Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles  → Nominations for deletion talk The Academy talk
Departments Assessment talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ  → Assessment requests Contest talk Logistics talk Review talk  → Review alert box
Special projects Great War Centennial talk Majestic Titan talk
Internal organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active / Inactive  → Banners and userboxes Awards talk Stress hotline talk Portals talk Project banner talk Project category
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge talk  → Military award talk  → Military conflict talk  → Military memorial talk  → Military person talk  → Military structure talk  → Military test site talk  → Military unit talk  → National military talk  → War faction talk  → Weapon talk  → Command structure talk  → Operational plan talk  → Service record talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces
General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military land vehicles talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk
Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Lebanese military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Pakistani military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk
Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk Cold War talk
edit · changes

The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Battle of Polygon Wood

I don't know where I'd like to take this article, but I'd appreciate any suggestions. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jackyd101

A few pointers.

• This battle did not happen in a vacumn and a reader should be able to come to it and broadly understand what is going on without reference to other articles. I am pretty knowledgeable about this period, and even I struggled to properly contextualise it. You have to have some form of background section explaining why this battle was necessary in the context of the Passchendaele campaign and the wider war as a whole, why it was fought at this location and what the attackers ambitions were. At the moment this is patchy and unclear.
• More on the German side of things. The infobox particularly is pretty bare: don't we even know which units the attack was aimed at?
• At the moment the battle describes things in broad sweeps: with five divisions attacking together there must have been more detailed battle plans than simply advancing. Likewise there should be more information on specific targets and defensive positions, and on the activity of the various attacking units: presumably some fared better than others?
• You need a source for the feature of the Plummer battles comment. In any case, this really should be in another section, looking at the historiographical aspects of the battle.
• No where does it explain what the consequences of the battle were: what effect did it have on the strategic situation within the battle of Passchendaele?

Just a few thoughts on how to expand this article, good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AustralianRupert

Hi, not a bad start. These are my suggestions:

• The article uses the term 'Australian Royal Flying Corps', please check this for accuracy. I've never heard it before, usually it is just Australian Flying Corps, I think;
• endashs are used where you should just use normal hyphens, e.g. stretcher-bearers, not stretcher–bearers.
• The images are creating a large amount of whitespace in the notes section, could they be re-arranged or put in a gallery?
• The first paragraph of the Battle section is confusing, "Australian Fifth Divisions' 3rd and 59th Division" sounds like the 3rd and 59th Division was part of the 5th, but that can't be right, surely?
• Per WP:MOS dates shouldn't be linked.
• Date ranges should have endashes, and either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes should be used where hyphens are used like parentheses, e.g. in the Aftermath section "all their objectives - woods, blockhouses and trenches - and suffered 1,717", the hyphens in that sentece should be either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
• The Battle and Aftermath sections need to be expanded to include more detail if possible.
• The References section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname.
• There is some confusion of style in terms of divisional designations, in one instance the article spell's the numerical designation of a unit, and then later uses a number, for instance Fourth Division and 4th Division. Consistancy is the key. I think they should all use the number as that appears to be more common, although I admit that many sources from the time also have a lack of consistancy in this regard.

Anyway, that is it for the moment. Hope these help. Thanks for your contribution and good luck with future development of the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Rose

Yes, good start and useful selection of images. Jacky and Rupert have covered a fair bit, but some other things:

