Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
- 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).
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 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.
- 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.
A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
A-Class review | A-Class reappraisal | |||
Closure takes place after minimum of five days | Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections |
Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus |
Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus |
Demote • clear consensus to demote |
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class |
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course. |
Current reviews
- Please add new requests below this line
« Return to A-Class review list
Republic F-84 Thunderjet
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Republic F-84 Thunderjet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
A reassessment nomination. A 2006 a-class promotion that contains substantial uncited text; would likely be assessed as a start-class or c-class today. Original nominator has not edited since 2014. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, no better than start or maybe (very generously) C class (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've now worked through the history, versions and operators sections - leaving the detailed lists of USAF operators and Netherlands aircraft as the fixed and swept wing variants need to be de-picked. I would like to ask what's the best way forward for the Surviving aircraft section if anyone can be bothered to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely not A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This F-84 article lacks citations in many places after the Korean War section, especially variant and on display list entries. Good progress needs to be made on this soon or delist it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Duckport Canal
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Duckport Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Grant's other canal. Not as well documented as Grant's Canal, but thanks to two sources I didn't have available for that earlier article (Winters and Jones), this one's in a spot for A-class, although I'm still debating if it has enough meat for an eventual FAC. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass. Are there really no illustrations or photographs from the time? (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: - I've turned up one from Harper's Weekly - verified publication in 1863. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Iazyges
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Lede
- made available by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal. perhaps made more accessible by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal.?
- Done
Background
- which would cut the Confederacy into two halves and provide an outlet for American goods to be exported. perhaps change and provide to as well as provide to be more clear that these are not related to each other, just the river.
- Done
- but were unable to bring it into submission perhaps change bring it to force it
- Done
- as Grant focused on other plans suggest as Grant shifted his focus to other plans
- Done
Canal
- while historians John D. Winters and Terry L. Jones state that the path would go from the Mississippi River into Big Bayou, then Willow Bayou, then Roundaway Bayou, and then Bayou Vidal before re-entering the Mississippi River at New Carthage. might be helpful to see a visual representation of this difference, maybe ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if someone is willing; hardly a requirement, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll look into this. One problem is that I after consulting the sources I strongly suspect that these are different names/boundaries for similar bodies of water. At the time, the whole area was largely swampy, so I doubt that it was easy to determine where one bayou properly ended and the other began. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fair. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll look into this. One problem is that I after consulting the sources I strongly suspect that these are different names/boundaries for similar bodies of water. At the time, the whole area was largely swampy, so I doubt that it was easy to determine where one bayou properly ended and the other began. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- long and was then connected via 3 miles (4.8 km) of obscure streams to Walnut Bayou what does obscure streams mean here? That no one knows which stream was going to be used? Would elaborate if so.
- The exact quote in the source is ... to a back swamp about a half mile inland. The nameless, meandering streams in the swamp flowed into Walnut Bayou .... I'm open to ways of rephrasing this, but the creative juices are not flowing for me tonight. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps just unnamed streams?
- The exact quote in the source is ... to a back swamp about a half mile inland. The nameless, meandering streams in the swamp flowed into Walnut Bayou .... I'm open to ways of rephrasing this, but the creative juices are not flowing for me tonight. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes I presume this should be venomous snakes, unless the workers got really hungry mid-shift.
- Yes, it should be venomous. I can never keep these two straight.
- I once ate the leaves from a tree at my school in Kindergarten, and was summarily dragged off to poison control. I will never mix up poison with anything else after the lecture I got.
- Yes, it should be venomous. I can never keep these two straight.
Aftermath
- could have been successful with better conditions from the Mississippi. suggest the Mississippi river, for clarity.
- Added word
- @Hog Farm: that is all of my suggestions, nice little article from a fascinating time period.
- @Iazyges: - I've replied to all above. I've provided the exact source quote for the "obscure streams" bit and would appreciate any suggestions for rewording. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to Support, it's a great little article about a neat subject. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: - I've replied to all above. I've provided the exact source quote for the "obscure streams" bit and would appreciate any suggestions for rewording. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Indy beetle
- A close-up view of the canal route that is explicitly labeled would be nice. Really had to squint for it and cross-reference another source to find it on the provided map. Alternative maps are available here.
- Would the image here be an improvement? I'd have to do some research into the provenance (Indy beetle and Buidhe) but I'm fairly sure that this is a federal government work. It's from this 1954 NPS pamphlet; neither the pamphlet nor the image bears a copyright mark and the other images in the pamphlet that aren't NPS-produced bear a clear byline. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it would be, it seems to have even less to show of this particular canal. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking for a version of the other image that's clear enough for me to read it with my normal glasses, although it also doesn't show the whole route - it's just the cut from the river and the "obscure streams" Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably the best I've seen from a whole route perspective but isn't freely licensed, unfortunately. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it would be, it seems to have even less to show of this particular canal. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would the image here be an improvement? I'd have to do some research into the provenance (Indy beetle and Buidhe) but I'm fairly sure that this is a federal government work. It's from this 1954 NPS pamphlet; neither the pamphlet nor the image bears a copyright mark and the other images in the pamphlet that aren't NPS-produced bear a clear byline. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Winters' book has more info on the surveying of the canal route, apparently conducted by Captain John W. Cornyn and 300 men, which could be reflected in the article.
- Added
- The workers were plagued by fewer insects than expected Could we use a word other than "plagued"? That implies the insects were a major problem, but the rest of the sentence suggests not.
- Is "disturbed" any better?
- However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes. I wonder, did the troops have any standard method for dealing with pests such as snakes, insects, and rats?
- Nothing I've seen says.
- The historian Michael B. Ballard suggests that, in addition to the falling water levels, the knowledge that enough additional boats would become available to him to make a general supply line also contributed to the decision to abandon the Duckport project. Would become available to Grant? Also, by what means, the Mississippi river?
- Ballard is truly cryptic here - Grant's thinking changed when he learned that enough boats were available in St. Louis to provide transportation and establish a supply line. He therefore abandoned the Duckport project; declining water levels made it unworkable anyway. I'm open to any alternative phrasings here.
- It seems Grant inspected the canal himself on April 18, which would be worth a mention.
- Added
- Is it known what happened to the remains of the canal? (I ask since part of Grant's Canal has survived and is maintained as a national park). This mentions a historical highway marker.
- I've added from that source that little remains and the marker. None of the other sources I've seen mention a fate of the canal. This which may or may not be RS discusses the fates of Grant's Canal and the Lake Providence Canal (which I'll probably get to eventually) but while it mentions Duckport says nothing of what happened to it. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
-Indy beetle (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Battle of Winchelsea
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)
Battle of Winchelsea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
One from my archives. An interesting little episode - well, I think so - which may be up to A claas standard. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Kges1901
- I would suggest mentioning that the battle was part of the Hundred Years' War in the first sentence, something like 'a naval battle that took place on 29 August 1350 during the hundred years war between England and France' since that is more important for the lede than the total number of ships involved, which should be the second sentence.
- Done.
- In background, link Portsmouth, Southampton, Hastings and Plymouth, and perhaps mention the article English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339 which covers the early part of the war?
- Done.
- I would suggest describing Edward III consistently as Edward III to be consistent rather than simply as 'The King'
- Done.
- In the battle section, link valet de chambre
- Done.
- peril of La Salle du Roi, - rephrase as near capture of La Salle du Roi
- Done.
- You mention how the name battle of Winchelsea was applied, but not the origins of calling it the battle of Les Espagnols sur Mer. Is the latter the French name for the battle or used by French chroniclers?
- No. Everyone wrote, and largely spoke, French - the language of the court. It was another generation before Chaucer scandalised society by writing extensively in English. ORing, different chroniclers gave it different names and Wincelsea is the one which has stuck. There may have been a national bias, as Wincelsea won't have meant much outside of England, but there is no mention of this in the sources.
- Link Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 and Treaty of Bretigny in aftermath
- Done.
- The attribution to Britannica template is still used, but is it necessary if there are no longer sections of text copied verbatim from the article? If the latter, the template is no longer necessary ::Done. Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removed.
- Hi Kges1901, thanks for that. I have gone with all of your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Kges1901, how embarrassing. I'm glad that one of us is awake. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
A history of a unit whose history parallels the rise and fall of the Confederacy, but in some ways not your average Confederate with most of the rank and file Irish immigrants. In four years of war, casualties and desertions reduced this unit from a regiment to platoon strength. Kges1901 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
CSS Missouri
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): User:Sturmvogel 66, Hog Farm (talk)
CSS Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Sturmvogel 66 and I bring you a co-nom for another Confederate ironclad. This one was trapped on the Red River by low water and never saw combat; it was sold for scrap after the war. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass, no images (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It did have File:C.S. Ram MISSOURI.jpg but I removed it because the licensing needed work and wasn't bulletproof anyway. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I've re-added the image with proper licensing, so it should be checked again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- For this image, what is the original publication before 1927? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's in the fellow's sketchbook; I'm not sure that it was ever published within his lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- For this image, what is the original publication before 1927? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I've re-added the image with proper licensing, so it should be checked again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It did have File:C.S. Ram MISSOURI.jpg but I removed it because the licensing needed work and wasn't bulletproof anyway. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
- Link poppet valve.
- "although a speed of twice as fast had been promised". Suggest → 'which was twice as fast had been promised'
- "Link t-rail.
- "leaked like a sieve". Graphic, but not very encyclopedic.
- Spoilsport!
- "One ship was placed with riverboat captains Thomas Moore and John Smoker for one ironclad"? Should "ship" read 'contract'?
- It's really a tossup, IMO, since both contract and ship were used in the previous sentence.
