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
Sayf al-Dawla
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Sayf al-Dawla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
The subject of this article is one of the most famous medieval Arab warriors, a figure both illustrious and tragic. Growing up during the collapse of the Abbasid empire in the early 10th century, Sayf al-Dawla carved out for himself a principality in northern Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, challenged a resurgent Byzantium for over twenty years, established a splendid court that gathered some of the foremost scholars of his time, and finally ended his days in illness and defeat. This article is of some significance for me since it is in the process of researching this fascinating figure that I got seriously involved with early Islamic history, which now takes up most of my time on Wikipedia. It became a GA back in 2012, and I have kept working on it since. I now feel it is ready for A-class and a FA nomination after that. I hope reviewers will enjoy it and help improve it further. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Al Ameer
A very thorough and well-written piece, and one that motivated me to work on Sayf's Mirdasid successors in Aleppo. Glad to see it finally moving to this stage. Some queries and suggestions:
- Are we going with "the Jazira" or just "Jazira"? No guidance on which should be used, other than it should be consistent.
- "the Jazira". The few cases where the article was omitted were probably because at one point it had been 'Upper Mesopotamia' instead.
- Is it necessary to introduce his brother in lead as al-Hasan (better known as Nasir al-Dawla) or could this be simplified to just the common name?
- Good point, simplified.
- "Arab Bedouin tribes" Is Bedouin a term most readers would understand? If not, recommend modifying to "Bedouin (nomadic Arab) tribes" for first mention.
- Rephrased and clarified.
- In this case, it may be better to write it with parentheses as "Bedouin (nomadic Arab)" since Bedouin in this context means nomadic Arab. After that, you could use just "Bedouin" without the "Arab" qualifier as well as in place of "Arab" throughout the article in cases where Arab is meant to be nomadic Arab (as opposed to settled/semi-nomadic Arabs or Arab as an ethnic descriptor such as when describing the Hamdanid state). Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rephrased and clarified.
- "managed to score a few successes" → "scored a few successes"
- Changed
- "Shi'ism" → "Shia Islam"
- Changed.
- "the Taghlibs", assume this is a typo for "Taghlibis" but just "the Taghlib" works good too.
- "the Taghlib" it is. Thanks, changed.
- "a fact which would" → "which would"
- Removed.
- "managed to secure the family's" → "secured the family's"
- Changed.
- "It was this strong local base which allowed" → "This strong local support base allowed"
- Changed.
- Might be out of scope to introduce them fully, but the locations of the Kharijites and Tulunids or where Husayn fought them might warrant a mention for context, i.e. "in the Jazira" for the Kharijites and "Egypt-based" or "of Egypt" for the Tulunids.
- Done
- "usurpation by Ibn al-Mu'tazz" → "usurpation of the throne by the Abbasid prince Ibn al-Mu'tazz" or similar contextual language.
- Excellent point, done.
- "His younger brother" → specify "Sayf al-Dawla's" or "Ali's younger brother"
- Clarified.
- Introduce Mu'nis as strongman, commander-in-chief or similar.
- Changed.
- Just for clarity, introduce al-Muqtadir as "Caliph al-Muqtadir"
- Done.
- Inconsistent spellings of "Al-Hasan" and "Hasan"
- Fixed.
- Should introduce Qaysi tribes as Bedouin (all the Qays, in this context, were Bedouin).
- Done.
- Since al-Muqtadir should be introduced as "Caliph" in the first mention, per above, remove "Caliph" from his second mention in the "Early career" section.
- Done.
- Sayf al-Dawla is mostly referred to by his birth name Ali ibn Abdallah until the point in his bio where he gains his better known epithet. Should the birth name be shortened to just "Ali" after first mention?
- The reason was a possible confusion with Ali ibn Ja'far, but I think the possibility is slim. Apart from the first reference, shortened to 'Ali' now.
- "The Egyptian" should be replaced or modified for clarity. Also to avoid confusion, either "the Egyptian leader" or "the Ikshidid leader" should be used instead of both, or replaced altogether with al-Ikhshid.
- Chose the latter, as calling al-Ikhshid and Ikhshidid is, while correct, somehow weird.
- Should mention that the Banu Kilab were Bedouin or nomadic and, in keeping consistent with the other tribes, mention them only as "Kilab" after first intro.
- Done.