• Following up on Rupert's initial comment, it must be either Australian Flying Corps or Royal Flying Corps but not a mixture (that said, and just to confuse, AFC squadrons carried RFC numbers as well until 1918, e.g. No. 1 Squadron AFC was No. 67 Squadron RFC to the British, but just check your source and hopefully it will be clear).
• Following up on one of Jacky's comments, can we at least determine the general makeup of German forces, and the number of German casualties, for the infobox?
• The intro suggests that until Plumer started his 'bite and hold' tactics, the general rule of attack had been major frontal assaults, but the latter assertion isn't really extrapolated and cited in the main body of the article.
• Before the Great War, Polygon Wood was by the Belgian Army... It was what by the Belgian Army - owned, utilised, etc?
• Unless the Aftermath and Memorial sections were to be expanded I think I'd combine them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take this list to FLC in the near future. I would particularly like to know what further information other editors feel should be included in the lead to make the introduction of the subject complete. Other comments on general FLC-type issues would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As the original author of the article I welcome someone trying to get it up to FLC. I had to work pretty hard to get it to B, (adding in the London Gazette citations took quite while to locate and then link) so I got tired and moved on. Anyway, one suggestion I have is that perhaps an image of the recipients could be added to the table. I've seen this done before with some of the Medal of Honor and Knights/Iron Cross lists. Many of the Gurkha recipient articles have images already, and others could be sourced from the IWM, I think. Just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion I have is to try to get rid of those red links, as they cut down on visual appeal of the article. I don't know whether its a requirement or not, but if you could create some stubs or find appropriate pipes that made them blue it wouldn't draw the eye off the content so much. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the Military history project talk page, directing any interested parties to the peer review, so hopefully some more comments will come soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I didn't realize you were still interested in the article (I checked the history and there hadn't been any edits for quite a while), so I would love any help you are willing to give on this - I'm not trying to steal your thunder or anything :) The photos sound like a good idea, I'll work on adding those, and fixing the red links is also something that needs to be done, although there are only a few of them and they probably won't take away from the FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would recommend that you have a good look at the other Victoria Cross related lists that User:Woody has raised to FL level, and see if you can extract some ideas from them. Also, it might be a good idea to contact Woody and see if he would comment on the article as he is a great source for knowledge and experience on lists in general, but especially on those pertaining to the Victoria Cross. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've taken a look at some of the VC FLs that Woody has written, and can't seen anything major that this article leaves out, although I'm wondering if it might not be best to combined the lead and the first section. I've dropped a note to Woody, though, asking him to comment here on the issues raised (photos, completeness, article naming), so hopefully he'll stop by! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to name this article "List of Brigade of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross", given that several of the recipients are not actually Gurkhas but served with the regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see your point. Possibly, but I'd like to see what others have to say on the subject, especially AustralianRupert. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure about this myself. I can see where you're coming from as the terminology here is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that even then the term would be correct, as I don't believe that the Brigade of Gurkhas existed until after the Second World War (I might be wrong, not sure on this point). If I'm correct, however, then it would really only be a list of one, as there has been only one post Second World War Gurkha VC. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair point, although the lede section might need to clarify that in this list then, as it currently implies the Brigade of Gurkas has been around since 1815. I do really think the name needs to be better worded though. The link to Gurka tells the reader that a Gurka is someone of Nepalese or Northern Indian descent, and that apparently comes from the International Journal of Human Genetics. A fair portion of the men in this list aren't, and while they have every right to be there, I'd have thought calling the list "Gurka recipients" would be pretty misleading. to about List of Gurkha Regiment recipients of the Victoria Cross? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Or List of Gurka regiments recipients of the Victoria Cross to avoid suggesting a particular regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent) Hmm, I appear to have walked into a minefield in naming this article in the first instance. As a combat engineer, I'm frankly quite embarrased! ;-) Anyway, I will have to do an IMAP on this one and get back to you. (Only sort of joking, as I will have to have a think about this). I do agree with your point about the name as it is confusing, but I'm just not sure of the correct solution just yet. Two up, one back is the template solution, of course, but I'm not sure it applies here...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why not just take out all the non Gurkhas, all the others are included in the other lists and the Gurkhas are also included in the Indian Army list. I would also then suggest the list is moved to the nationality area in the template. Also the entrys for Allmand and Pun needs to be changed to 6th Gurkha Rifles they were not names Queen Elizabeths at the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that Gurkha is actually a nationality is it? Also, to my mind, duplicating recipients in two different nationality lists seems a bigger problem (see this chat). I prefer the armed force categories personally, and I think serving with a Gurkha regiment would make one eligible to be in this list, but the title should reflect the contents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, the minefield had more depth than I realised...I'm with Ranger Steve on this one, but of course if concensus is against it I'll go with that. Any list I've seen of "Gurkha" VC recipients has included the British/Indian Army Officers attached to the various Gurkha regiments. I compiled this list based on those in Parker and on the British Army website that listed Gurkha VCs. In this case the term Gurkha is being used not as a nationality but as a branch of service descriptor. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh I don't know about a minefield as such, I prefer to think of us as sweeping for leftover mines! Anyway, I guess what concerns me about the title is that it currently uses a racial distinguisher (Gurkha) to describe a 'military unit' defined list. The situation would probably be worse if we used a racial factor to define a nationality defined list! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Title: I agree with the majority above, this list should go down the "unit" route so List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients would probably be best. Perhaps a RM should be opened and we can get more opinions?

List: In terms of the actual list, I think it looks very good.

