead is very short.
- This is what I'm concerned about; what else should I cover in the lead, specifically? I've said why it was notable and gave a brief synopsis of its career and the fate of the individual vehicles. Doesn't seem appropriate to expand them in the lead. This is a general problem for the equipment articles which I write and I'd like some pointers since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of stuff to work with when you either lack the info for the rare guns, etc., or have so many produced that they become almost anonymous in their numbers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Many other problems probably still remain. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- The status report section - well reads like a status report and is not encyclopaedic
- What make this site reliable ? [6]
- See above. In the one particular that I support it verifies my own original research.
- See Wikipedia:No original research
- Why do you think I didn't simply assert it? My own research simply confirms that the website in question is, in fact, accurate for the cited fact. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; this is simply a superlative and easy to confirm or deny. If I ever bother to find a crappy printed general history of artillery that says as much then I'll replace the cite, but until then... Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:No original research
and this one [7] It's only present to give a reader information on the Maxim Gorkii Battery, for which no article exists, not to support the fact that Karl-Geräte fired on it, which is cited at the end of the paragraph.
- The lead is already tagged for expansion
- Something a little more helpful, please?
- It also relies very much on the one source Jentz
- See above, can't get around it.
- The ammunition section schwere Betongranate (heavy concrete-piercing shell) as this is the English Wiki , English first then the German translation in brackets.
- In the Status and fate section In 1945, Nr. II ("Eva") as well as Nr. V ("Loki") does Nr stand for number ? if so spell it out.
- That's clunky as hell!
- There is a of of German text - Kommando für Sonder-Geräte etc which needs translating --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's one of the very few that haven't been translated, but good catch. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- More comment -
- Taube, Gerhard is listed in the References but does not appear to be used --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are quite correct, I haven't seen Taube. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
Many things need improving before it can be promoted.
- The lede should be expanded to include additional details (e.g. When was it in service (years)? How many were in service? What happened to the other pieces?) The producer (Rheinmetall) could be added too. Also, "It is notable because..." should be rephrased to something simpler (e.g. It was the...).
- That I can use, thanks.
- Same concerns with the sourcing (unreliable websites, one source).
- The tables under "automative features" and "ammunition" could be turned into prose, which would reduce the amount of tables in the article.
- Sure, they can be, but the tables are easier to comprehend.
- If you insist on having tables, make sure you have some short summary of the table before, which can clear up any confusions about the table. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment on confusion. How can a reader be confused about the tables? There's already a short intro for the automotive table. But how can anyone be confused about its ammunition? Please clarify your meaning here. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well for one, a clarification for the light concrete-piercing shell (leichte Betongranate) and the leichte Betongranate 041, which have very similar names would be helpful to the casual reader. Also, are there statistics about the percentage of each fired? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since leichte Betongranate had just been translated in the line above I though it redundant to translate it again, but the main difference between them is the caliber, which is laid out in the table. The ammo for the original 60 cm guns had no designation other than the name. They added the Gerät number for the 54 cm ammo. Would that be helpful to add as an intro for the ammunition section? No such statistics exist; they'd have to be compiled from the data presented in the article.
- Yes, that would be helpful to add as an intro. Also helpful would be when the ammunition was introduced into service. If those statistics can cannot be reliably sourced from the book, then you shouldn't add them. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since leichte Betongranate had just been translated in the line above I though it redundant to translate it again, but the main difference between them is the caliber, which is laid out in the table. The ammo for the original 60 cm guns had no designation other than the name. They added the Gerät number for the 54 cm ammo. Would that be helpful to add as an intro for the ammunition section? No such statistics exist; they'd have to be compiled from the data presented in the article.
- Well for one, a clarification for the light concrete-piercing shell (leichte Betongranate) and the leichte Betongranate 041, which have very similar names would be helpful to the casual reader. Also, are there statistics about the percentage of each fired? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment on confusion. How can a reader be confused about the tables? There's already a short intro for the automotive table. But how can anyone be confused about its ammunition? Please clarify your meaning here. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you insist on having tables, make sure you have some short summary of the table before, which can clear up any confusions about the table. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- History should be renamed to "Operational history", since the history of its development is already covered.
- Very true, thanks.