- Would remove "originally Yemeni" from Tanukh, as this tribe had been in Syria since the 4th century and their Yemeni origins are not certain. Also, irrelevant since this article does not discuss the old Qaysi–Yemeni rivalry.
- Good point, removed.
- Hugh Kennedy → Kennedy after first mention
- Changed.
- Briefly define "sharifs"
- Done.
- Any information on the Halba's future; is it extant, or was it destroyed, etc. (if enough info maybe an article could be started on it).
- Added. Not much info on it for an article, AFAIK.
- Maybe rephrase or modify "it would become the bone of contention between the Byzantines and a new Muslim power, the Egypt-based Fatimid Caliphate" to avoid repetition from last passage in the "Illness and death" section
- Mark Whittow is linked and introduced twice.
- Changed.
- What's the chances those redlinked viziers will have their own articles? If chances low, I would remove the redlinks.
- Other than these generally minor points, another line or two describing the political condition of Syria, especially the north, before Sayf al-Dawla entered the picture may be beneficial for context. Namely, the deterioration of government (Abbasid) authority in the late 9th century, the invasions of the Qarmatians at the start of the 10th, and with them the explosion of Bedouin (Qaysi) tribal migration and devastation. Not a requirement, but could explain the relative vacuum of authority that Sayf al-Dawla entered and Nasir al-Dawla's "Syria lies before you ..." invitation. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion, will work on it the next couple of days.
- Modify "Arab sources" to "Arabic sources": the writers may or may not have been ethnic Arabs, but the language of the sources was Arabic. Also better than the alternative "early Muslim/Islamic sources" in this case, since some of the Arabic writers of this historical period were Christians.
- Since you have started articles on many of the Hamdanid dynasts, suggest converting the family tree into an interactive one. Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the thorough review, Al Ameer son! Have addressed most of the issues above. Is there anything else that you feel might be missing, or that should/could be mentioned in the context of this article? Constantine ✍ 17:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was a pleasure reading through it again. Thanks for addressing the above. Added a couple more suggestions, but other than that all set. Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Eileen Collins
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Eileen Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Although I already have two articles up for A class review, as a military person I thought it best to bring it here before sending to FAC. It is part of a series on women astronauts. It is part of a series about women astronauts. Collins was first woman to pilot the Space Shuttle and the first to command a Space Shuttle mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
M8 Armored Gun System
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)
M8 Armored Gun System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
An interesting topic (to me): A light tank that changed hands between defense contractors three times over four decades, and which the U.S. Army dumped no less than four times. The Army's light tank strategy has been vaporous since its decision to divest the M551 Sheridan in the late '70s. One challenge in writing this was distinguishing the AGS from the numerous conflicting light tank programs of the late '80s onward. There were many overlapping initiatives that muddied the waters with different requirements (Tracked or wheeled? Airdrop capable for the 82nd Airborne? Pure fleet of MBTs only?). Sources are mostly news reporting from Inside the Army, some R. P. Hunnicutt and Steven J. Zaloga, and some Army theses for good measure. Contemporaneous news reporting before 1992 was difficult to come by. Schierbecker (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Fort Southerland
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Fort Southerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
What I believe to be a comprehensive article on a minor ACW fortification in southern Arkansas. Built by the Confederates, it was then strengthened by Union forces during the brief occupation of Camden, and later again by the Confederates. It's now a city park and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but there is some doubt as to if the named used on the historic register is historically accurate. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Kges1901
- It emplaced three cannons In the article you wrote that it could emplace that many cannons. Did Sterling Price ever have artillery actually manning the Camden defenses?
- Shea says that it "held only three artillery pieces" so I guess so. Have taken out the "could" language based on Shea
- Hundreds of soldier and slave labor were used to build the positions - This isn't grammatically correct as written
- Rejigged
- Confederate artilleryman William Jeffrey Bull served in the Camden fortifications in 1865, and provides details as to the fate of the fort in his edited diary. This also provides the detail that soldiers at the time called it Fort Southland, which makes sense as to the name
- I'm a bit hesitant to use that - I'm not seeing a connection between Fort Southerland there and Redoubt E, and the modern sources note that the Fort Southerland name may have been Redoubt D so there's no guaranty that the diary and this article are referring to the same redoubt
- The city's defenses were not occupied at this time - Wasn't the reason for this that Price decided to defend Washington instead of Camden?