• To keep it consistent with the others, you don't really need the "Eligibility" header, it can just merge into the lead and then align the Gurkhas image to the left.
• The image should be probably be changed to the one without the medal bar. No Gurkha has been awarded the VC and bar. (We only recently amended the image so we probably need to do it across a number of articles.
• I fixed the sorting for you.
• Other than that, as I said above, it all looks very good and once the title is sorted I would take it to FLC. Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments (and thanks to everyone else too!). I would also support a change to "List of Brigade of Gurkhas...", as this seems like the best descriptor for the contents of the list. I will work on the formatting and image changes that have been listed above my multiple editors soon, probably starting tonight. Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Jerusalem (637)

Need suggestions to improve the article. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fifelfoo

I'm addressing my comments primarily to Sourcing and Referencing / Citation formats.

WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is your friend. You will want to pick a citation style and stick to it.

• Centuryone is not an RS
• Elliott Horowitz ""The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice": Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614" Jewish Social Studies 4 (2) [no date supplied in online version] is incorrectly cited. Locate the original. It is a High Quality RS (peer reviewed).
• Hunt footnotes from Gil, Moshe (February 1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge University Press. pp. 70–71. and use them
• Antiochus Strategos, [The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD] "Antiokh Strateg, Playnenie Jerusalima Persami [Manuscript, Georgian]" trans. F.C. CONYBEARE, English Historical Review 25 1910: 502-517. is miscited. Its also a primary source. Anything you take from it should either be used as an illustrative photograph (ie: quoted). Instead you're using it for Original Research, a big no no, "The True Cross was captured and taken to Ctesiphon as a battle-captured holy relic." is not sustainable from a corrupt Georgian MS. Even then you'd need to say, According to Antiokh Strateg's transmitted account... and that would still be OR.
• Waqidi: Fatuh al sham vol: 1 page. 162, full cite required
• Isfahani: Vol. 15, pp. 12, 56. full cite required
• islamicperspectives.com is not RS
• The Norman Golb interview is not RS
• "Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies" 's briefing paper is not an RS
• Edward Gibbon is grossly miscited, and links to a summary website

How to move forward. Find scholarly press histories of the city of Jerusalem. Raid their bibliography for footnotes. Acquire the secondary sources from scholarly presses / journals from the footnotes. Read them, raid their bibliography. Unfortunately the literature on Jerusalem's history is... corrupted... by religious and political people of all kinds publishing in popular presses. Stick to academic presses. Is there an Osprey? Get the Osprey, raid the Osprey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laurinavicius

Well, the biggest problem that I see, other than the problems with the references and citations (which Fifelfoo has already pointed out), is that, overall, the article's grammar is quite poor. Simply, there are quite a few grammatical errors. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to give some specific examples, seeing as it's pretty late right now where I live and I'm about to go to bed, but, if you want me too, I'll be able to compile them tomorrow afternoon/evening (for me, that is about 19:30 UTC - 1:00). However, a good ol' copyedit should correct all of these problems, which I'll get to work on doing tomorrow. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] YellowMonkey

Did Al Aqsa and the Sepulchre look roughly like that in the old days, or have lots of extra bits been added. If the latter, an old painting is probably a more accurate representation YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Llywrch

I'm taking a slightly different approach to this article than Fifelfoo did. First, while the previous capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 is relevant, you get too involved in the details of that capture (many of which are still disputed by experts) to remember to explain why it is relevant: the holiest city in Christiandom had been captured by a (gasp!) non-Christian. Although Heraclitus had recovered the city within a few years, to lose it again might cause another blow to Christian morale. That would explain why (1) Umar selected it as a target over Caesarea, & (2) its garrison held out for so long.

I see no problem referring to primary sources where the content is not controversial, it is a vital source for the historical event, or it is well-written. But in this case, there is really no point in using it to state that the True Cross was taken as loot to Ctesiphon -- especially since you fail to mention it again. (Was it back in Jerusalem when the Muslim army started their siege?) This is only one of many details of the earlier capture which are controversial -- & really unnecessary here.

On the other hand, you have very little about what happened during the siege. Was it a close siege -- or a loose one, which allowed the inhabitants to resupply themselves? Were they prepared? What condition were the walls of the city in? And did the Muslims have the ability to take Jerusalem by assault? Maybe they had the technology, but decided not to do so because an assault would have been more costly than a siege. These are all questions which need answers -- or at least an explanation that no one knows the answer.

Lastly, there is the passage about Sophronius inviting the Caliph to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There are some questions here which this article should not attempt to answer (e.g. did Sophronius actually think Umar was a Christian, even if a heretical one?), but if you are going to use Edward Gibbon here you should quote him -- or find another source to cite. (Sophronius mentions this incident, & cites a perfectly RS for it -- Runciman's A History of the Crusades, vol. 1.)