- "with the being awarded to George Fitch for the other". :-)
- "is known to still survive". Delete "still".
- "The keel of the first ship was laid the following month". Suggestion: give the actual date. A lot has happened since you mentioned October 1862.
- I'd like to, but nobody knows exactly when.
- "The low water prevented". Suggest deleting "The".
- I assume nothing is known of what happened to her after she was sold?
- Not that I've ever been able to find.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful comments. See if my changes are acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Kges1901
- Link 'green timber' to green wood, Bisbee connects the leakiness of the ship specifically to the timber
- wreck of the Union ironclad USS Indianola, the 32-pounder piece Needs a conjunction or a semicolon
- Might be better to specifically mention that Fauntleroy wanted a blue water command of a blockade runner rather than being with the brown water navy to provide a better explanation for why he didn't want to command the Missouri
- Mention that Carter was the experienced former commander of the General Polk and that Confederate Secretary of the Navy Mallory specifically tasked him with overseeing the construction of the Missouri
- Potentially more useful to note that the guns were delayed because Pemberton took the cannons slated for the ship to use them for the Vicksburg defenses (Chatelain, p. 263)
- Added
- her Missouri after the state and her erstwhile Confederate government. Seems anachronistic to refer to states as female
- Bisbee mentions that the most important difficulty that Missouri faced was getting fuel to even operate due to lack of coal and shortage of the alternative power source, wood. Chatelain notes that the ship's voyage to Alexandria relied in requisitioning wood from local plantations.
- Chatelain mentions that crew desertion became a problem in the final months of the war and the Confederates had to impress soldiers from the army to make up for this. This seems pretty relevant to the ship's operations and potential combat effectiveness
- Bisbee mentions specifically that she was sold for scrap (p. 168)
- The article doesn't mention the ship's complement which is usually in other ship articles. Chatelain includes that Carter surrendered 41 officers and men at Alexandria (p. 288). Kges1901 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how relevant the 41 officers and men figure really is, since part of her crew had been pulled for Webb's run. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's an interesting [1] article by Katherine Brash Jeter in the Louisiana History journal, that shines a light on the problems of the manning of the Missouri, most importantly that the Confederates lacked seamen and had to resort to soldiers, but this worsened the desertion problem due to the harsh conditions of ironclad life. The article includes the detail that Carter requested 72 men for his crew from Kirby Smith in late 1863. The ORN might have more information on her designed complement. Kges1901 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how relevant the 41 officers and men figure really is, since part of her crew had been pulled for Webb's run. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Source Review
- The sources are high quality RS, with Chatelain and Bisbee having multiple positive academic reviews.
- The primary source ORN is used appropriately
- A suggested source for expansion prior to FA would be A Man and His Boat on Carter's career for additional details, published by the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1996[2]. There is also a nine page article about the Missouri by William Still in the academic journal Louisiana Studies, vol. 4 (1965). Kges1901 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've incorporated the Jeter source. I'll try to hunt down Still's article. The Carter book appears to be at least partially just primary-source writings by Carter himself, and the editor (Jeter) is already used as a source. There's apparently no publicly-held copy in Missouri, but I can try to talk UArk Fayetteville into letting me ILL their copy if this ever goes to FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
CPA
- The lead looks pretty small could it expand it a bit? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi CPA-5, will you be doing a full review on this? Just a query, not a nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Most regiments are famous for what they did do in battle, this unit was known for what it didn't. An article about the only Union regiment that refused to fight in the first major battle of the war. Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
HF - support
Great to see you back at ACR, and its always great to see more ACW articles here! I'll review at some point this week. Hog Farm Talk 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- "here it was ordered by General Robert Patterson " - wasn't Patterson technically a Major General instead of a full general?
I supported back at GAN, and didn't have much to pick on then, and I'm at a support here as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
- " Members of the only regiment to refuse to fight at the battle due to the expiration of its term of service, its men were denounced as cowards." I had to read this twice to parse it. Consider rephrasing.
- Rephrased
- "on the eve of First Battle of Bull Run". Should there be a definite article there?
- Good catch
- "in subsequent Pennsylvania regiments". I'm not sure that is grammatical.
- Rephrased
- "during the war, and they formed the bulk of". I don't think you mean "and". Perhaps 'for example' or similar?
- Rephrased
- "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men". Consider adding something like 'to serve in the army for three months' to give the context.
- Done
- "The militia regiment volunteered". How does a unit volunteer? As opposed to the men who made it up?
- Done
- "Departing Norristown with a send-off from the people of the town after the presentation of flags sewn by women of the town". Listing the three events in reverse chronological order makes this a little difficult to follow. And is it possible to avoid "... of the town ... of the town ..."?
- Done
- "the needs of the state for speedily formed units". Do you mean something like for 'the urgent of the state for formed units'?
- Done
- "With this order, the regiment became a volunteer unit in federal service, and confirmed the militia officers in their positions in an election." Which confirmed the officers positions? The order or the election?
- Done
- Link muster.
- Done
- "before it rejoined the regiment at Annapolis". Did it travel by rail or steamer? Or march?
- Done
- "after receiving the necessary equipment." What equipment is needed to drill and be inspected?
- Source says that "camp and garrison equipage was not supplied" initially, so they didn't have tents. As mentioned they didn't have "uniforms and equipments" other than muskets and small amounts of ammunition. Presumably they didn't stand for inspection without having uniforms.
- "The appeals of McDowell and Hartranft to patriotic duty fell on deaf ears: many in the regiment were willing to stay, but others wanted to muster out as scheduled due to their previous negative experiences with lack of equipment, and they believed that they were entitled to a rest as they planned to reenlist in new three years' units, which regimental officers were preparing to organize following the expiry of the three-month term." This sentence is a bit long. Perhaps split it?
- Split, is it ok now?
- Looks good.
- "Hartranft and Captain Walter H. Cooke of Company K stayed with the army ... Cooke ... initially started for the camp of the New York Fire Zouaves to serve as a private ... Both distinguished themselves during the Battle of Bull Run and were awarded the Medal of Honor in the late 1880s." Which of the three is intended to be excluded?
- Cooke and Hartranft are the only people mentioned and both received the Medal of Honor. Is this unclear?
- D'oh!
- "its departure witnessed by numerous reports who ensured that". A "report" can't witness, nor be referred to as "who".
- "which soon followed on 27 July". Delete "soon".
- Done
- "three years' regiments". Were they not referred to as 'three-year regiments'? (I could well be wrong, this is not my area.)
- Done, the former seems to be more 19th-century language
- " which included the Madison Guards as its Company A". Perhaps mention that "Madison Guards" was the name for Company C? (I know that this mentioned in the table, but I suspect that many readers will skim this.) Similar perhaps to how you handle the similar issue in the last sentence of the article.
- Done
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You've missed one, but otherwise the changes are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment from Georgejdorner
Info box
A unit's manning is usually given categorizing officers and enlisted ranks separately. Is that possible here?
- 39 officers and 756 enlisted from the muster rolls, but I'm not sure that is necessary as I've seen plenty of works that don't separate. In a volunteer unit where the men elected their officers I don't think this matters.
- Power of command always matters. To the best of my knowledge, the breakdown of officers and men is listed when known.
- Listed breakdown.
Lede
Sentence beginning, "Hantraft and a company commander..." could be prefaced with "However," to sharpen the point there were courageous soldiers in the regiment.
- Done
Formation
- Mention of the supplies missing when they left Camp Curtin would lead into later mention of equipment shortage.
- Done
- No mention of Odd Fellows Hall in source.
- Auge mentions on page 184 that a meeting was called at the Odd Fellows' Hall. @Georgejdorner: All good with this?
- The link from Auge in the bibliography leads to a title page, and does not support the facts cited. If you did not have the link here, I would not have commented. It's ironic that deleting the link would solve this issue.
- The same phenomenon occurs in several other biblio links.
- Added links. I think users can be trusted to be able to navigate google books if they want to verify the facts cited for themselves. Kges1901 (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to say this, but I think this is absurd. These added meaningless links, to the average reader, must seem like useless clutter. And, to the best of my knowledge, these links are not required by WP standards.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- BLUF, the average reader does not view the references intentionally if they are not deeply interested in the subject. Adding links for PD books is standard and in fact there are bots that go through articles adding such links to online versions to aid in verifiability for Wikipedia editors. Kges1901 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Garrison duty
Phrase "half of the regiment" can be condensed to "half regiment".
- I feel that this would be confusing since half regiment can also refer to a specific unit size for a unit that is half of regimental strength
- I am unaware of any TO&E half regiments outside the French Foreign Legion. And the text does not say the regiment was split in two; it states "half". And the present sentence is awkward.
- Have rephrased to be more concise, decided to just use "the other half" to avoid redundancy
- Much improved.
- Leading sentence of second para is awkward and needs rewriting. The next sentence lists the equipment needed; it might be better placed, in a rewrite, in Formation.
- Rewritten, does it read better now
- Still needs work. Try something like, "...its men were not issued before departing hastily from Camp Curtis on 28 April." Though I still cannot tell if they were uniformed or in civvies.
- Done
- "left without uniforms..." is followed by a description of shoddy blouses and pants issued. Seems contradictory. Could use some clarity here.
- These were what they received at Annapolis
- So did they receive shoddy civilian clothing? Or partial uniforms?
- Primary sources describe these as contractor-produced 'uniforms' issued by the state. The regiment received new uniforms in June due to the inferior quality of the contractor supplied clothing. Kges1901 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can your sources support statement(s) that they were first issued state-issued uniforms, then received better quality uniforms later on?