- Yes, added (and sourced to Castel's bio of PricE)
- The Union forces withdrew - the context that this was due to Steele's inability to supply his troops from the devastated region is missing
- Added from Castel
- Christ speculates that the post-Camden Expedition Confederate work on the defenses was a make-work project, which seems relevant
- Added
- I feel like some of the information in the description section might be better covered in the construction section, like the details about how it was defended by a ditch. The details on the modern park seem like they could be adequately summarized under the paragraph describing the NHL listing
- I've moved much of the information into the history section, to the extent that I'm now wondering if there's even a need for the separate description section
- Out of curiosity, is there a period map of the Camden defenses available? Kges1901 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only one I've seen was made by Shea for his article, and would be copyrighted
@Kges1901: - preliminary responses above, sorry it took so long for me to get to this. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
7th Alabama Infantry Regiment
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
7th Alabama Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
A Confederate unit that did not see major combat, but surprisingly well documented and a snapshot into the daily life of the ordinary Civil War soldier. Kges1901 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments I'll review this a section at a time, lede last.
Organization and Pensacola Service
The first para is jumbled and needs a rewrite. I recommend it follow these points:
1) Give the pre-regimental constituent units first.
2) Then date for actual foundation of the regiment. And mention specific units serving on detached duty, please. As written, their names are uncertain.
3) Give candidates' "qualifications" before vote. And how many regimental officers were there anyhow? All elected?
4) I do not understand why Bragg's troop totals have any bearing on regimental organization. If it is germane, please show its relevance, and find a suitable location for the info.
You have great info here in mostly well-written sentences. However, sentence order is scrambled. A better chronology would help.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Second para:
Two sentences should be reversed. Coltart banned gambling and insisted on barracks cleanup; then he became unpopular. And, please clarify, is Coltart second in command of the regiment?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Time for a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The remaining paras of this section are nicely written. I question only the jammed propeller on the steamship. How did the ship escape? Repaired propeller? Kedging? Auxiliary sails?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Bibliography As I have no access to the sources, I must assume good faith. I would note that this is an extensive listing, given the narrow Scope of the subject.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Toolbox External links: In Search of...General William Henry Carroll is a dead link.
Automated peer review suggestions:
Article is a bit short, and could use more or more comprehensive information, plus more links (if possible). It also recommends thorough copyediting.
Redirects: Python code error. (So what does that signify?)
Reflinks: No changes needed.
Lede
I am unfamiliar with Civil War notability standards, but 7th Alabama seems to have an inconsequential history. I think some version of your nominating statement above as you second sentence would make the unit more important and thus more notable to the reader.
Also, by merely deeming Coltart unpopular, you scant the reasons for that unpopularity. Just a mention that he was a disciplinarian would do.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Overall I would recommend extending the text to place 7th Alabama in the context of their superior units and theater of operations. There's an ambiguous reference to Bragg. Did he need the 7th for the added manpower for his operations? Etc.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Unsolicited personal opinion from an ex-professional soldier:
Clean healthy barracks? No drunken gambling in said barracks? How dare he! The only mistake of Coltart's I can see, he did not order his lieutenants to order his sergeants to supervise duties instead of personally issuing orders.
And troops resentful of a sergeant in charge of a detail? Those are troops looking for a chance to desert.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Erwin Böhme
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)
Erwin Böhme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Erwin Böhme was an early flying ace who won the Blue Max. A close friend of his mentor Oswald Boelcke, he inadvertently caused Boelke's death. Despite this tragedy, he became a 24-victory ace, and rose to become a squadron leader under the Red Baron before being killed in action.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by from CPA
- There are multiple MOS:SANDWICH issues in the article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- While images are placed both left and right in text, no two images are opposite one another to cause sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- On my laptop I can see the image File:Holzminden_weserufer.jpg sandwiching tekst with the infobox. The second sandwich is between the File:Nieuport_12_(replica)_AN1543487.jpg's margin and File:Albatros_D.I.jpg which technally sandwich it. Another examples of images' margin is with File:Airco_DH.2.jpg and File:Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.8_in_flight.jpg and with File:A.W._F.K.8_(Cockpit_area).jpg and File:Captured_Albatros_DVa_at_Armentieres_1917.jpg. All of these examples should be adressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- On my desktop computer, no sandwiching appears, which tells me your smaller screen size is causing your sandwiching. I made changes based on that assumption.