- Try converting the status report into prose. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that quoting verbatim original documents is far better than me rephrasing the same. A little fetish I have for primary sources. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's quoted verbatim, it should indicate so. I'm not sure how exactly, since it's too long for blockquotes. In its current form, its not very encyclopedic. Perhaps you could paraphrase it, and use an external link to a copy of it on the web? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is shown in the cite as a direct quote. The only way a copy is going to be available to link to is for me to type one up which doesn't seem worthwhile since we no longer use subpages. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quoting an entire primary source verbatim is too long for most readers to comfortably read, and should not be in an encyclopedia article, especially when it could very easily be paraphased into a readable length. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this. You guys make a big deal about suitability for an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that I really agree with the level of detail, or lack there of, that y'all seem to be espousing. I want to present info of interest to a specialist, but not the stuff that only a fanatic would care about because I think that a casual reader will find it deathly boring while the fanatic will say that "I already knew that!". The perfect example, in this case, is the automotive stuff in this article, which I, as a specialist, only find mildly interesting because it shows how inefficient the Germans were that they couldn't standardize the components of these 7 vehicles. Similarly I think that the real value in the verbatim report is showing wargamers and Military/History Channel fans that the soft factors, like the readiness of things like trailers and cranes, when spelled out in detail, have a real impact on a weapon's performance and/or availability so that it's not all about the range or penetration, those things which are so easy to quantify and compare. So I guess that I'm writing for somebody like me, somebody who wants to more about these things than is given in any of the numerous published guides to weapons like most of those that I cite in the references section where you have little more than the stats and a paragraph or two of information. Which leads to the other problem of a single source that y'all complain about. While I haven't read the Taube book that was already referenced when I began to expand the article I'm familiar with his railroad artillery book and I don't expect to get much out of it if I ever get it through ILL. Which leaves Jentz as the sole source for the operational details and most of the technical ones as well simply because his book is dedicated to the Karl-Gerät and nothing else is. And that's unlikely ever to change and I'm OK with that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can see where you're coming from, but in its current form, it is unencyclopedic, a concern, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. The status report could be paraphased into a shorter, more readable section, and still maintain its interest to specialists. Also, if you're copying this word for word from Jentz's book, might there not be potential copyright concerns? Also, I noticed that this is the class of the Thor mortar used in the Siege of Sevastopol in the Second World War, and that could be expanded on more. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this. You guys make a big deal about suitability for an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that I really agree with the level of detail, or lack there of, that y'all seem to be espousing. I want to present info of interest to a specialist, but not the stuff that only a fanatic would care about because I think that a casual reader will find it deathly boring while the fanatic will say that "I already knew that!". The perfect example, in this case, is the automotive stuff in this article, which I, as a specialist, only find mildly interesting because it shows how inefficient the Germans were that they couldn't standardize the components of these 7 vehicles. Similarly I think that the real value in the verbatim report is showing wargamers and Military/History Channel fans that the soft factors, like the readiness of things like trailers and cranes, when spelled out in detail, have a real impact on a weapon's performance and/or availability so that it's not all about the range or penetration, those things which are so easy to quantify and compare. So I guess that I'm writing for somebody like me, somebody who wants to more about these things than is given in any of the numerous published guides to weapons like most of those that I cite in the references section where you have little more than the stats and a paragraph or two of information. Which leads to the other problem of a single source that y'all complain about. While I haven't read the Taube book that was already referenced when I began to expand the article I'm familiar with his railroad artillery book and I don't expect to get much out of it if I ever get it through ILL. Which leaves Jentz as the sole source for the operational details and most of the technical ones as well simply because his book is dedicated to the Karl-Gerät and nothing else is. And that's unlikely ever to change and I'm OK with that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quoting an entire primary source verbatim is too long for most readers to comfortably read, and should not be in an encyclopedia article, especially when it could very easily be paraphased into a readable length. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is shown in the cite as a direct quote. The only way a copy is going to be available to link to is for me to type one up which doesn't seem worthwhile since we no longer use subpages. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Carillon
While most of the other Ticonderoga-related battle articles have been straightforward to improve, this one presents a somewhat distinctive problem, which I would like feedback in addressing.
A key feature of this battle is that the commanders on both sides made errors, which were, for the British, the source of their disaster. (Montcalm rightly knew that he was extremely lucky.) The feedback I'm looking for is not so much how to describe the battle; I think that part of the article is in pretty good shape. I'd like suggestions on how to present the many errors made in the preparation, execution, and aftermath of this battle. I have roughed in some of the critical (and apologetic) materials, but there are more to come, and I'd rather get feedback before continuing. Magic♪piano 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- Its best if the images face into the article article most if not all the portraits are looking out
- In the lead section which frontally assaulted an entrenched French position without using field artillery no need for the frontally
- The first paragraph in the Geography section is unreferenced
- If they had a limited number of Indian allies, they need adding to the Belligerents section of the info box
- There is a mixture of measurements used 6 miles by itself and later 0.75 miles (1.21 km) you could use the conversion template = 6 miles (9.7 km)
- In the Battle lines forn section - Each column was preceded by companies of the regimental light infantry companies. Could change to Each column was preceded by the regimental light infantry companies. no need for the by companies.
Some small points - but this is a very good article as it stands --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
- End of the lede: "...and tactical errors that might have made an attacker's job more difficult." Isn't that what Montcalm wants? this should be clarified.
- The caption of the first picture should have parentheses around "aka Carillon" or a comma before and after it. the caption of the second picture could expand a bit more on what William Pitt did (e.g. Where did he order the expedition?) or alternatively add a "who" before "ordered the expedition"
- Last sentence of the "Background" section: "Montcalm left Quebec for Carillon." You could expand on that, e.g. for exactly what purpose? Defending it? Or to lead the 3500 men into the Mohawk River Valley?
- In "British preparations" section, briefly expand on why Fort William Henry was reduced to remains. In the same section, Lake George cold be linked to again, and if an article exists Lord John Murray could be as well.
- The map in "French defense preparations" is too small to actually see the lines without going to its file page. It should be increased in size. Also, where is the sawmill in relation to the other locations?
- The numbers in "First march" can be spelled out.
- In the "Battle" section: "the 42nd and 46th regiments on the British left, persisted in the attack." Any explanation for this besides fog of war? Also, two {{fact)) tags in the section
- In the "Aftermath" section, John Bradstreet should be linked in the text too.
- Nester's analysis needs to be sourced in the "Analysis" section. Also, would it be possible to combine the analysis section into one section which explains multiple viewpoints? That would read much better and look much more encyclopedic.
Good job on the article, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I know that a number of things are still uncited, but this is very much a work in progress, as I want to figure out how to present the material before going through the rigmarole of citing it. Magic♪piano 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Master's mate
Wrote this article recently after finishing Midshipman for its A review, and I think its close to B status. Thanks for your assistance. Kirk (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the various typos and grammar issues.
- I added a note for capitalization, its confusing.