- According to the sources, all of their uniforms were state issued, just the state fixed its own problems by changing the supplier. Kges1901 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still find this ambiguous and confusing. Can you work the info given in the sentence above into the text?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Manassas Bull Run campaign
Which Battle of Bull Run were these MoHs awarded for? Wouldn't it be less confusing to use "Manassas"; better yet, sneak in an explanation for North and South having differing names for the same battle(s).
- Clarified
- Nice job on the rewrite.
Speaking of which...why is the Confederate name of the battle used to describe a Union regiment's participation?
- Inconsistency in wikipedia article titles because there is Manassas campaign but First Battle of Bull Run
- Basically, every battle in the Virginia theater had two names. In this case, the Union name was either First Bull Run or Second Bull Run; the Confederate equivalents were First Manassas and Second Manassas. If this is difficult to work into the text, I recommend an explanatory Footnote.23:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- This explanation is a popular myth invented long after the war ended. William C. Davis in his history of Bull Run describes how veterans of the battle from both sides initially referred to the battle by different names: "They could not decide what to call the battle—Young's Branch, Stone Bridge, Bull Run, Manassas, or Manassas Plain—but they published letter after letter from soldiers and correspondents who were in the fight." See also Mackowski and White's introduction to Turning Points of the American Civil War, describing how there was actually a Bull Run Chapter of the UDC and a Manassas Picket Post of Union veterans, demonstrating that the narrative of conflicting names defined by the different sides is a postwar invention. Kges1901 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I was a sprout in Maryland in the 1950s and we played Civil War, we Yankees said "Bull Run" and the Rebel kids used "Manassas". Just saying.
- And why defend prior use of terms? Why not use terms presently in use?
- Either way, I think this debate isn't relevant to the article, and standardized on the term used by the sources, which is Bull Run. Present usage seems to have swung towards Bull Run, as all of the 21st century studies of the battle (Detzer, Rafuse, and Longacre) use Bull Run in their titles.
- Fair enough. My concern is answered. And how!
Citation (7. does not connect to source.
- Not sure about this. Ref 7 connects to Russell 1861.
- Your link from the bibliography connects to a Google listing instead of the actual source.
- Fixed.
Subsequent service
I am puzzled by the mention of Corson's MoH. He did not win it while in the 4th Pennsylvania. Reason?
- I have mentioned him and some other notable soldiers of the regiment in the section as examples of what the regiment's soldiers did during the rest of the war
- So, Corson was decorated while with the 6th Pennsylvania. What does that have to do with the 4th Pennsylvania?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The section describes how men of the 4th Pennsylvania, despite their actions at Bull Run, went on to see substantial combat throughout the next four years of war. It is directly relevant because it provides an epilogue to the history of the regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, now it's clear that there were some very courageous men in the 4th despite the regiment's combat refusal.
Article overall
- Toolbox utilized. No discrepancies.
Time for a break. We are tripping over each other in our edits.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Return.
Not everyone is familiar enough with Civil War history to place this event early in the war. I believe you need a mention of that in the lede, and a sentence or two in Formation. If your sources allow, you could mention the populace's enthusiasm for war.
- I am baffled by all the links to WorldCat in the Bibliography. What purpose do they serve? Why should the general reader care about these links?
- BLUF the general reader probably does not care about anything other than the text and is unlikely to read the sources. The links assist with verifiability for books with no ISBN, if anyone wants to dig deeper. If anyone wants to read the book itself if it can't be found online, they can click on the link to find a list of libraries that have the book. Kges1901 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Ends and odds
Fun fact: Did you know that poor quality Union uniforms gave rise to the word 'shoddy'?
- Yes!! Thank you Quora!! Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- But, I'm not Quora.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
William D. Leahy
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
William D. Leahy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
William D. Leahy was America's most senior military officer during World War II, but probably the least well known of the five-star officers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Indy beetle
Comments:
- His nose was broken in an American football game and his family lacked the money to get it fixed, so it remained that way for the rest of his life. I presume his nose healed, but probably out of place? This could be revised.
- In those days naval cadets graduating from Annapolis --> In the 1890s naval cadets....
- to attend the Naval War College but in spite repeated requests Leahy never did. Request from who, his superiors?
- Is it known what the sources of his differences with Pratt were?
- Leahy stuck to his guns, No critique, that ranks up there with [cetacean needed]
- Star Trek IV, no? Deleted parapraxis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC) That would have been in
- When the Commander-in-Chief of the Asiatic Fleet, Admiral Harry Yarnell, asked for four additional cruisers to help evacuate American citizens from the Shanghai International Settlement. Grammatically incorrect.
- Leahy accepted this presidential decision, as he always did, even when he strongly disagreed. Is this really worth mentioning? Of course officers were supposed to accept direction from the president, that's just how it works. It would be more noteworthy if Leahy disregarded instructions from the president.
- Leahy was involved in the preparation of two seminal speeches How so? If he was directly consulted on their content, this should be made explicit.
- Anything on this? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the Further Reading section there are memoirs in a Spanish edition. Do we have those in English?
-Indy beetle (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Vami
[...] five of its members would reach Four-star rank [...]
"Four" should be lower-case.[...] Leahy was in command of the Ship's forward turret [...]
lowercase "ship" or replace with "Oregon".On December 17, 1899, Casteline [...]
Huh?Leahy helped commission the new cruiser USS Tacoma [...]
Advise linking Ship commissioning, and cutting "new" as redundant.He was then reassigned to the Glacier a stores ship which was engaged in bringing supplies from Australia to the Philippines.
Needs a comma after "Glacier".- There are instances where the abbreviation USS is not used when a USN vessel is introduced. They are:
The second use of USS for Princess Matoika ([...] Commanding Officer of the USS Princess Matoika [...]
) is unnecessary and inconsistent with other subsequent mentions of USN vessels in the article.- There are a number of personal touches that I cannot quite square with the encyclopedic voice; they strike me as more biographical (ironically enough) at best, and conciliatory at worst (i.e.
[...] Leahy handled personnel matters with care and consideration [...]
). - I have additionally converted several spellings to American English (ie "socialised" to "socialized"), as this is a biographical article about an American.
- Use American English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Added {{
« Return to A-Class review list
Harry Crerar
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Harry Crerar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Continuing the series on the senior commanders of the 21st Army Group. Here is Canada's Harry Crerar Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Freddie de Guingand
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Freddie de Guingand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
An article on Freddie de Guingand, Monty's chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Support by Nick-D
It's good to see this article on a key British figure of the war here. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- More where this came from. I also overhauled Miles Dempsey. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- "De Guingand seems to have been blessed with considerable diplomatic skills" - it's previously stated he learned them on the job
- "was able to smooth over many difficulties arising from Montgomery's problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors" - this dodges the issue a bit, as it implies that the difficulties were "problematic relationships" rather than the actual issue of Monty frequently being a jerk to other important military leaders whom he needed to cooperate with
- Changed to "Montgomery's personality and his problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors." Actually, years of researching the command in NW Europe has given me a better understanding of the motivations of British, who come across as snooty and condescending to Americans then and today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto the corresponding material in the 'North West Europe' section, where the issue should be expanded upon a bit given it's importance.
- I tried to illustrate it with the response to the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that putting this a bit more bluntly would help. The issue seems to have been that Monty was a high performing jerk who often rubbed other high performing jerks (e.g. Bradley) up the wrong way and was a jerk to his boss from time to time without really meaning to be one. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to illustrate it with the response to the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- " the battalion moved on to Quetta" - say where Quetta is
- Added "in the Baluchistan Province of British India near the border with Afghanistan". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- The sentence starting with 'Hore-Belisha clashed repeatedly' is a bit unclear - it looks like the second half of another sentence is at its end?
- "He was involved in controversy" - who considered this controversial?
- " he would be making changes, and that if de Guingand happened to one of them, he would attempt to secure him a good position." - the wording seems a bit off here?
- "and General der Panzertruppe Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma, the commander of the Afrika Korps" - note that Thoma had been captured
- "Although not a hypochondriac, since his symptoms were quite real" - is this needed?
- "where he was involved in an unsuccessful business venture with David Stirling" - can you say what this involved?
- " whose chief goal was to block economic sanctions against South Africa prompted by the Anti-Apartheid Movement" - surely the sanctions were the result of Apartheid, not the movement that opposed it.
- "de Guingand strongly criticised the government of South Africa, saying that it had become a pariah state." - can you expand on this, given it seems to have been a change in position?
- For FAC, a section discussing historians views of de Guingand would be useful, if sufficient sources exist. He seems to be well regarded by historians from what I've seen. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe
- British India, adjutant, Cannes, and Charles Leslie Richardson are duplicated links
- "until the end of the war" - suggest making it clearer that the war in case is the Second World War
- "an allusion to his French surname and origins" - source says nothing about de Guingand's "origins" being the reason for his nickname, it's totally down to the surname. His personal origins, it seems, are totally British!
- Lede says he graduated in 1918, main text says 1919. The source itself doesn't note his graduation date at all, just that of his commissioning
- I'm not quite sure that "prospects for advancement" is the same as "attractive to officers with little hope of fast promotion in the inter-war years"
- Deleted " prospects for advancement"
- "the battalion in Egypt" - believe this is the 1st Battalion?
- "arranged for a nomination from the Chief of the General Staff (India)" - might be useful to say who this was
- "who had passed the exam based on their service record." - this sounds like the officers are passing the exam because of their service record, when in fact they're passing the exam and then being accepted based on their service record
- Nothing in the French source cites "but de Guingand breezed through the material"
- Suggest adding some dates to the appointments noted in sentence beginning "After passing the course...", which Richardson has
- Link depot
- Several unnecessary repeated "1940"s in Middle East
- Did he actually serve as "Commandant of the newly-formed School of Combined Operations"? Source only says "diverted to set up a School of Combined Operations, with himself as the proposed commandant". I also don't see any mention of him being promoted to colonel there
- Corrected to "lieutenant colonel". Sourced to Richardson, p. 46
- "he commenced joint planning with the Navy and RAF" does not match with the source's "he and his team prepared a plan for evacuation of W Force if things transpired as they feared."