- I moved the photo of Holtzminden downwards, away from the info box. I also lowered the railroad tracks photo.
- The photos of the Nieuport and the Albatros D.I are in different paragraphs, so I cannot see how they would sandwich. Likewise with the DH.2 photo and that of the FE.8.
- I also lowered the photo of the Albatros D.Va.
- When I shrink my screen to laptop size (about 13 inches), I find no sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks much better now. The sandwich issues are now removed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggested improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks much better now. The sandwich issues are now removed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- On my laptop I can see the image File:Holzminden_weserufer.jpg sandwiching tekst with the infobox. The second sandwich is between the File:Nieuport_12_(replica)_AN1543487.jpg's margin and File:Albatros_D.I.jpg which technally sandwich it. Another examples of images' margin is with File:Airco_DH.2.jpg and File:Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.8_in_flight.jpg and with File:A.W._F.K.8_(Cockpit_area).jpg and File:Captured_Albatros_DVa_at_Armentieres_1917.jpg. All of these examples should be adressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)
Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
A strange one. Knighted for discovering the Franco-Spanish fleet before the Battle of Vigo Bay in 1702, Hardy was court-martialled for not attacking a French squadron in 1707, and then investigated three more times for the same action. Made a rear-admiral in 1711, he was given command of a squadron in the English Channel. Highlights of this command include failing to catch a French squadron and letting the Dunkirk privateers out to destroy a convoy in 1711, and failing to intercept two more French squadrons in 1712. Made second-in-command of the Baltic Fleet for the Great Northern War in 1715, he served for one season before being dismissed from the navy, possibly for Jacobitism! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Operation Bajrang
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): NeverTry4Me (talk)
Operation Bajrang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
NeverTry4Me (talk) attempted to nominate; I have created the nomination for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Big Bertha (howitzer)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Big Bertha (howitzer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
At long last, I am nominating the other big, huge, and heavy WWI German siege gun for A-Class review. Although I don't think it's ready for FAC because it relies primarily on a single source (though written on the English-language expert as far as I am aware), I do think it's ready for A-Class, as it's pretty much done otherwise. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Panzerfort Loncin.jpg since this is on commons it needs German license tag
HF - support
I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "used in 1918 after all Big Berthas had been removed from service" - this tidbit from the lead isn't in the body
- Infobox says the Austro-Hungarians used it, but not seeing that in the body?
- "but known as the Beta-Gerät to disguise its purpose as a siege gun" - is it worth glossing what exactly "Beta Gerat" indicated?
- " the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (42.6 t)" - I may be about to show stupidity here, but the conversion is converting between tonnes and metric tons, which our article on the subject suggests are the same thing? (I've only ever been taught the 2000 lb one, not sure if that's a ton, a long ton, or a short ton)
- Infobox and body appear to contradict on muzzle velocity (IB says 400m/s while body says 815m/s
- "giving it a traverse of 360°" - but the infobox says 4 degrees?
- "The kurze Marinekanone (KMK) Batteries that formed " - are you sure Batteries should be capital here?
- The premature detonation seems to be a problem - do the sources state if Big Bertha had it any worse than other German guns, or was it just crap ammo?
- Can it be directly stated that they didn't see service on the Eastern Front after the offensive in 1915?
- "from 2011 to 2019" - both of the sources predate 2019 so that ending date isn't supported by the cites
- Does the external link really add anything?
- Are there no usable images of one of the original pieces in WWI?
Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vami, any comment on the one remaining point? I'd be okay with just removing the not fully-supported date range, as it's fairly incidental. Hog Farm Talk 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
« 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)
- Might it be best to scrap the section about display aircraft? It looks like it would be difficult to verify all of the entries, and near-impossible to get any kind of completeness. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some sort of section is part of the normal format for aircraft articles - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and it is something that you do often see in monographs on aircraft types - note that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - a featured article, splits the aircraft on display into a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Might it be best to scrap the section about display aircraft? It looks like it would be difficult to verify all of the entries, and near-impossible to get any kind of completeness. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 7 July 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)
- Took a quick scroll through of text. Especially noticeable to me was the Surviving aircraft section. It not only lacks cites, it seems bent on listing every surviving F84 in existence. How many times do you have to see the same airplane with a different background?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- As noted above, I'm not convinced we even need to have that section. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note that this article actually has an Aircraft on display section which is more limiting than a Surviving aircraft section. Several entries are not sourced and entries have some repeated links which are being removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Took a quick scroll through of text. Especially noticeable to me was the Surviving aircraft section. It not only lacks cites, it seems bent on listing every surviving F84 in existence. How many times do you have to see the same airplane with a different background?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 7 July 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 Support 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?