- added categories
- I'm hesitant to put the whole Mate = Matelot thing here because its trivia about "Mate" in general, not master's mate. I'll check OED.
- I'll add something about what they did in a paragraph. RN: they did the same basic duties as Midshipmen, they slept together, ate together, etc. The change took place because there were a lot of potential officers after the Napoleonic Wars, but commissions were hard to get as the Navy shrank, and master's mates were paid a lot more than midshipmen. In the U.S. Navy: I'll find out, I think they were just experienced sailors who were paid more.
- I have no idea on Second Mate, good question. Second Master (which I need to research) was something similar to 'first lieutenant' in the Royal Navy - both were titles granted to senior master's mates/lieutenants to indicate they were worthy of promotion, but not actual ranks. Second Mate is the Navigation Officer, which was the sailing master. When did this whole 1st /2nd/3rd officer/mate thing happen? It must have been sometime in the 19th century (I'll check OED.)
- Master's mate preceded the commonwealth. France, Spain and Portugal probably had something equivalent, but they really didn't have the same kind of sailing master so I would doubt they had master's mates at all. They probably had midshipmen in blue uniforms instead.
- I realized that
- Thanks for your comments! Kirk (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- OED update: the ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) mates were the master's mates in the merchant service, and the basis for 'mate' was the german word 'Maat', not Matelot. Kirk (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- When they created "mate", they created 'second master' as well and they stopped using master's mate in the royal navy as a rating. I still can't find a date for this - sometime between 1820 - 1840.
Cool3
- What's the correct capitalization? The title is "Master's mate" but the lead sentence is "Master's Mate". It should be consistent. Also whichever capitalization you choose, please bold it at the beginning of the article.
- "a warrant officer rank established 1797" "It was re-established 1838" shouldn't these be in 1797 and in 1838?
- "and in 1865 and replaced by the rating Mate". Why are there two "and"s
- "By an act of Congress in 1906 the mates on the Navy retired list" I assume this is the US Navy. That should probably be made clearer.
- "Six master's mates were allowed on a first rate, three on a third rate, and two on most frigates" Linking the types of ships would be good.
- "Originally, a master's mate was an experienced seaman, assistant to the master, but not in line for promotion to lieutenant. By the mid-eighteenth century, he was far more likely to be a superior midshipman, still waiting to pass his examination for lieutenant or to receive his commission," Any idea why this change took place?
- "There after, passed midshipmen appear to have been known as mates". Isn't "thereafter" generally one word?
- "established 1797 and but unlike in the Royal Navy" I believe the and is unnecessary here.
- "it was disestablished in 1813. After 1843 no more warrants were issued but those who had been appointed continued to hold their office and received their pay. It was re-established 1838 as a rating for experienced seamen, and was not considered a Warrant rank." I'm just confused by this. If I'm reading correctly, it was deestablished (is that a word?) in 1813, then reestablished in 1838, then discontinued in 1843? I'm not quite sure, please reword this to be more clear. Also preferably go in chronological order so that what happened in 1838 comes before what happened in 1843.
- "By an act of 3 March 1865, Master Mate" Shouldn't this be Master's Mate?
- "The quota of mates in the Navy was not fixed, but from a maximum of about 842 on 1 January 1865, the number gradually diminished until 1 July 1894 when there were only 27 remaining." Why?
- More about the role of Master's Mates on ship would be nice.
- Did any other navies use this or a comparable rank? (Australia perhaps?)
Good job on the article, I think it's closing in on B-Class. Cool3 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- The article currently has no Categories added.
- Is the Second Mate rank in the Merchant Navy connected at all.
- The first line - Originally, a master's mate was an experienced seaman, assistant to the master, but not in line for promotion to lieutenant. needs a ref
- REF 2 - states The term "Mate" comes from the French word matelot. this should be included.
- The US Navy has only one ref at the end of the section
Patar knight
- In the lede, you mention that a Master's mate "performed similar duties to an experienced midshipman." What would such duties be? A brief explanation or a short list would be helpful. Link Civil War.There should be commas after "By an act of Congress in 1906" and "Since the 1930s," as it is the dependent clause of a complex sentence.
- In the "Royal Navy" and "US Navy" sections, you should link the first occurence of master to sailing master.
- In the "Royal Navy" section, you mention that "The senior master's mate was the..." Is the senior master's mate the senior master's mate the ship? Or is it some kind of appointment for more experienced master's mates? It should be clarified for readers.
- There are no links in the "US Navy" section. Appropriate links *(e.g. US Navy, Secretary of the Navy, etc.) should be linked.
- This article deals primarily with the history of Master's mates, and their pay and promotion paths. More details could be provided with what exactly they actually did on ships. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Cuprum17
- Under the U.S. Navy heading the words:
By an act of Congress in 1906, the mates on the U.S. Navy retired list were promoted to the next higher grade if they had creditable Civil War service, which most of them had. They were given warrant rank and rated with the lowest grade of warrant officer.