- Is "Army in Greece" some kind of title? Jumps out as being rather clunky if not
- "The plan eventually had to put them into action"- what is "them"?
- de Guingand himself notes that when being told of his appointment as DMI, ME, he was a lieutenant colonel, but this rank/promotion isn't mentioned anywhere in text
- Sourced to Richardson, p. 57
- "In this role de Guingand ultimately proved to be very successful" - doing what? Suggest noting his use of the Long Range Desert Group and work to identify signs of German attack
- "arrangements at the Eighth Army headquarters were confused" this doesn't do much to explain why they were confused. You just say that they were confused, and so Dorman-Smith went to Cairo, which doesn't make much sense
- "Brigadier Sir Brian Robertson" was Robertson knighted at this point?
- Ref #46 could probably be split up to assist in recognising which piece of information comes from which page
- "indicated that a flanking attack there was likely"
- "Alam el Halfa ridge" where?
- Link Battle of Alam el Halfa
- "Decisive action was taken" - this is very vague, perhaps briefly note what kind of action?
- "took the opportunity" makes the marriage sound like a spur of the moment event, suggest removing
- Who was "working in Cairo for an intelligence organisation", H. D. Stewart or A. R. Stewart?
- "on 26 February 1943" more unneeded year repetition
- "The attack was successful and the battle was won" when?
- "Operation Ladbroke the airborne landing, which failed" - interesting that our article on the operation records it as a victory
- Suggest noting somewhere that it's the Eighth Army conducting Operation Husky, as it's never actually said
- "and George Richards" - rare for you not to provide a rank with the introduction of a new person?
- "Montgomery's rejection of the Overlord plan..." - what does this have to do with de Guingand?
- " Royal Air Force (RAF)" - you've already used the "RAF" acronym, without linking or providing the full term, in Middle East
- "Eisenhower sent him two to choose from(comma) Captains J. R. (Ray) BonDurant and Edwin (Bill) Carver"
- "Nearly 300 American personnel..." - again not sure what this has to do with de Guingand?
- "old hands" - perhaps replace with something more direct like "more operationally experienced officers"?
- "his successor fared no better" - what's this little tease? If de Guingand chose the successor then it's notable and they should be named, if de Guingand isn't involved in this later failure then I don't see why it should be mentioned
- Considering the amount of information about the build up to the Normandy Landings, I was a little surprised to find that D-Day itself is completely ignored?
- "For his role in Operation Overlord..." more repeated years in this paragraph
- "Lieutenants-General" - you've already used "Lieutenant-Generals" in Chief of staff to Montgomery
- "When American and British relations were strained" - I think some dates would be useful in this section
- "...was sitting beside him" this seems a little overly dramatic. Would a re-write along the lines of "In March 1945 Montgomery informed de Guingand that Brigadier Ernest Bulmer, the consulting physician to the 21st Army Group, had rendered a professional opinion that de Guingand was exhausted and needed rest" work?
- Why list all his mentions in dispatches so awkwardly at the end instead of when they occur? The sentence itself is also rather broken, with a random full stop and confusingly out of place "9 August 1945"
- "still not recovered in July 1945" - repeated year; I won't note every instance of this, promise!
- "a post Montgomery had first recommended him for in 1942." - the only DMI recommendation previously noted came from Dorman-Smith. If Montgomery recommended de Guingand for War Office DMI in 1942, why isn't this mentioned then?
- "Whether there was still a place for de Guingand was another matter." - seems unnecessary
- "While there he worked on his memoirs." - these seven words are cited to three pages of a book!
- "The title was suggested by Morehead" who?
- Do we really need to know that Montgomery wrote in longhand? Seems pretty normal...
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support happy to now support this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Kges1901
A quality effort on a major figure of the war. Only a few nitpicks:
- Through the intervention of Montgomery, with whom he served in the 1920s and 1930s and formed a friendship - Might be more concise as Through the intervention of Montgomery. with whom he had formed a friendship with during their shared service
- Did de Guingand enter Sandhurst before or after the Armistice?
- Article says that he entered ranked 15th in his class. Surely this was his rank on graduation?
- Those who scored highest were given places but the remaining positions were filled from others who had passed the exam and were then given a place based on their service record more concise as -- > The highest scorers were guaranteed places but the remainder selected based on service record from those who passed the exam
- Are there any details in sources as to any specific reasons that he jumped from a training establishment to a GSO1 position quite rapidly?
- De Guingand asked to be returned to his regiment and this was done --> could be more concise as De Guingand requested to return to his regiment, and reported to its depot on 21 January, but was immediately placed on leave
- On 25 February his orders were cancelled and he was posted to the new staff college at Haifa in Palestine as an instructor. The war had created an urgent requirement for more trained staff officers --> Due to the urgent wartime requirement for trained staff officers, de Guingand's orders were cancelled on 25 February and he was posted...
- Are there more details in the sources as to why de Guingand started planning for the pullout of British forces in Greece at such an early date, before the German invasion even started (or was Ultra a factor in this)? Also, did the political consequences of such planning motivate Wavell to order de Guingand to scrap the plans? These sentences should also mention that the successful German invasion was the reason that the troops needed to be evacuated
- accurately forecast the Axis capture of Tobruk --> correctly predicted...
- vice Brigadier Jock Whiteley - this is jargon to the general reader, suggest just using 'replaced'
- General Sir Claude Auchinleck was Commander-in-Chief Middle East and commander of the Eighth Army and Dorman-Smith - Change to --> while Dorman-Smith to avoid repetition of 'and's
- Not sure how there were conflicting command structures since Auchinleck was clearly senior to Dorman-Smith?
- Link COSSAC
- and his partnership with Montgomery has been compared - by whom?
Kges1901 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Excubitors
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Excubitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Starting back in 2008 (!), I've gradually expanded this article on a late Roman imperial bodyguard unit, that became one of the elite regiments of the middle Byzantine army, and brought it to GA last year. It is, AFAIK, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject, covering the history, organization, and commanders of the unit. All these topics are divided into early and late periods, as the Excubitors underwent a shift in their role. I will attempt a FAC in due course, and am eager to get some additional reviews here so as to improve this article further. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Hawkeye7
This is well outside my area of expertise, so I may have misunderstodd some point.
- "numbered 300 men" Suggest putting this in the Organisation section.
- Done.
- Suggest splitting the second paragraph in two.
- Done.
- "was structured along standardized lines followed by the other tagmata, with a few variations" Alas, I have no idea what that was, let alone what the variations were.
- Have clarified that the differences pertained mostly to titles, and linked the relevant section in the main tagma article. Any more would stray into territory of comparing the structures and nomenclatures of the different tagmata, which is not the subject here.
- Was this in infantry or cavalry unit? It says heavy cavalry in the infobox but not the article, and it is not clear if it changed over time.
- The tagmata were all cavalry, as indeed were almost all palatine troops during the Middle Ages, back to the comitatus forces of late antique Rome. Have added a reference to that effect though.
- Nor is it clear how big it was. I'm inferring that it changed over time.
- It was apparently 300 strong throughout its early period (added that), but its size is entirely unclear for its later period. What is known, or rather guessed, is in the article.
- Constantine, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild: comments addressed, I think. Had to break off for a while as I did not have access to my main sources. Constantine ✍ 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Constantine, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Ping me when Hawkeye's comments are addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I have done some copy editing as I have gone. Let me know of anything you don't like.
- "who was both excubitor and a scholarius, a member of the Scholae", What is a scholarius? Unless a reader is told, the sentence doesn't mean anything.
- It is already explained, 'a member of the Scholae', but apparently that isn't clear. Put the explanation in parentheses, is that better?
- "as one of the imperial tagmata, the elite professional central army". Here you have defined "the elite professional central army" as "the imperial tagmata". I think a 'the key components of' or similar would help.
- Hmmm, there were no other components; the tagmata were the professional central army.
- It is more the grammar I am quibbling with. Perhaps 'as one of the imperial tagmata, which made up the elite professional central army' or similar then?
- In the lead you define the tagmata as "professional heavy cavalry regiments". I haven't spotted this in the article, especially not the "heavy" part. And what does "heavy" mean here? Were the horses overweight?
- Added links to heavy cavalry, and explained it further in the text.
- "mere spatharioi". What does this mean? This is the English Wikipedia.
- "rose to those of prōtospatharios and even patrikios." Likewise.
- Have glossed the ranks. 'Patrician' is misleading, but cannot otherwise gloss patricius/patrikios without going into a lengthy diatribe about the evolution of this term. I am completely at a loss how to gloss 'spatharokandidatos'. TBH I would prefer not to gloss the court dignities at all, as their literal meaning was by that time largely divorced from any actual role they played.
- I think how you have it now works well. (Personally I like Harry Turtledove's explanation of spatharioi, but as that is in a science fiction novel it is sadly not citeable.
- "these designations no longer appear after, and they may have been of brief existence." After when?
- Clarified.
- "and indeed there may have been". Why "indeed"?
- Useless commentary, striken.
- "but after Constantine V's reforms". Is it known when these took place?
- Clarified (hopefully)
- "before becoming emperor. From this post, he ..." Perhaps rephrase to be clearer.
- Clarified.
- "A protégé of Justin II, he was appointed count of the Excubitors during the reign of Justinian I already." Why "already"?