- Yes.
- 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)
- Hey @Indy beetle: any updates for this one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems there's little else to be done here, supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review - Pass
Taking this up as a source review as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bastian, David F. (1995) From what I could find of Burd Street Press, many of their offerings appear to be pop history, however David Bastian himself appears to be a very qualified person in the field, and published a number of technical papers, so waive issues with publisher. No issue.
- Bearss, Edwin C. (2007) [2006]. Per WorldCat, it wants to associate the ISBN with a 2009 and a 2007 [2006] edition; for the 2007 [2006] edition it gives James M McPherson as a second author, and some other editions do as well. Defer to whatever the copy you used said.
- I'm definitely using the (2007) [2006] edition. McPherson wrote a four page preface (pp. xi - xiv); the rest of the content is from Bearss (the information in my copy clearly notes "Introduction by James McPherson"). I don't see a need to list McPherson as an author given that I'm not citing any of the preface he wrote (which is just a bio of Bearss)
- Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998). Per WorldCat, the associated ISBN of the right date gives the location as just Boston; there is one edition that gives it as just New York. Possibly the double publishing is an unreflected reality, defer to whichever copy you used.
- The print copy I have says "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York" for the publisher info
- Shea, William L.; Winschel, Terrence J. (2003). WorldCat does not want to associate the given ISBN (978-0-8032-9344-1) with the 2003 date, but rather with a 2006 and 2010 edition; double check and defer to whichever you used.
- The only date given in the publishing information of my print copy is 2003. It lists two isbns - 978-0-8032-9344-1 for the paperback edition and 0-8032-4254-9 for the clothbound edition. I'm using the paperback edition, so I used that ISBN. Maybe the clothbound is the original, and the paperback is a later printing that just isn't reflected in the publishing information for some reason?
- Very possible.
- The only date given in the publishing information of my print copy is 2003. It lists two isbns - 978-0-8032-9344-1 for the paperback edition and 0-8032-4254-9 for the clothbound edition. I'm using the paperback edition, so I used that ISBN. Maybe the clothbound is the original, and the paperback is a later printing that just isn't reflected in the publishing information for some reason?
- You may wish to archive the links from the four websites, on the off chance they get moved from their current urls.
- Done, as the NPS does purge their webpage sometimes. So many perma-deadlinks in ACW articles from them ...
- @Hog Farm: That's all from me. No objection to any of the included sources as failing to meet standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: - I've dug into the publishing information for my print copies above; not quite sure how to handle the Kennedy one. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Think keeping Boston and New York is fine, due diligence has been done. Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: - I've dug into the publishing information for my print copies above; not quite sure how to handle the Kennedy one. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 30 July 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)
- HF
If I haven't gotten around to this by Saturday, please ping me. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Support - I read through it and didn't find anything problematic for A-Class. Good work as always. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Zawed
Solid article as I would expect, just minor issues.
- on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris: The year is established in the previous so its usage here could be dropped.
- Oops. Done.
- again throwing the crews overboard.: this is first mention of crews being thrown overboard. Perhaps: " again murdering the crews, by throwing them overboard."
- Good point. Done.
- so heavily as to spring English ship's timbers.: missing word I think "so heavily as to spring the English ship's timbers."
- Inserted.
- Grammar is not a particularly strong suit of mine, but should "men at arms" be "men-at-arms"?
- It certainly should - sloppy of me.
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good points Zawed, thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review - Pass
- Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Made some minor changes (adding location/identifiers, and standardizing publisher spelling)
- Harris, Robin (1994); WorldCat seems split between giving a location of Woodbridge, Suffolk, and London, probably a result of the Royal Historical Society being based in London; either should be fine; defer to whatever copy of the book you used if a physical book otherwise keep it as it is.
- Fixed.
- Prestwich, M. (13 September 2007) is there a particular reason for the inclusion of the day and month?