appear in two different sections and is repeditive. Could this be combined to eliminate the duplication? Other than this minor rewrite everything else appears very good. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
HMS Endeavour
After much expansion this managed to get to GA late last year, and I'm interested in suggestions for further improvement. Any and all comments and opinions welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Benea
Comment - Why is the article at HM Bark Endeavour and not HMS Endeavour (1768), per WP:Naming conventions (ships)? Benea (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- For no better reason than I foolishly rewrote it without paying enough attention to the naming guideline. Happy to move it but one question - this Endeavour is significantly better known than any others of the same name. Following the naming logic here, this article should presumably be at HMS Endeavour with the disambiguation page moved to HMS Endeavour (disambiguation). What do you think? Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was wondering that myself. I've no objection to doing it that way. We use that convention sparingly (only 3 times in the RN), but I think this is a reasonable example of 'most well known ship of that name'. Benea (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding, based on volunteering as a tour guide at the Australian National Maritime Museum, where the Endeavour replica is docked, is that HM Bark or HMB is the prefix formally associated with Endeavour in this day and age...see these [8][9][10] museum pages on HMB Endeavour (the third page also claims that all surviving Admiralty documents refer to the ship as Bark Endeavour). However, HMS Endeavour seems to be in more common usage: Google Books searches for each name plus "Captain Cook" (to filter out false positives) came up with 8 for HMB, 155 for HM Bark, and 511 for HMS. Do with this information what you will. -- saberwyn 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Additional. Looking at some of the books from the Google Book searches, a few make the claim that this ship was called HM Bark because the previous HMS Endeavour (1763), a sloop, was still operating.[11][12] -- saberwyn 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting, J.J. Colledge also lists her as 'Endeavour Bark'. The situation of having ships of the same name in service at the same time is all too common for the Endeavours. Three ships of that name entered service in 1694 (a bomb vessel, a fire ship and a hoy), and two in 1763 (a sloop and a cutter). The prefix of 'HMS' only enters usage towards the end of the eighteenth century, and only for ship-rigged vessels, that were actually 'His Majesty's Ship...'. Other vessels would be referred to as 'His Majesty's sloop ...', 'His Majesty's cutter...', or 'His Britannic Majesty's cutter ...' and so on. HMS Ark Royal (1587) would never have been referred to be her contemporaries as 'HMS Ark Royal', just Ark Royal. Since our convention is to standardise and backdate military prefixes, an RN ship named Endeavour and acquired/launched in 1652 would be titled 'HMS Endeavour (1652)'. If we were titling this article to fit our conventions it would be at 'HMS Endeavour (1768)', or 'HMS Endeavour' if we decided that this one vessel clearly fitted the 'most well known ship of the name' clause. We had a similar situation not too long ago with the Bounty (HMAV Bounty, HM armed vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty?) that saw the article settled at HMS Bounty. Benea (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- As an idle addition, Cook himnself formally referred to it as "His Most Britannick Majesty's Bark Endeavour" in is journal, but most commonly simply called it Endeavour with no prefixes. Euryalus (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done Per what might be a mild consensus here, I've been bold and moved the pages. I think this fits well with the ships naming convention:
- the article name should use "HMS" even where that prefix was not yet in common use (ie it can be backdated);
- where there are multiple ships of the same name they should be separated by year of construction, but where one is overwhelmingly the best known of that name it can be recorded simply as the actual name (for a similar example, HMS Victory); and
- The general naming convention at WP:NAME recommends using the most common modern name for the article subject. The most common modern name for this ship is unarguably HMS Endeavour, despite that not being the name she was registered under and the terminology not yet being in general use.
- Obviously if there is objection to the move let me know and I'll move it back while discussion continues. Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done Per what might be a mild consensus here, I've been bold and moved the pages. I think this fits well with the ships naming convention:
- As an idle addition, Cook himnself formally referred to it as "His Most Britannick Majesty's Bark Endeavour" in is journal, but most commonly simply called it Endeavour with no prefixes. Euryalus (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting, J.J. Colledge also lists her as 'Endeavour Bark'. The situation of having ships of the same name in service at the same time is all too common for the Endeavours. Three ships of that name entered service in 1694 (a bomb vessel, a fire ship and a hoy), and two in 1763 (a sloop and a cutter). The prefix of 'HMS' only enters usage towards the end of the eighteenth century, and only for ship-rigged vessels, that were actually 'His Majesty's Ship...'. Other vessels would be referred to as 'His Majesty's sloop ...', 'His Majesty's cutter...', or 'His Britannic Majesty's cutter ...' and so on. HMS Ark Royal (1587) would never have been referred to be her contemporaries as 'HMS Ark Royal', just Ark Royal. Since our convention is to standardise and backdate military prefixes, an RN ship named Endeavour and acquired/launched in 1652 would be titled 'HMS Endeavour (1652)'. If we were titling this article to fit our conventions it would be at 'HMS Endeavour (1768)', or 'HMS Endeavour' if we decided that this one vessel clearly fitted the 'most well known ship of the name' clause. We had a similar situation not too long ago with the Bounty (HMAV Bounty, HM armed vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty?) that saw the article settled at HMS Bounty. Benea (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was wondering that myself. I've no objection to doing it that way. We use that convention sparingly (only 3 times in the RN), but I think this is a reasonable example of 'most well known ship of that name'. Benea (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D
This is a very good article. My comments are:
- I suggest that you specify that Endeavour was the first European ship to reach NZ since Abel Tasman as it is likely that Polynesian ships reached NZ in this period
- This might be a myth, but I've read that Cook selected Endeavour on the basis of his previous experience with colliers on England's east coast - is this correct?
- "what is now known as Botany Bay" should read "what he later named Botany Bay" given that it was Cook who provided this name
- The article should mention that Cook proclaimed sovereignty over Australia at Possession Island en-route to Batavia
- The ship is referred to as both 'she' and 'it'; my understanding of Wikipedia's convention on this matter is that both are acceptable but that usage should be consistent in each article
- I'm not sure if the Hessian soldiers should be referred to as mercenaries - Hessian (soldiers) says that they were and weren't mercenaries though, so it isn't much help!