- Rewritten.
- "with the position of magister militum per Orientem against the Sasanian Empire, until he himself became Caesar in 582. By 577/8, he was also a patrikios." Any chance of a translation into English?
- Done.
- "grc|Patrikios". A typo?
- Indeed, fixed. Thanks.
- Optional: I would prefer reference 1 to be separated out as a footnote.
- Agree, done.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for your edits and suggestions. Have tried to address them all. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS, will be on vacation starting the coming week, so my ability to respond here may be curtailed. Will be back to a stable internet connection ca. 12.7. Constantine ✍ 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- One quibble left above, but I am supporting anyway, if only so CPA-5 can crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
As fine a set of sources as one is ever likely to come across and entirely satisfactory formatting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
CPA
Ping me when Hakeye's and Gog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll review after my holiday. Tomorrow I will go on holiday for a week. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Arthur Phillip
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Knightmare 3112 (talk)
Arthur Phillip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'd like to get it to FA and at the peer review it was recommended nominating here first Knightmare 3112 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Nick-D
I'm surprised this review hasn't attracted more interest - you might want to advertise it at WT:AUSTRALIA. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- "Serving under Captain Michael Everitt, Phillip also served" - bit repeditive
- Re-worded those couple sentences to not use serve so much
- The second para of the lead should make some note of Phillip's policy towards and relationships with Indigenous Australians
- Noted the initial policy and relationships with the Indigenous Peoples
- "Like his predecessor, Lord Germain, he turned to Phillip for advice" - the original advice doesn't seem to have been noted in the article?
- Re-worded that whole section hopefully makes better sense now
- "Phillip, with Lieutenant Philip Gidley King, took charge of the 64-gun HMS Europa" - this is confusing. Stating what King's role was will clarify it.
- As above
- " employed him to spy on the French naval arsenals at Toulon and other ports" - what did this involve?
- Why was Phillip selected as the first governor of NSW?
- "whose preference, it was to be supposed, would be requisite at all times" - over complex
- Re-worded, that was a direct quote from Hunter's book
- The second para in the 'Voyage to Colony of New South Wales' section is currently unreferenced
- There's a 'clarification needed' tag
- "An annual service of remembrance is held at the church around Phillip's birthdate by the Britain–Australia Society." - needs a reference
- The first two paras of the 'Legacy' section are unreferenced
- There needs to be a broader discussion of the historiography covering Philip than just his ADB entry.
- "Sam Neill in the 2005 film The Incredible Journey of Mary Bryant and David Wenham in the 2015 mini-series Banished" - needs a reference
- Added references for both
Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Knightmare 3112 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild what? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you responded to Nick-D's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not all of them as I don't currently have access to offline sources Knightmare 3112 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you responded to Nick-D's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild what? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Witold Pilecki
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Witold Pilecki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed a detailed GA review, and I think it is ready for the next step. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by Well, firstly, some of those missing page numbers need to be resolved. Secondly, why are there all those citations in the lede? See MOS:LEADCITE. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle Missing pages added, and the citations are there since information was challenged (mostly by an now-indef banned editor) and IIRC it is allowed to have cites in lead for content that has been challenged (with citation needed templates) in the past? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose article repeats debunked myths about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Could you elaborate for our benefit? I'm only mildly familiar with the subject. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, what do you mean Buidhe, please elaborate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indy beetle A key issue is that the article says as a fact that "In 1940 Pilecki volunteered to allow himself to be captured by the occupying Germans in order to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp". This narrative (at a minimum) is contested in Reliable Sources (including two cited in the article: Fleming and Cuber-Strutyńska; the latter states that "the commonly used expression [volunteer] only partially corresponds with the facts", especially considering "the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal"), so it should be rephrased or presented as disputed. The legacy section mostly just lists a bunch of works about him, without going into other issues that should be covered, such as myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- This claim raised earlier by a sock-puppet of a banned user has been discussed and debunked [3]. Anything else? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle A single scholar (Cuber-Strutyńska, cited in the article) questioned whether Pilecki can be called a volunteer (it is a description of him widely used in 99% of RS), later, IIRC, a similar question was raised in the book review (Fleming). It's a valid question to what degree he was pressured to volunteer, actually, which is why this is already discussed in the article ("Pilecki had been nominated to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp... Włodarkiewicz said it was not an order but an invitation to volunteer, although Pilecki saw it as a punishment for refusing to back Włodarkiewicz's ideology. Nevertheless, he agreed, which subsequently, years later, led to Pilecki's being described in numerous sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz."). As GCB pointed out, this was discussed before, on article's talk page (Talk:Witold_Pilecki/Archive_2#After_discussion,_WP:APLRS, note that the discussion was significantly tainted by involvement of said sock of, sigh, Icewhiz). The consensus, per vast majority of the RS, is that it is common to describe him as a volunteer. I mean, several of the monographs dedicated by him are even explicitly titled The Auschwitz Volunteer, The Volunteer (book), Il volontario, and Ochotnik do Auschwitz. It's a pretty fringe POV to say that he didn't volunteer, and to claim that a POV of a single, academic article 'debunks a myth' is quite unfair, to say the least. We have dozens of academic sources which call him a volunteer, and two minor ones which discuss if this is correct (only one in depth, IIRC). As for "myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous", I think we do discuss the latter (Garliński's work and subsequent, even summarized in th lead and discussed in the Legacy section in more detail), and don't think the former is discussed in depth in any reliable sources I've seen, but if they exist, anyone is welcome to link to them and preferably improve the article using them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle - the article does not repeat any "debunked myths" GizzyCatBella🍁 13:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- What is the current reputation of the Institute of National Remembrance in the scholarly community? I remember some kerfuffle from a few years ago about it being politicized. Can we trust it as a source? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes you can. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle I think the article on the Institute is up to date and discusses the 'keruffles'. It has been politicized and received some criticism, it was IIRC discussed at RSN too, and the current consensus is that it is still reliable. Realistically, most criticism is related not to what it does but what it doesn't do (i.e. that it is not doing much investigation of the crimes committed by Poles on the Polish Jews). That's unfortunate, but as to research it does there is not much criticism I am aware of (again, outside of people saying 'but you should research more important topics like x'). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the article is stable and has been stable for months (it was disrupted few month ago by a now-banned sock). If it had big problems, it wouldn't be stable enough to pass the recent good GA review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- What is the current reputation of the Institute of National Remembrance in the scholarly community? I remember some kerfuffle from a few years ago about it being politicized. Can we trust it as a source? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Could you elaborate for our benefit? I'm only mildly familiar with the subject. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments by Kges1901
I'll start reviewing this one.
- In the Early life section, suggest mentioning that his being sent to Orel was a result of the war, and that the move from Olonets to Wilno was due to parental desire to preserve Polish culture as this is mentioned in the sources
- Was the Self-Defense militia actually aligned with the Whites more so than being Polish nationalist? AFAIK the Whites didn't have much of a cooperative relationship with the Poles because of conflicting nationalism.
- Krakus seems like it was more of a training program or movement than a training school, Paliwoda describes it as a program
- Received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activism - Not sure activism is the best word in English to describe his activities. The sources mention his management of a dairy and landowning activities or work with the reservists during this period, could this be phrased more specifically since it seems that the award was for his contributions to either the reserves or farming activities?
- 'First's, Last's and Only's' is a trivia book. Why is this necessary or reliable as a reference?
- Could the origins of the different versions of how he got arrested be elaborated on? Kges1901 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kges1901 1) Done (content added). 2) Removed claim about aligned to the Whites, not in sources. 3) changed "school" to program, added ref to Paliwoda, nice find 4) changed activism to activities 5) No objection to removing First... It's probably there b/c it may be more easily accessible for the English reader than the other cited source (a Polish book). 6). Sadly, I didn't find any more in-depth treatment of the arrest (I assume you mean the WWII era event), then what's discussed in [4]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Continuing:
- Pilecki gave Mrs. Newerly - Change to Barbara Newerly, sounds archaic to refer to women only by their husband's last name
- it has been said that "it is likely that Witold arranged for his execution - does Fairweather or any Polish source give more details on who reported this, or does it need qualification
- Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion, Warszawianka Company - Could sound better as the Warszawianka Company of Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion
- Was the company he commanded the 1st Warszawianka Company or just Warszawianka Company?
- Are there more details on his activities during the Warsaw Uprising?
- Pilecki was reassigned Cuber-Strutynska says that he joined the II Polish Corps rather than being assigned there. I'm guessing that he wasn't under any command structure since the Home Army had been suppressed by then?
- relations between the government-in-exile and the Soviet-backed regime of Boleslaw Bierut deteriorated AFAIK the government in exile never had a good relationship with the Lublin Committee
- Pilecki's diary was translated into - Clarify that it was his Auschwitz diary or report
- Could the Legacy section be expanded to include Polish works and assessments on his legacy?
- Has the Pilecki House Museum opened yet, that section should be updated
- Are there other key details in the Polish books cited in the further reading? I'd suggest using those more than the English works since I assume that the English-language authors might not speak Polish and are relying on more detailed Polish accounts or previously published accounts such as Garlinski Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kges1901 Done (see c/e). Regarding Warszawianka Company, the sources I see do not give it a numeral. Regarding additional details, nothing substantial in the sources I have access too. We do cite the recent English works, the Polish works are a bit older. I doubt there'll be much in them, although probably a few tidbits could be found. Regarding expanding the Legacy, I think this is already discussed there? Regarding the museum, seems like its opening has been delayed (source: local radio, is this worth adding? Their official website states they are "in preparation for opening", but do invite people to see a temporary exhibition in the garden...). Presumably when it is opened there'll be more coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Oswald Boelcke
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)
Oswald Boelcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Oswald Boelcke has been dubbed "The Father of Aerial Warfare" because of his pioneering of aerial tactics, his development of the world's first aerial tactical manual, and his role in founding the Imperial German Air Service. The fighter squadron he founded, trained, and led, Jagdstaffel 2, produced 25 flying aces; Jasta 2 aces were often transferred to lead other squadrons. When Boelcke was killed in a midair collision, he was the leading ace of the First World War with 40 victories. Boelcke and his protege, Manfred von Richthofen, were the two leading German aces of the war. The Dicta Boelcke tactics manual is still used to train fighter pilots.
CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966
The entire section "Awards and honors" is missing citations. Some of the awards are referenced in the main body of the article, but not all. I believe that every single entry requires a reference, otherwise the section has to be removed or scaled down. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The two cites given are the source for this section; they were copied from a list on page 147. I do not see any point in listing the same citation a dozen times in a row. Are repeated duplicate cites a necessity for A Class?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well it is unclear to me if the two citations refer to the Order of Bravery, 3rd class and the Honors only or to all awards in that section. Until this is clearer my vote is not to promote this article. Why are the (de:Boelcke-Kaserne (Koblenz)) Boelcke Barracks in Koblenz not mentioned? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have supplied an identical repetitive cite for every award. Does that satisfy?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found no mention of the Coblenz barracks in my research. Certainly a cited addition to the article would be welcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- You may also want to go to google maps and search for Boelcke, next to the Boelcke Baracks, a number of streets named after him also pop up MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I must beg your indulgence for my lateness. I am dealing with some medical issues just now. I have researched Google maps, and will update ASAP.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still researching. Search is complicated by the fact Oswald is not the only Boelcke honored.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Finished Google map research..Georgejdorner (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still researching. Search is complicated by the fact Oswald is not the only Boelcke honored.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I must beg your indulgence for my lateness. I am dealing with some medical issues just now. I have researched Google maps, and will update ASAP.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- You may also want to go to google maps and search for Boelcke, next to the Boelcke Baracks, a number of streets named after him also pop up MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well it is unclear to me if the two citations refer to the Order of Bravery, 3rd class and the Honors only or to all awards in that section. Until this is clearer my vote is not to promote this article. Why are the (de:Boelcke-Kaserne (Koblenz)) Boelcke Barracks in Koblenz not mentioned? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What about the rescue ship Boelcke, see de:Boelcke (Schiff)? You can also find reference to this ship online. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alas, I am monolingual. And given the errors in the previous two 'Google translates' in this article, I am not inclined to trust it. Nor did I find a reliable source with 'Google search'.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Have you checked the book "The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939–1945" by Poul Grooss, ISBN 978-1-5267-0002-5? You may also look into "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945: Spezial-, Hilfskriegs-, Hilfsschiffe, Kleinschiffsverbände" by Erich Gröner or "Rettungsaktion Ostsee 1944/1945" by Martin Schmidtke. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Grooss book has been ordered via Interlibrary Loan; it may take some weeks to show up. I have preserved the German language sources on the article's Talk page for the use of German speaking editors.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Have you checked the book "The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939–1945" by Poul Grooss, ISBN 978-1-5267-0002-5? You may also look into "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945: Spezial-, Hilfskriegs-, Hilfsschiffe, Kleinschiffsverbände" by Erich Gröner or "Rettungsaktion Ostsee 1944/1945" by Martin Schmidtke. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I made a few minor edits, fixing brackets and removing overlinking, I support the nomination MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Hawkeye7
- fn 119: Include the link [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by from HF
- I'm concerned about some WP:TONE issues in the article. I don't think phrasings such as "On 9 August, Immelmann pounced on a French machine" or "Their early combat sorties relied on the naked aggression of headlong solo attacks upon unwitting enemies"
- "pounced on" replaced by "attacked".Georgejdorner (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Rewrote "naked aggression" sentence. Supplied more reliable cite for less dramatic statement. I might add, that the original cite from Head is a bit too subtle and ambiguous, but still true.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "as he was killed in action[101] before the Nazi Party was founded." is probably WP:SYNTH. The cited page of Kershaw's biography makes no mention of Boelcke; and the google books snippet of the bit from Head at the beginning of the sentence doesn't seem to say why he wasn't associated with the Nazis. I can't check the citation to VanWyngarden but it appears to be about his death. So this appears to be associating a statement that he wasn't Nazi-associated to a statement about when he died to a statement about when the Nazi party was formed, creating a synthesized statement not supported by any of the sources individually. We can't play cause-and-effect guessing games. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was trying to show that since Boelcke died in 1916 and the forerunner of the Nazi Party was not founded until 1918, it is absurd to portray the ace as even a proto-Nazi. There is considerable discussion upon Boelcke and the Nazis on the article talk page, as there was an editor who wanted to blame Boelcke for Holocaust deaths in barracks named for Boelcke.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was innocently ignorant of WP:SYNTH until now. I do find it interesting that the editor who was so insistent that a Nazi concentration camp is Boelcke's legacy seemed to use synthesis to make her point. Without that, the claim that Boelcke died before the Nazis came to exist is unneeded. In the meantime, I am looking for a source for the origin date of the Nazi party. (Boelcke's death can be cited from a number of sources; the one used was most convenient.)Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Re Head: "He was one of the few German heroes of the Great War who was not tainted by later association with Nazism."Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, I never suggested that Boelcke was a Nazi, which obviously can't be true because of the chronology. But notable structures named after him should be mentioned in the article, whether used admirably or not (its use does a disservice to Boelcke, I agree, but WP:NOTCENSORED). (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify your clarification: The Head quote above was a response to Hog Farm's failure to find information. It had nothing to do with structures named after Boelcke. That particular discussion already took place at great length on the article's talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Removed contentious phrase.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Constantine
Interesting subject, will review over the next few days. As a first comment from a quick perusal of the article, the lede uses the form "Father of Air Fighting Tactics", while the actual cited appellation is "the father of air combat". Constantine ✍ 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Lede
Be consistent between using World War I or First World War.- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Link 'observer', 'World War II'- Linked 'aerial observer'. Linking World Wars smacks of MOS:OL.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is about providing a link to the main articles, not about explaining common terms to readers, though. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe that anyone would read up on a WWI ace without knowledge there was such a war. Nope. That's an overlink.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this is not about awareness of the war, but ease of access to the parent article for more details. But agree to disagree. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe that anyone would read up on a WWI ace without knowledge there was such a war. Nope. That's an overlink.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is about providing a link to the main articles, not about explaining common terms to readers, though. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Linked 'aerial observer'. Linking World Wars smacks of MOS:OL.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
awarded the Pour le Mérite, add something to the effect that this was Germany's highest award for gallantry.- Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Present day -> Present-day- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
After a month's holiday leave spent on a military inspection tour of Turkish facilities add when this was, to provide context; the last date mentioned is October 1916, whereas this was before that.Boelcke was picked to lead one of Germany's first fighter squadrons, Jagdstaffel 2 (Fighter Squadron 2) ditto, e.g. add 'in September 1916'.During the short time before his death, Boelcke became the world's leading fighter pilot, scoring 21 more victories while commanding Jagdstaffel 2. Somewhat redundant, perhaps 'While commanding Jagdstaffel 2, Boelcke became the world's leading fighter pilot, scoring 21 more victories'.- Light rewrite should settle these three issues.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Early years
near the Junkers factory In view of what Junkers later became, this is a neat coincidence, but is this otherwise notable?- First exposure to airplanes noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Boelcke never did become very large; I don't know why one would expect him to be very large, but 1.70 was above average for Germany (and likely the rest of the world) at the time. Perhaps 'Boelcke was of moderate height'?- As I am excessively tall (1.95 meters), I do tend to misjudge. Correction made.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Still reads odd to me, as it inadvertently implies that he should be large, but wasn't. Just 'Boelcke was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall.' or similar should suffice. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Still reads odd to me, as it inadvertently implies that he should be large, but wasn't. Just 'Boelcke was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall.' or similar should suffice. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I am excessively tall (1.95 meters), I do tend to misjudge. Correction made.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
a rather daring Alpinist...His charisma made him...made him memorable specifically? This smells more than a bit of MOS:PUFFERY.- Head, p. 39: "He loved the sport and quickly became 'a skilled and fearless climber'....
- Head, p.40: "They (other boys) admired him as the best athlete in gymnastics, and they submitted willingly to his leadership."
- If puffery there be, 'tis not by me.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- No doubt, but then quote him directly, or tone it down. Since we can be pretty certain that Head did not interview all the boys who 'submitted willingly to his leadership', we are safe in assuming this is a bit of hero worship slipping through. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- To me, it reads like an assessment by a teacher. Nevertheless, I have rephrased it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It still contains some descriptions that are clearly subjective. 'Rather daring' is an evaluation that cannot be measured or verified. It is an opinion, and must be attributed, not presented as fact. Likewise about him being popular or memorable on account of his appearance. It is likely that these are true, but we should distinguish the voice of the biographers from that of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rewrote sentence on Alpine skills.