- No, removed.
- @Gog the Mild: that is all. Passes source review, nice job. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Iazyges, sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review - pass
Support Comments from Iazyges
Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- the French were well aware of this. perhaps something the French were well aware of. for flow?
- I prefer it how it is, for clarity and emphasis. If it really upsets you I could break it into two sentences? Although that would seem a little clunky to me.
- No, I think it is better as is than in two sentences, I agree it would be more clunky,
- I prefer it how it is, for clarity and emphasis. If it really upsets you I could break it into two sentences? Although that would seem a little clunky to me.
- firing from their elevated positions as the English closed perhaps firing from their elevated positions as the English closed in or firing from their elevated positions as the English closed the distance
- Why? Wiktionary has one meaning of "close" as "To make (e.g. a gap) smaller", which is the sense used here.
- I think that might be a more British meaning than American, and the different terms make it more universal; it's not a huge issue.
- Why? Wiktionary has one meaning of "close" as "To make (e.g. a gap) smaller", which is the sense used here.
- The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy and might be helpful to include "ships", such as The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy ships and
- Good point. Done.
- @Gog the Mild: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Good work, Support article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 1 August 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)
- Hey Gog. I've been on holiday to Italy and it was fun (even though the weather was hot) I might do a review if this comment is adressed. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oops I missed this! I'll get that lead expanded soon. Hog Farm Talk 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: - sorry for the delay on this! I've gotten the lead expanded out a bit. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oops I missed this! I'll get that lead expanded soon. Hog Farm Talk 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Gog. I've been on holiday to Italy and it was fun (even though the weather was hot) I might do a review if this comment is adressed. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 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
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]
That would have been in Star Trek IV, no? Deleted parapraxis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
Support 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.
Added {{Use American English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Finally back. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
[...] removed Blanton Winship over his role in the Ponce massacre.
Recommend "for his role".Leahy was given both military and social objectives to carry out [...]
By FDR...?It supplied food and medical aid to the Vichy France regime in French North Africa, [...]
Recommend "the Vicy French regime".This was followed, on December 11, by the United States declaration of war on Germany.
It is worth mentioning that Germany declared war first.Was Leahy present for Louise's funeral?Waging a two-ocean war as part of a coalition revealed serious deficiencies in the organization and American high command when it came to formulating grand strategy: [...]
What organization / Organization of what?I think Hap Arnold should be linked in the caption to the image of the JCS at lunch; I understand he is first linked in the paragraph immediately next to it, but Marshall is also first linked in the paragraph immediately above it.Roosevelt had a Map Room constructed in the White House [...]
Recommend retooling this sentence so that this is rendered as "the Map Room", as the link here is to the Map Room at the White House specifically. I see, "Roosevelt had the Map Room constructed at the White House, where large maps displayed the progress of the war."Changed as suggested. I think I had in mind that he was copying Churchill's Churchill War Rooms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
[...] Leahy informed them Roosevelt was adamant that it was vital that American forces to take the field against Germany in 1942 [...]
Recommend "vital for American forces to take the field", or "vital that American forces take the field".[...] and that it was to proceed.
Recommend replacing "it" with "Gymnast".Leahy usually arrived at his office [...]
At the White House?No decision was taken this time [...]
Recommend "at this time".The day after Truman was sworn in as President [...]
Could we get that date?Sure. I thought it was implied. Truman was sworn in by Chief Justice Harlan Stone at 19:09 on 12 April, the day Roosevelt died. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
[...] Truman consulted with Byrnes, Stimson, Leahy, Marshall, Arnold and Eisenhower.
Eisenhower has not been introduced prior to this mention.Leahy later opposed to its use in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Huh?[...] fearing that the Navy would lose its aviation and the Marine Corps.
Can you elaborate on "aviation" here? I assume you mean the Navy's aviation elements, and the loss thereof to the US Air Force.In December, doctors diagnosed Leahy's health problems as a partial blockage of the kidneys.
This is the first mention of any health problems from Leahy if I recall correctly.#Death and legacy could use condensing.