- There are some PD paintings of Endeavour on the National Library of Australia's website which can be accessed via [13]
- Is it worth noting that the Space Shuttle Endeavour was named after the ship? (along with three different RNZN ships, countless streets in Australia and NZ, etc). Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, some responses in order of the above:
- Done
- Done - It's a myth, though an enduring one. Cook would have been familiar with colliers as an apprentice in Whitby but the Admiralty bought the Earl of Pembroke when the proposed commander was still Dalrymple, and before Cook had been suggested. The article doesn't really make this clear as I was trying to focus on the ship rather than the captain, but if there's a view its worth including I'll think of a way to work it in.
- Done
Thanks, will have a look at working this in.Done- Done
Hmmm ... will have to do some background reading on Hessians.Done- Done
Great pictures, thanks for finding these. The article relies too heavily on images of the replica instead of the real thing, so I'll swap some around over the next few days.I've added one image from NLA, and requested another via email. Most of the images viewable online are either maps or of Banks' flora collection, which I'll see if I can work into related articles. Possibly in the relics or replica section at the end? Will see where it might fitNot done After some reflection I'd prefer to leave the hatnote as the principal link to these other uses. The article sticks fairly closely to the exact topic, being the original ship, and only moves away in the (perhaps unnecessary) replica section. The Space Shuttle is the most prominent thing named after Endeavour, but there's also a range of place names, various other ships and so on. Obviously, omitting the Space shuttle from this article this is a personal opinion - other views welcome.
- Overall, thanks for the great feedback, let me know if there's anything else seems worth improving here. Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Patton123
This is a great article, the current structure is great and I'm sure it will make FA soon enough. I saw no concerns major enough to put here, but there are quite a few little prose slip-ups and i suggest getting a good copyeditor from our logistics department to help you out there.--Pattont/c 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since this is a WP:SHIPS PR with a redirect at MILHIST, Patton is referring to MILHIST's logistics department: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics -MBK004 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
saberwyn
Random question, should the ship be referred to as "the Endeavour". I was always under the impression that referring to a British ship as "the Foo" was incorrect. -- saberwyn 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- You would be correct. There was a conversation at one time about not having "the" before ship names. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done by Saberwyn.
Brad101
- Your photos are not following the MOS. It basically means that pics starting at the top of the article should run right/left/right/left etc but no left aligned pics directly under a ===subsection===. With the exception of the infobox photo, all others should be set to |thumb| only; no |XXXpx|.
- Your references need work. Any of the books used in this article should be moved down to a bibliography section using {{cite book}} with the inline citations denoting page numbers. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sub-lieutenant
Hi - I'd like your help improving this article, specifically some assistance in what kind of structure to use since sub lieutenant is a very common rank in a large number of armed forces, and has some slightly different meaning in an Army vs. Navy. Help on what to change to get to B would be appreciated as well. Thanks for your help. Kirk (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I noticed the Ensign article wasn't in WP:MILHIST, so I added it. Note: commissioned ranks which have a rank which contains a word which would literally translate to Ensign in English (e.g. France) are frequently translated to 'Sub-lieutenant' in a dictionary, which is confusing. Similarly, countries that use Ensign as a Cadet rank (e.g. Germany) sometimes translate Ensign to 'Midshipman'. I'm probably going to move all the non-english 'Ensign' stuff into this article.
- The current Royal Navy treats Sub-lieutenants and Midshipmen as 'Naval Cadets'during training, but I'll add a reference.
- I would prefer the Naval rank articles reflect the English language definitions, then have 'other countries' as a separate section and fork into separate articles because its hard to find credible english language sources on non-english military ranks. The suggestion I had for Midshipman was a list of ranks and insignia, which I'll do here as well. I'm also probably going to only list the ranks in the top 15 Navies (sorry Thailand). Kirk (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- References need improving sections on Acting Sub-Lieutenants, Modern Royal Naval practice, Rank insignia: Armies, Rank insignia: Naval and British Army with no references
- External links and Diambig all appear OK
- The structure could follow the Ensign (rank) article as it would be a natural progression.
- After the first use of Royal Navy add (RN) we know that it stands for Royal Navy, but there will be some who will not.
- In the Royal Thai Army, Army Reserve Force Students who complete grade 5 and their B.D. are promoted to the rank of Acting Sub-Lieutenant - Whats a BD ?
- The Modern Royal Naval practice section is very short and seems very strange, do they not train together ? and if so will the Midshipman not have to salute the higher rank ?
- More details on other navys - its very much a RN or commomwealth navy article at the moment
- Also some mention of what the next rank is Lieutenant
- Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Officers is a good source of rank images and other NATO navies names for the rank of Sub-Lieutenant Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Simon Harley
- At the turn of the the twentieth century all midshipmen in the Royal Navy were promoted to Acting Sub-Lieutenant, and then confirmed in that rank later (usually at the same time when they passed their Lieutenancy exams). --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Alexander Cavalié Mercer
I created this article but I think I have now taken it just about as far as I can. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ost
- I titled some links and marked two as dead (one has an archive). I also noticed:
The first sentence of the lede is a bit long. It has good information, but it may be better split into two sentences. The lede itself could be expanded.
- Done. Expanded the lead with brief descriptions of each reason for notability.
Consider Promotion in the Royal Artillery was glacial, especially in peacetime. Unlike in the rest of the British Army of the time promotion was by strict seniority and there was no opportunity for purchase of commissions
- Re-written.
- What was Mercer's involvement in the ill-fated Buenos Aires expedition of 1807? Is there a source for this?