- However, his early leadership skills foreshadow his future military role. I have toned down the rhetoric.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- It still contains some descriptions that are clearly subjective. 'Rather daring' is an evaluation that cannot be measured or verified. It is an opinion, and must be attributed, not presented as fact. Likewise about him being popular or memorable on account of his appearance. It is likely that these are true, but we should distinguish the voice of the biographers from that of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- To me, it reads like an assessment by a teacher. Nevertheless, I have rephrased it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- No doubt, but then quote him directly, or tone it down. Since we can be pretty certain that Head did not interview all the boys who 'submitted willingly to his leadership', we are safe in assuming this is a bit of hero worship slipping through. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Which leads me to Werner 1942/2019. I have occasionally read some Nazi-era books, the wording is anything but sober and objective, and I suspect Werner wrote his book to lionize Boelcke and get more German youths to join the Luftwaffe, rather than as a scholarly biography of the man. I suggest treating it with extreme caution as a source on Boelcke's character.- Head was the major text I used. I checked his footnotes to insure I was not reusing Werner, etc without realizing it. Same with other supplementary sources. I might add that I have such loathing for the Nazis, I dislike writing about any of them.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, just as a word of caution. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, keeping the bullshit detector running is important while using any sources.06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, just as a word of caution. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Head was the major text I used. I checked his footnotes to insure I was not reusing Werner, etc without realizing it. Same with other supplementary sources. I might add that I have such loathing for the Nazis, I dislike writing about any of them.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
could move its adherent up the social ladder 'adherent' reads odd. Perhaps 'would provide opportunities for upward social mobility'?- 'Adherent' become 'their son'.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Link 'Kaiser', 'airship', '1916 Olympics' (and note they were to be held in Berlin)- Linked 'Kaiser', 'airship', '1916 Olympics'. Linked '1916 Olympics.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
had the audacity again, editorializing. And, for the record, not so odd: Willy was a pop star for his time, and petitions to the monarch are as old as monarchy itself.- At 10 years old, Boelcke was not quite yet a pop star.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- By Willy, Kaiser Wilhelm is meant. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have completely confused me with the pop star reference. Though I have scant experience with monarchy, I doubt that many ten year old children write to emperors. Only the audacious ones.
- Not that important. My point is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was very much a celebrity during his day, with photos of him in his various outfits, tours of cities and factories, the media following on his every move and utterance. We often forget this in light of WWI and its aftermath, but he was for a very long time a sort of 'people's monarch'. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. They don't teach such facts in American schools. Thank you for the enlightment.
- Nor in Greek or German schools, so don't worry :). Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. They don't teach such facts in American schools. Thank you for the enlightment.
- Not that important. My point is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was very much a celebrity during his day, with photos of him in his various outfits, tours of cities and factories, the media following on his every move and utterance. We often forget this in light of WWI and its aftermath, but he was for a very long time a sort of 'people's monarch'. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have completely confused me with the pop star reference. Though I have scant experience with monarchy, I doubt that many ten year old children write to emperors. Only the audacious ones.
- By Willy, Kaiser Wilhelm is meant. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- At 10 years old, Boelcke was not quite yet a pop star.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
but once his parents were apprised of the opportunity by the belated reply letter, they objected Why? This contradicts their views as established in the previous sentence.- This is baffling, but according to sources. I found no reason for their actions. I can only speculate. Mom wanted him closer to home?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whoops! Found out parents wanted Oswald to finish his education.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is baffling, but according to sources. I found no reason for their actions. I can only speculate. Mom wanted him closer to home?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Entry into military service
in Metz, at that time a German town elaborate a bit, or remove the last part. Most people don't know where Metz is, or why it should not now be a German town.- Serves me right for copying from a source without understanding it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps link 'swordknot' to Unteroffiziere mit Portepee?
- Perhaps. But it seems to be a distinction with no real difference.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that for most readers, "swordknot ensign" is not a term they will have encountered before, and it merits explanation. Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The actual point is, I do not understand "swordknot ensign".Georgejdorner (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'Swordknot ensign' is the literal translation of Fähnrich mit Portepee. However, since this was removed and simplified, I just suggest adding the German term (Fähnrich) and the translation in parentheses, for consistency in dealing with ranks. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Upon rereading the source, I am presented with the info he was first commissioned as ensign, then promoted to swordknot ensign before further promotion to Leutnant. So is swordknot ensign an intermediate rank between ensign and Leutnant?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest I am not an expert on the minutiae of German rank distinctions. What I know is that a Fähnrich ranked as a senior NCO, but was effectively a sort of officer candidate, so he had the right to carry the officers' sword knot (Portepee). I would hazard a guess that the 'promotion' mentioned in the sources is his taking the exam that gave him the right to wear the sword knot? Don't quote me on that, though... Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Source does not mention Fahnrich. I have opted for 'ensign', although many readers will be unfamiliar with the term. Ah, well, time to grow the vocabulary.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest I am not an expert on the minutiae of German rank distinctions. What I know is that a Fähnrich ranked as a senior NCO, but was effectively a sort of officer candidate, so he had the right to carry the officers' sword knot (Portepee). I would hazard a guess that the 'promotion' mentioned in the sources is his taking the exam that gave him the right to wear the sword knot? Don't quote me on that, though... Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Upon rereading the source, I am presented with the info he was first commissioned as ensign, then promoted to swordknot ensign before further promotion to Leutnant. So is swordknot ensign an intermediate rank between ensign and Leutnant?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'Swordknot ensign' is the literal translation of Fähnrich mit Portepee. However, since this was removed and simplified, I just suggest adding the German term (Fähnrich) and the translation in parentheses, for consistency in dealing with ranks. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- The actual point is, I do not understand "swordknot ensign".Georgejdorner (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that for most readers, "swordknot ensign" is not a term they will have encountered before, and it merits explanation. Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But it seems to be a distinction with no real difference.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
1914
Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches. The German Empire never referred to itself as 'deutsches Kaiserrreich'. That is a descriptive/historiographic term to distinguish the pre-1918 'Imperial' German Reich from the post-1918 republican state. I have a hunch that this does not reflect an actual title, but is descriptive.- This is one of several English terms for the German air force. Others are 'Fliegertruppen ' and 'Imperial German Air Service'. Are you requesting a change? If so, to what?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that the German term is very likely wrong/anachronistic, in that it is descriptive rather than the actual formal name. I suggest simply "the Fliegertruppen (Flying Troops)". Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for enlightening me. I have replaced the term with one more easily comprehended by English-speakers.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The term Fliegertruppe is still used later on, but nowhere explained before. Perhaps something like 'a transfer to duty with the German Army's aviation troops (Fliegertruppe)'? Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. Added explanation of usage when term first occurs lower down.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The term Fliegertruppe is still used later on, but nowhere explained before. Perhaps something like 'a transfer to duty with the German Army's aviation troops (Fliegertruppe)'? Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for enlightening me. I have replaced the term with one more easily comprehended by English-speakers.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that the German term is very likely wrong/anachronistic, in that it is descriptive rather than the actual formal name. I suggest simply "the Fliegertruppen (Flying Troops)". Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is one of several English terms for the German air force. Others are 'Fliegertruppen ' and 'Imperial German Air Service'. Are you requesting a change? If so, to what?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Will continue very soon. Constantine ✍ 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- My turn for a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
1915
His new assignment brought him friendship with Max Immelmann how?- Fellow Saxons assigned to same unit.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added that they were in the same unit, per your explanation. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fellow Saxons assigned to same unit.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest moving the header 'Advent of the flying gun' to before Roland Garros of France's Service Aéronautique- What an excellent suggestion! Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
de-bolden M.5K/MG- How did this horror slip by me earlier?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
explain and translate the acronym IdFlieg on first occurrence.- Term vanished during a cleanup editing.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Anthony Fokker is linked twice in the same section, Metz has already been linked before.- Deleted one Fokker link.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Likewise, a Metz link.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Until recorded his experiences in July 1916 something missing here.- Added 'Boelcke'.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
'Abteilung' in military context means 'Detachment' or even 'Battalion' (for artillery and technical services), not 'Department'.- Curse you, Google Translate! Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
but it fell behind French lines by 'it' you refer to the plane shot down, but it is not clear; the last thing mentioned is the Fokker.- Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
1916
In the caption for the Pour le merite, link the VC and MoH.- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
an upcoming offensive against the French. I think the Battle of Verdun is sufficiently known and notable that it can be mentioned by name (e.g. 'the upcoming offensive at Verdun')- Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
headquarters of Crown Prince Wilhelm clarify that this was the Prussian crown prince, since Germany had a few of them, and there was also the CP of Bavaria as a prominent front commander (and in this article).- 'Prussian' inserted. I'm on lookout for Bavarian CP.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
the usual tactics of pointblank fire are nowhere before mentioned or otherwise explained- Last sentence, Creation of Jagdstaffel 2: "I only open fire when I can see the goggle strap on my opponent's crash helmet." That's a pretty vivid example of his tactic of point-blank fire.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Nieuport 11s. plural is unnecessary- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
link 'pusher aircraft', 'Hauptmann', 'Turkey' to Ottoman Empire, 'Auftragstaktik', 'Somme offensive', relink 'Constantinople' to Istanbul, link air superiority, Bulgaria; unlink 'Feldflieger Abteilung'- 'Pusher' linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Hauptmann' linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Turkey changed to Ottoman Empire.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'Auftragstaktik' linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Somme offensive linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to Constantinople, the city did not change its name to Istanbul until the 1920s.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article Constantinople refers to the Byzantine era though. There is a Wikipedia convention that the Ottoman period is covered under Istanbul. the usual solution is to pipe this like this: [[Istanbul|Constantinople]]. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- The article Constantinople refers to the Byzantine era though. There is a Wikipedia convention that the Ottoman period is covered under Istanbul. the usual solution is to pipe this like this: [[Istanbul|Constantinople]]. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Air superiority linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- since 'the emperor' is the previously mentioned Kaiser, I suggest using the latter for consistency
- I think I changed this even before I got this far down the list.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- that the officer in combat knows best which tactics will succeed I would rephrase that to something like 'that the officer in the field knows best which tactics to employ in order to achieve a set goal'.