Comment by CPA
- There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Early life and education section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:SECTIONLOC says that the image should be placed in the relevant section, and there is nowhere in the Early life section where it can go. Placing it after the section creates another MOS:SANDWICH, so the only alternative is to remove the image entirely. I'll see if someone else has an opinion on the matter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
During its appearance on DYK, this article ran up 19,511 page views, which is quite astonishing for a non-lead article. There was some astonishment that Leahy was the highest-ranking US officer in World War II, when he is so little known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC) « 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)
Comment by CPA
- There are MOS:SANDWICH issues here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you remove the first paragraph in the lead? It looks a bit awkard.
- It is required (MOS:LEADSENTENCE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder why the Awards in the infobox don't have any medal ribbon images of the medals he earned? I mean it looks odd that William D. Leahy has medal ribbon images in his Awards while Crerar does not? This also applies to Crerar's rank.
- The ribbons were added to Leahy's article by Jmg38 (talk) on 4 July [3]; I don't normally use them. The rank and flag gets a bit tricky when applied to wartime Canada; the flag and rank badges are not the same as the ones used today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, CPA-5 and Hawkeye7. I would note that William D. Leahy is not an exact comparison. General Crerar's infobox is setup differently, not wrong, and is a fine example of a complete infobox military person, with terrific detail (I am impressed by the effective use of a Collapsible list on his long list of awards). I would point to Douglas MacArthur, itself a Featured article, as an example for a top overall general that does not include the ribbon images in the infobox. I have seen it done both with and without medal ribbons, but I note (and try to follow) that longer lists, like Crerar's and many other military people, generally do not have these. Again, just different, not wrong, between any large sample set of articles where infoboxes show medal ribbon images and a large sample set where the infoboxes go without. Jmg38 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- "three batteries of 18-pounders and one of the 4.5-inch howitzers" Convert to metric units?
- "for employing the corps's Newton 6-inch mortars in a counter-mortar" Same as above.
- "Crerar returned to Canada, where his CEF appointment" What's a CEF?
- It's defined above in the first paragraph of "First World War" (Canadian Expeditionary Force)
- "would build a good working relationship.[83][86][85]" Re-order the refs here.
- "Tac HQ more than 5 miles (8.0 km) from Main HQ" Remove the nought here.
- "of the British Second Army, Lieutenant General Miles Dempsey had expressed doubts" Isn't it Lieutenant-General?
- "The British government responded by appointing him a Companion of Honour on 3 July 1945.[112][113][111]" Re-order the refs here.
- "and was mentioned in despatches four more times.[129][130][131][132]" Remove one citation here per WP:CITETRIM.
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 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)
CPA
- Can you merge the first paragraph with the second one?
- "receive medical treatment for kidney stones" --> "receive medical treatment for his kidney stones"?
- Maybe add his role in the Portuguese Navy in the lead?
- "apprentice aboard Fortune, a 210-ton whaling vessel" Which kind of tons?
- "ground for the erection of tents.[52][51][53]" Re-order the refs.
- "receive replies to his dispatches from his superiors in London.[56][clarification needed]" There's a "clarification needed" template here?
- "through gift-giving, hilarity, and dancing, but also by showing them what their guns could do.[72][38]" Re-order the refs here.
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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)
Support Comments from Hawkeye7
Disclaimer: I usually stay far away from anything to do with Eastern Europe.
- Early life: I get a bit confused here. His family was Polish speaking? (You also later mention a family estate in Belarus.)
- General Władysław Wejtko -> Major General Władysław Wejtko. Same for Józef Kwaciszewski. Władysław Anders should be a Lieutenant General
- "retreating German troops" I wouldn't describe them that way. Since the war was over, they were returning to Germany?
- "By the end of the conclusion" Suggest simply "By the conclusion"
- "Following the war's end," We already said this. Suggest deleting this phrase.
- Wilno is linked twice, as is World War I. So too is Polish II Corps, which is also called Polish 2md Corps. Recommend standardising on the Roman numeral form.
- "promoted to the rank of plutonowy (corporal) and was designated as a non-commissioned officer" Aren't all corporals non-coms?
- He is not listed in the Polish Underground Navbox
- "how the Germans ran the then-new camp, which was thought to be an internment camp or large prison rather than a death camp" And they were correct; it would not be a death camp for another year.
- "the Germans were inciting Polish hatred against the Jews as a diversion from their own crimes" I think the motive was to encourage cooperation.
- Link Gestapo, SS-Untersturmführer, fall of communism in Poland
- " Pilecki was ordered by General Anders" Drop "General" after first mention.