- Apart from the fact that he was with G Troop RHA, none of the sources gives any detail of his involvement. I have cited a source for the fact taht he went (though his son has him joining the expedition in 1808, which can't be right).
- Done
- wikilink Napoleon, line, infantry square, battery, carbine, case-shot, columns, round shot, charge, limber, cantonments
- Done for Napoleon, infantry square, carbine, case-shot, column, round shot, charge, limber, cantonments, and also for ball. Not done for line (this refers to naval warfare - line (formation) is also not the same usage) and battery (article refers to a Battery as a formal military unit, which the usage does not).
- Arriving on the field of Waterloo, Mercer's Troop briefly took a firing position on the famous knoll behind the sandpit, not realising that the entire army had halted on the ridge behind them, and exchanged fire with arriving French batteries. Consider splitting into two sentences. Also, does the famous knoll have a name and what is the significance of Mercer not knowing that the entire army halted behind him?
- Re-written the sentence. The significance is only that it's mildly amusing, acting as rearguard to cover the retreat of an army that has halted for battle 100 yds behind, and it's interesting to anyone familar with the battle as it occurs on famous features of the following day's battlefield.
Who are the Allied?
- Allied means Wellington's multinational army, but I have replaced it with "Wellington's" throughout, except when referring to the allied occupation of Paris, where it refers to the forces of the Seventh Coalition, which has no page of its own to link to. I think it is reasonable to assume a little knowledge about the Waterloo Campaign.
It deployed immediately behind the ridge road, which was there raised on a low bank, which provided... is a bit awkward.
- Re-written.
Are Mercer's troops they in so they opened fire with case-shot at close range,?
- Yes; changed to "the troop".
- What is case-shot over ball?
- Double-loading - a common technique for guns expecting close-range action, either on land or at sea; two rounds are loaded one over the other. Range is shortened but effect is increased. I have changed it to "double-loading" and Wikilinked ball but I think any further explanition would be a distraction.
- Consider Towards the end of the action, a battery established itself on the ridge to Mercer's left and delivered effective fire into Mercer's flank. The attack caused devastating casualties amongst the limber-horses, until this battery was itself driven off by flanking fire from a newly-arrived Belgian battery.
- Slightly re-worded, but not sure what the concern is.
- —Ost (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Patton123
I think this article would be better structured like this:
- Early life
- Career
- G troop
- Waterloo campaign
- After Waterloo
- Is there a real benefit to that? The article doesn't have so many sections that they need to be hierarchical. Participation in the Waterloo Campaign is the notable event of his life and needs full emphasis - everything before and after is of lesser interest.Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw the section headings do no need to be capitalised all the way through.--Pattont/c 11:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per MOS:CAPS#Military terms I think the capitalisation (of G Troop and Waterloo Campaign) is correct. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Skinny87
- The first thing that catches my eye is that a lot of thetext is uncited. I realize you've heard this a lot, and that I believe you've put the cite at the end of the section, but the Waterloo section does look as it's almost entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what to propose, but I often cite through a section anyway - I think it helps a reader if they want to look up a certain fact, even if it is in the same source. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you looked through the ODNB for anything on Mercer? I'll have a look now, and see what I can find.
- But good work so far! I'll make more comments when I can! Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Levi
- Inline citations generally aren't required in the lead.
- Practice seems to vary, but I don't think they're prohibited or discouraged.
- I see the lead has already been expanded, but it's still kind of small. It has two single-sentence paragraphs, for instance.
- What's wrong with single-sentence paragraphs? Style seems to vary between UK and USA, but short paragraphs are modern style.
- "Mercer was a painter of some merit..." - The reader can decide this after inspecting his art. Might be more neutral to simply say "Mercer was also a painter".
- The merit of his paintings is demonstrated by the Canadian National Gallery buying them; "was also a painter" gives no clue taht he was any good (or was not a hous-painter!).
- Inline citations should generally follow punctuation marks to avoid cluttering up sentences.
- They generally do, except where a cite relates only to part of a sentence.
- The Waterloo Campaign section could do with some condensing. There are several small paragraphs, including a single-sentence paragraph.
- Again, I think that's just good style. One idea, one paragraph.
- The second paragraph in After Waterloo reads kind of like a list. It could do with some expansion.
- I'm inclined to agree - to my mind the problem is the full date for each prommotion, which I don't think is necessary, but another editor strongly disagreed.
- The first instance of "Journal" after the lead should include the book's full name.
- Done
- Is Mercer's book notable enough to justify its own article? If so, it should be wikilinked, even if it's red.
- Done
Overall looks pretty good. I'm not a MILHIST editor, but I think it's heading towards B-class, especially if the earlier suggestions in this peer review are all implemented. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
The first thing that pops up as something to improve on is the Waterloo campaign section. Excluding the last three paragraphs, you have only one inline citation for the first eight paragraphs, so citations for that section are needed. If possible, his artwork could be expanded upon, perhaps with its own section, because although it's mentioned briefly in the lede, it is only described in a short paragraph in the last section. Good job on this article, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Magicpiano
Some technical things, assuming you eventually want to put this article through GA, and a few prose items.
- More inline citations
- Learn to love WP:ENDASH for year and page ranges
- Others have commented on the lead brevity; the last two one-sentence paragraphs can be combined, if they're not going to be expanded. (I'll also disagree with Levi on the inclusion of "of merit"; I think it's fine, not particularly WP:PEACOCK, and sufficiently justified by the museum acquisitions.)