- I'll stick with text as written. Strategy has a goal; tactics are only military tools.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. There are tactical objectives just as much as operational or strategic ones; tactics and strategy are different levels of warfare. The essence of Auftragstaktik is that the higher-ups set the goal/objective, and the officer tasked (hence 'Auftrag') with achieving it is allowed to choose how. This, IMO, would not be understood from the current phrasing by anyone unfamiliar with the subject. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than offer my counter-arguments, I have removed the term on the grounds that it is obscure enough the average reader won't miss it.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. There are tactical objectives just as much as operational or strategic ones; tactics and strategy are different levels of warfare. The essence of Auftragstaktik is that the higher-ups set the goal/objective, and the officer tasked (hence 'Auftrag') with achieving it is allowed to choose how. This, IMO, would not be understood from the current phrasing by anyone unfamiliar with the subject. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll stick with text as written. Strategy has a goal; tactics are only military tools.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The dicta were published capitalize and italicize 'dicta'
- Dicta is also an English word.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- But a) here it refers to a specific work, and b) I very much doubt the average reader who hasn't had Latin at school knows it. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the term was originally Latinate before being adopted by both German and English speakers. The question here is, which language we are using when we use 'dicta'/Dicta?
- Judging from the POV of the average reader, I think it is easier/less confusing to just refer to Boelcke's work, hence Dicta. To anyone who doesn't know the meaning of the term, dicta simply looks like a typo error. Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have replaced the ambiguity.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Judging from the POV of the average reader, I think it is easier/less confusing to just refer to Boelcke's work, hence Dicta. To anyone who doesn't know the meaning of the term, dicta simply looks like a typo error. Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the term was originally Latinate before being adopted by both German and English speakers. The question here is, which language we are using when we use 'dicta'/Dicta?
- But a) here it refers to a specific work, and b) I very much doubt the average reader who hasn't had Latin at school knows it. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Dicta is also an English word.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
He held... to a minimum 'He kept... to a minimum'- OK, kept it is.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Link and italicize German ranks in the caption of the photo with Buddecke and von Sanders, and relink Turkey to Ottoman Empire- And make the caption about 80% links? No, but I did italicize the ranks because they are German language.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are right, that would be overkill. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- And make the caption about 80% links? No, but I did italicize the ranks because they are German language.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
the acronym Jasta should always be capitalized as it is a German term- Hope I got 'em all.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
'Lieutenant General' is not quite the same as Generalleutnant. For accuracy and consistency, I suggest sticking to the German ranks.- Indeed, some ranks have no English/US equivalent. Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Crown Prince Rupert as above, not that he was CP of Bavaria.- Source says Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria. Different guys?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is indeed the same person. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Source says Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria. Different guys?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
visiting Wilhelm clarify that this is his older brother, not the Kaiser- Got it.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why were there so many pilots at Kovel?- Wilhelm Boelcke's air unit was stationed there, as I have now noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please use {{lang|de|}} for German terms
- ??
- Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, instead of adding italics with ''foreign word'', wrap in the template like this: {{lang|de|foreign word}}. This allows automatic text parsers/readers and even your browser to distinguish the language foreign terms are in. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have made a start with lang templates. They should be checked to be sure my maiden efforts are correct.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Georgejdorner: hah, the other way round: [6] :) Constantine ✍ 06:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reversed.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have made a start with lang templates. They should be checked to be sure my maiden efforts are correct.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, instead of adding italics with ''foreign word'', wrap in the template like this: {{lang|de|foreign word}}. This allows automatic text parsers/readers and even your browser to distinguish the language foreign terms are in. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- ??
Legacy
The 336 victories the jasta scored during the war came at the price of 44 casualties Are we talking about all Jastas or only Jasta 2?- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That's it for a first read-through. I am not an expert on the subject, but the article appears to be quite comprehensive. The tone is rather sympathetic to its subject, but, with the exceptions noted above, I don't think it is biased. A nice read. Constantine ✍ 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Georgejdorner: my comments have been addressed, so I am happy to support. Well done! Constantine ✍ 10:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
HF (take 2)
Aside from my drive-by comments above, I'm going to try to give this one a fuller review Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Boelcke never did become very large; he was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall" - recommend just removing the "never did become very large" and note that he was of average size and listing the later life height
- Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned about some of the phrasing here - "rather daring Alpinist", "had the audacity", etc. I suspect that what's going on is that many of the sources are in more of the "fanboy" tier of military biography, the writing style of those sources is coming into the article. I don't think some of the items like that are necessarily encyclopedic tone.
- I've rewritten the Alpinist remark. I still believe it was daring for a ten year old child to write his emperor.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
ready for WWI section, pausing for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- "The Eindecker were limited to be flights when pilots were not on reconnaissance missions in their two-seaters." - I'm not sure what exactly the second half of this is suppose to be saying - the meaning is pretty clearly that you weren't suppose to take the Eindecker over enemy lines, but this seems to be a really convoluted way of saying that. At a minimum, I think "in their two-seaters" can be lost
- Boy, I botched this one. Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "In the glare of German publicity, Wintgens had claimed five victims, Boelcke two and Immelmann one." - so I guess "Boelcke won his first individual aerial combat on 19 August 1915 forcing down a British plane" doesn't count here, with the July 4 and August 9 victories in the count?
- Congrats, you have caught your fanboy. While Prof Werner relates the 9 August combat, later historians do not list it.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "On 1 November, the day after his sixth victory, Boelcke was awarded the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern" - no detail about victories #5 and #6? He's at 2 at the end of August we're told at the end of the prior section, and he got two more in September, but it just skips to after 6?
- Do you expect all 40 victories to be individually covered in this article?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be useful to give all in detail, but at least something like "He scored two more victories in [timeframe]" would be useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did not think it useful, either. That's why I limited my mention of victories to those I considered significant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be useful to give all in detail, but at least something like "He scored two more victories in [timeframe]" would be useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you expect all 40 victories to be individually covered in this article?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Immelmann duplicated the feat six days later" - is "the feat" the award or six victories? If it's the former, I'm not sure this is the best phrasing as Immelmann didn't award himself the honor, so he didn't really duplicate it actively.
- Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "On 5 January 1916, the winter weather finally improved enough for flying." - we weren't told that it had gotten bad enough to prevent flying earlier that winter
- Indeed, the source does not give a date for the onset of foul winter weather.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't it a bit of an anachronism to refer to Turkey instead of the Ottoman Empire at this point?
- Solecism removed.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Its eight maxims seem self-evident, but Boelcke was the first to recognize them." - this seems like a touch of editorializing
- Most folks reading the maxims would find them self-evident. No one codified them until Boelcke. Where's the editorial in that?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Ready for "Into battle" Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's it to this point. Will return later to insert the foreign language templates.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of the use the Google maps knowledge panel to demonstrate existence of something - it's been found in a few AFDs of places in the US that turned out to be non-existent that the knowledge panel sometimes scraped Wikipedia. I'm also not convinced that the streets/buildings/etc are necessarily worthwhile to mention if the only source is the Google maps thing; there are surely countless bars and businesses named after Boelcke.
- MisterBee1966 suggested the use of google maps. I used the maps because info on Boelcke's legacy is scant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- While it's one thing to use that for streets or military barracks, how do you determine that the clubhouse is significant just based off on the Google maps? This would almost certainly be challenged at FAC if you were going to take it there. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am not particularly keen on these listings, either. I included them to prevent MrBee1966 from vetoing this promotion. I have also clarified that the club is a military officers club on the perimeter of a military installation. Mt google search turned up no other bars/lounges, and I would not list them if it did.
- If there should be an objection during the FAC, I'll ditch these listings.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- While it's one thing to use that for streets or military barracks, how do you determine that the clubhouse is significant just based off on the Google maps? This would almost certainly be challenged at FAC if you were going to take it there. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- MisterBee1966 suggested the use of google maps. I used the maps because info on Boelcke's legacy is scant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's mainly it from me; I'm not assessing the sourcing because I'm not familiar with most of it. Hog Farm Talk 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support for A-Class, although I don't think I'd support at FAC with the Google maps issue. I don't feel confident to assess source quality. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources are well-regarded WWI aviation historians. Their texts are produced by two publishing houses dedicated to military nonfiction--Grub Street Publishing and Osprey Press.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support for A-Class, although I don't think I'd support at FAC with the Google maps issue. I don't feel confident to assess source quality. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:TaktLwG 31.svg, File:Das Boelcke-Grabmal auf dem Dessauer Ehrenfriedhof.jpg - Wikipedian images - okay
- File:German Fokker D.III fighter at the Zueghaus museum Berlin.jpg US Navy image - okay
- File:Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron) (12320674275).jpg Dubious about Commons' classification, but before 1918, so copyright expired - okay
- File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S60853, Buddecke, Liman von Sanders und Boelcke.jpg Bundesarchiv - Creative Commons - okay
- File:Kruis van de Orde Pour le Mérite 1914.gif Another dubious one by Commons. Would be okay if not an American photograph.
- File:German Aircraft of the First World War Q66596.jpg, File:Erwin Böhme.jpg, File:Oswald Boelcke (ca. 1916).jpg, File:Otto Parschau's A-16-15 Eindecker.jpg, File:Hauptmann Boelcke.jpg, File:M 50 13 aviatik BI à Rambervillers.jpg - Copyright expired - okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Georgejdorner ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
- Fn 115 is formatted differently to the others. Suggest using {{sfnp}} instead of {{sfn}}
- Fn 118 is also formatted differently, and has no access date. Consider using {{cite we}} for Fn 116 through 119
- Sources are high quality
- What is the Popular Mechanics entry in the Further reading about?
- Spot checks: 17, 92, 106, 112, 116, 118 - okay