- lieutenant colonel Jan Hryckowian. Captalised "lieutenant colonel"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 Good point re early life, I've added a source and some more details. His origins are a classic EE confusion story (Polish or Polonized nobility, living in what was then called Lithuania, now Belarus, see Grand Duchy of Lithuania for context, deported to Russia as a punishment for opposing the Russian occupation).
- Anyway, all done, outside your comment about "being correct" (not sure how to act on that). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
CPA
- Due he was born in the Russian Empire far away from Poland I think the Eastern Slavic naming customs should apply here.
- Citations in the lead are mostly unnecessary due the info is mostly mentioned in the body.
- "He was a descendant of a Polish-speaking noble family (szlachta)" So is he then Polish or was he a Lithuanian who spoke Polish?
- "January 1863–64 Uprising, for which a major part of their estate was confiscated.[10][1][11]" Re-order the refs here.
- There's a clear MOS:SANDWICH here.
- There are four howevers maybe reduce them?
- "ancestral estate, Sukurcze, in the Lida district" District needs an upper case.
- "Pilecki received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activities." I assume you mean that he got it because he organised the Krakus Military Horsemen Training program?
- Per MOS:DATETOPRES use "German forces on the night of 5/6 September".
- "sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz.[2]: 66 [3][4][5][7][14]: 85" Reduce the citations here per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
- "liberated on 29 April 1945.[7][9] [20]: 213" There's an unnecessary space between the citations.
- "one of their recipients was Polish prime minister Józef Cyrankiewicz" Prime minister needs upper cases.
- There are sentences where there are more than three citations maybe reduce them per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
- There are a lot of sources which have a Polish title maybe translate them?
As a Pole I'm happy to see another Polish nomination however I think there are some issues here to be addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CPA-5 I am unsure which parts of the article do you think should follow Eastern Slavic naming customs, could you elaborate?
- Due he was born in a country where Eastern Slavic naming customs are used i.e Russia, we should use his patronymic name instead of a middle name since that's what official documents would tell us.
- That is never done for Polish people, nor by any sources cited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Due he was born in a country where Eastern Slavic naming customs are used i.e Russia, we should use his patronymic name instead of a middle name since that's what official documents would tell us.
- Citations in the lead are there due to some editors in the past seeing some claims as controversial and requesting them there.
- Sources universally call him Polish, as I believe we do in the article. But see also my reply to Hawkeye7 above, and the sentence you mention was expanded due to his comment.
- I am sorry, I do not understand the concept of MOS:SANDWICH. If you have any suggestion show to fix it, please say so. I don't think we should be removing any images and they are in correct sections. We could remove the 'Location of Białystok in the borders of 1920 Poland' map, which admittedly is not very relevant. would that help?
- Both File:Drużyna harcerska z Orła n. Oką 1917 Witold Pilecki Witold Ferchmin.png and File:1920 Bialystok map Poland by Henryk Arctowski BPL 10105.png are MOS:SANDWICH issues because we should try to avoid sandwiching tekst between images and images or infobox. Personally I'm not sure how to fix this to be honest. @Gog the Mild: do you have an idea?
- Nobody came up with a solution so I suggest leaving things s they are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both File:Drużyna harcerska z Orła n. Oką 1917 Witold Pilecki Witold Ferchmin.png and File:1920 Bialystok map Poland by Henryk Arctowski BPL 10105.png are MOS:SANDWICH issues because we should try to avoid sandwiching tekst between images and images or infobox. Personally I'm not sure how to fix this to be honest. @Gog the Mild: do you have an idea?
- Reduced howevers by one, as one was not needed.
- Fixed District.
- Regarding the medal, I think the sources do not provide specific reason outside something like "extra activity/activism in the field related to civic and military responsibilities" etc.
- Changed to 5/6 although frankly I don't think MOS version is more clear. But meh.
- Citations for volunteering are important as this part was heavily contested in the past and edit warred over, so numerous citations are there to prevent someone claiming this not the dominant, established narrative.
- Capitalized Prime Minister (should we linked it to Polish Prime Minister?).
- Good point let's link that.
- Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good point let's link that.
- I counted two places with 4 citations (aside of the volunteer case mentioned above) and reduced the number to 3 or less.
- I will add translated titles to references soon.
- Thank you for your review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)