- "Towards the end of the action a battery established itself" - images of a gun carriage maneuvering itself into position, completely unaided... (should say something like "... the French established a battery")
- Agree with Levi that the post-Waterloo period (even if it is of less interest to the casual reader) should be a little more elaborate than it is. You might want to consider reducing the number of promotions listed, and perhaps focus a bit more on the Aroostook War (a longer summary, possible description of his unit's role). You should also emphasize that the post-Waterloo postings were basically peacetime (assuming they were): "After the campaign he was put on half-pay, and then began a series of peacetime postings in 1821" or some such.
-- Magic♪piano 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Frederick Birks
Was recently rated as B-class, and I am looking for advice as to how to reach at least GA-class. ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ian Rose
Very nice article. Without going through line-by-line, a few things that stand out:
- Writing quality is very good and structure is logical, but you really need a more extensive lead for GA, ideally a couple of paragraphs.
- I'd strongly recommend making that first pic after the infobox left-justified, as its current right-justification will cause a great deal of white space on some screen resolutions.
- First World War seems to make more sense than Military years as the main section heading, given that he had military experience pre-war, as mentioned in Early life.
- Like to see a bit more detail on his experiences in all those campaigns, rather than just a sentence or two, if anything further is available. GA was designed as a showcase for quality articles that were considered too short to make FA, but even so this left me wanting a little more especially since, as I say, the standard of what's there is high.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D
My comments are:
- I agreee with Ian's comment on the lead being too short
- Which Royal Artillery unit was Birks in while in Wales?
- I also agree with Ian's comment that the coverage of Birks' experiences during the war is a bit short
- It would be better to provide a detailed description of the VC action - reproducing the citation is a bit lacking as it doesn't provide much context Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
Comments
- In the lead Welsh-born Australian soldier of the First World War does not read right how about; was born in Buckley in Wales and later emigrated to Australia and served in the Australian Army during World War I
- Do we know why he emigrated ?
- starting a relationship with sixteen year-old Suzy Gelvin. Is there any need for the girls age unless we are insinuating he was doing something wrong.
- Wikilink Shrapnel Shrapnel shell also wounded by a piece of shrapnel to was wounded by shrapnel
- stretcher bearer links to Combat medic this is not right historically, stretcher bearers had no or litttle medical training.
- The MM award following the ref does state he was awarded it for constant good services this seems to devalue the award the external link also states it was awarded in the field. Which may reveal some other reason for the award, is there another ref that may show just why it was awarded ?
- The Belgium section does not read right;
On 20 September, Birks' platoon was advancing in Glencourse Wood, Ypres, Belgium. Birks, accompanied by Corporal W. Johnston, rushed forward to attack a pillbox. They were attacked with bombs, and the corporal was serioudly wounded in the confrontation. Birks continued alone to reach the rear of the pillbox, forcing the garrison to surrender.
- To
On 20 September, Birks' platoon was advancing in Glencourse Wood, Ypres, Belgium. Birks, accompanied by Corporal W. Johnston, rushed forward to attack a pillbox. They were attacked with bombs, and Johnston was serioudly wounded. Birks continued on alone reaching the rear of the pillbox, he forced the occupants to surrender. Do we know how ? and disamb Pillbox
- and
Not long afterwards, Birks attacked another strongpoint as a part of a small party, capturing up to sixteen men and wounding nine others. Part of a small party can we change party as it sound like they were going out to enjoy themselves. Could use unit, troop, platoon, section
- Following the battle, Birks assisted in the reorganisation and consolidation of the allied units. How ?
- All the external links look ok and overall a Good Article which just needs a bit of polish. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Patar knight
- The lede needs to be expanded with a short description of how Birks earned the VC, and where.
- "He attended the local Anglican school in Buckley, without being absent or late." should be clarified. Was he never absent or late? Or just usually not absent or late?
- The "Belgium" section should be clarified to tell the reader that it was during the Battle of Passchendaele.
Good job on the article, and good luck with the GA nom. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
32nd Infantry Division (United States)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to bring it up to 'good article' status
Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
TechOutsider
First ref needs to be redone. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Avoid wikilinks in title or section headings. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)- For the redlinks, or wikilinks to articles not yet in existence, try to provide a little explanation as to who/what they are. Or create the article, if it is notable.
- Try not to be vague; you say at one point in the article the Allies "finally" broke into the Japanese lines. I fixed that for you.
Anyways, some additional comments about the body and prose. Try to avoid informal diction; avoid using words such as "but", "got", etc. The body also sounds a little like a retelling from someone. While there is nothing wrong with that style, try to make the prose flow more coherently. Since you are covering the events of several wars, there is always logic behind an infantry's decisions. Try to plan your article like that; one action leads into another. Doing so greatly improves how the article reads. Also, try to avoid vague words, such as "hurriedly". More to come later. TechOutsider (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In the lead, try to be clear, thus concise. For example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit in the Army National Guard in World War I and World War II. In both wars". I suggest ommiting the "In both wars" part; as it is implied and makes the lead too wordy.
As for the external links in the Cultural Legacy section, try to incorporate information and pictures from the external links in the article. Exceptions include if the information is copyrighted.
More examples of vagueness. "The tide of the battle of Buna turned". Sounds like a retelling. Don't explicitly mention the fact the tide turned at first; give facts and supporting reasons as to why, such as turning points, etc. Imply, rather than say.
Ruhrfisch
Interesting article with a lot of work put into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly WP:MOS issues.
- The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and could almost certainly be four paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - I think the list of the other units in WWII is too much for the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article seems overly detailed in places and may need fewer sections / headers - much of the material could be summarized briefly here and then put into full articles on the various battles and actions. This is done nicely for Operation Cartwheel and the Phillipines battles and should be done for the others as well - see WP:Summary style
- Commment: I wrote portions of the article, especially the detailed section having to do with the Kapa Kapa Trail, and considered breaking that into a separate article like the Kokoda Track. But there really is not enough information to justify a separate article, and their trek, though notable within the Division, was not even a battle or part of a campaign. So I opted to keep the detail within the body of the article. -- btphelps (talk)(contribs)07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commment: Moved section on Kapa Kapa Trail march to that article. -- btphelps (talk)(contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Article needs more references, for example the whole Operation Cartwheel section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Commment: Added some references to Cartwheel section. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Commment: If author is known, I've included it in references. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow - these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- Comment: As I recall, the problem with Template:blockquote is if the quote extends beyond a single parapraph, blockquote does not format the paragraphs correctly. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Think carefully about organization - the Notable members section lists people by war, then Medal of Honor recipients,
but there is no indication for these which war they fought in. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC) - Explain abbreviations and provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
AustralianRupert
I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article which is very commendable. I have a couple of comments, though:
- Introduction:
I believe that the introduction needs to be rewritten. It does not summarise the whole article. I would suggest that the first sentence should begin differently, for example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit of the United States Army National Guard formed from units from the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. It was first formed in July 1917 and fought during World War I and World War II..." Also, the introduction should more clearly discuss the unit's history after the World Wars. As it is it does not mention that it was disbanded/inactivated after the war and then re-raised/formed again in 1961 leaves readers to fill that gap own their own.
- Commment: The unit was not reorganized in 1961, but federalized. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Infobox — the dates in the infobox do not include the period it existed after WWII (I think the article says 15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967?).
- This was fixed, but seems to have been reverted — was there a reason for this? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Endashes: date ranges (in Infobox and elsewhere) should have endashes;In the Training in Australia section: you use two ranks for Cable (Sgt and then Corporal). Is this an error, or did the division use a double-rank system like the Grenadier Guards?Also in the Training in Australia section: you refer to "four Australian territories" - this is not correct. They are most likely States. We have six States and two Territories.- Images: I believe that per the WP:MOS some images should be on the left, as well as the right (to be honest, I don't mind, but it is something that might come up at a later review).
See also section: I think that the see also section is usually used for internal links to other wiki pages. You are using it as a Further reading section. You may want to change it to that.- References section: I suggest making a separate Notes and References section. The notes section can be used for the in line citations (with limited bibliographical information — e.g. Rupert 2008, p. 1) and aside points and the References section could include all the bibliographic details of the cited sources.
Pre-World War I section: you begin the section discussing the 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment however it is not readily apparent why that is relevant to the topic of the 32nd Infantry Division. Also in that section, in the last paragraph you mention preceeding dates (i.e. 1899) after later dates (i.e. 1916 and 1917). This is confusing and probably should be re-worked to mention first things first so as to avoid confusing readers.References: some of the external links in the references sections need to be repaired as they are not appearing in html.
Just a few ideas. On the whole I think you have done an excellent job on the article. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Some further points:
:* In the World War II section, in the summary box there appears to be two figures given for Wounded in action: 1,680 and 7,268. Which one is correct?
:* I believe that the lead section is still a bit vague. The opening paragraph is a bit confusing. It states in the first sentence that the unit was a WWI and WWII unit, then in the second sentence talks about the American Civil War. Also the post WWII paragraph does not mention when the Division was reactivated in 1961, although it does mention that in 1967 it was deactivated and reorganised as an independent brigade. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be something like: "The 32nd Infantry Division was an Army National Guard unit raised primarily from the states of Michigan and Wisconsin that served during World War I and World War II. Although it was formed in 1917, the Division takes its lineage from units that served during the American Civil War as part of the Iron Jaw Division. During World War I it acquired the French nickname Les Terribles... "
- The infobox should also include post WWII dates (15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967). This was fixed earlier but seems to have been reverted for some reason.
- On the whole, I think this article is progressing very nicely. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
btphelps
I moved a large section about their trek across the Kapa Kapa Trail to the article by that name and left a brief summary within the 32nd Division article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A-Class review
- Instructions
- Requesting a review
To request the first A-Class review of an article:
- Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
- If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1
to make way for the new nomination page. - Add
A-Class=current
to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after theclass=
orlist=
field). - From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
- List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
-
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}}
at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below. - Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
- Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).
- Restrictions
- An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
- There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
- An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.
- Commenting
The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.
If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:
Comments
Reviewingby Username
Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:
Support / Oppose
Comments reviewingby Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments
Reviewingby Username addressed / not addressed
This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.
- Requesting a review to be closed
A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.
- After A-Class
You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.
- Demotion
If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.
- Please add new requests below this line
Featured article candidates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/FAC instructions
Featured article review
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/FAR instructions
Featured list candidates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/FLC instructions
Featured list removal candidates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/FLRC instructions
Non-article featured content candidates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/FC instructions
Partner peer review
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/PPR instructions
WikiProject peer reviews
This inactive or historical peer review page has had its instructions updated for posterity's sake. That's because there is now a Wikipedia Peer Review that peer reviews can be listed at, and the old instructions were out of date and may cause problems (or disappointment as not many people may see your review). If this page ever becomes active again, see here for a way to keep reviews up to date.
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
Requests
- Empty
Old requests
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Star Control 3
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sleeping Dogs (video game)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Zojoi
- WikiProject Video games Peer review archive
Archives
- Peer review
- A-Class review
- 2006 (promoted / failed)
- 2007 (promoted / failed)
- 2008 (promoted / failed / demoted)
- 2009 (promoted / failed / demoted)
|}