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Llywrch your advices are really constructive and many thanks for them i will shortly work on them. also user Fifelfoo and user Laurinaviciusput forward some really interesting issues i will work on them too. as for the question of user yellowmonkey, so yes thats a nice question indeed probably the images on article need a bit details to clarify the past and present status of the building.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I have made some changes to the article as advised in the review, please check it again for further suggestions if any.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning

A bit offbeat for MILHIST, but fun. In 1918 Irving Berlin got drafted and wrote this song about a universal sentiment shared by everyone who's ever served in the military. The song became the biggest hit of a fundraising benefit for Camp Upton during World War I and saw a revival during World War II (because in terms of years, if not hours, the message is timeless). Already a featured sound and a GA. Seeking input toward possible FAC. Durova³⁵⁵ 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fifelfoo

Its hard to fault your sourcing, but I'm a rat, so lets go.

Some of your presses are obscure, consider universally adding press locations.

No cites from before 1984? Most citations with links to online editions? Consider trying a library / the extent of your Full Text On Net bias? Are there any sources you haven't used due to age? Any major bios of Irving pre 1984?

Reception: any major newspaper reviews from the time it occurred. Yes, this is effectively asking for primary sources, but we could enjoy newspaper column reviews. For ease of access a number of major US newspapers have long catalogues online now.

Reception over time within US armed forces by servicemen and women?

Non US reception?

Subversive receptions / filking / obscene parodies?

Consider taking to Featured Article Candidates? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. Have rooted through the city and county libraries as well as the interlibrary loan circuit. Out here the municipal libraries tend to sell old biographies. Might have a few more nuggets to glean from the local UC campus, but archival newspaper reports about 90-year-old theatrical revues in New York City is a bit hard to glean from San Diego. :) There may be more about the WWII shows and possibly information about a late recording. Thank you for the intriguing and tough review. :) Durova³⁵⁷ 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried The New York Times' archive search? :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Dig, dig Durova³⁵⁷ 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USS Constitution

• Previous peer review when the article was sub-B-class is here

Been almost a year since passing to FA. I'm quite confident this article still meets FA requirements. I've maintained the article with updating and adding alt text, reverting silliness etc. Since going FA I have removed two large chunks of information and moved them to the main original six frigate article. I also went through and removed some of the more trivial things that were awkward and difficult to place in prose correctly. Therefore I'm hoping to get feedback on the flow and prose of the article. Is it still understandable to the average reader? Did moving the information leave some things unexplained? I have never been totally thrilled with the prose and flow of the article so copy edits are welcome. It's also hard to believe a year has passed! --Brad (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fifelfoo

Cite nitpicks

Full stops at the end of all cites?

No date, volume, edition, pages (other magazine cites in the same boat where you've referenced an online version): Cuticchia, Rosalie A. "Celebrating The History Of The U.S.S. Constitution". Marblehead Magazine.

Citation date consistency: Hendrix, Steve (16 November 2003) but yet Jennings 1966

Add to bibliography, repeatedly cited: DANFS.

Spacing: Jennings 1966, p.70

fn114. DANFS wikilinked for no apparent reason.

fn150: No author supplied, article from the 1970s, expectation of attribution in the 1970s Other news articles lack authors. Consider implementing [Staff Writer] for unnamed newsarticles from the 20th century onwards. Colon breaks your newspaper citation style consistency (see fn98). There are other floating colons in newscites, pick one way, stick. ""Happy 200th party for U. S.". Chicago Tribune: p. C12. 30 December 1976."

fn148 American Forests not ital? Publisher? Magazine? Unclear with your citation style.

fn157 contains location data on a book. Not all books have location data. Standardise one way or the other, or the middle way (no location when location obvious from University Publisher).

Well done in keeping the article's references that well for over a year! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Triangle Hill

Previous reviews here and here

After working on this for another period, I just want to see where this article stands right now and is there anything left to do before I attempt another formal review.

Two points that were brought up by the previous reviews are Chinese sources and copyediting, and I want to clarify those two points before repeating the old discussions again.

• Chinese source: The source I used for the Chinese side of the story is based on the recommendations from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is considered high quality source in Chinese academia circle. The only places where I used Chinese sources are about Chinese command decisions, troop deployments, troop strength and casualties, which there are no reliable Western source coverage. Most of the facts (aside from footnote #6) from the Chinese source are verified by equivalent Western sources.
• Copyediting: I have been trying to enlist people to copyedit this article given my rather poor copyediting skills, but it seems no one is interested in the topic. I would like to use this review to bring in some interested editors on helping me to improve this article.

Anyway, please drop feedbacks here. Jim101 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anotherclown

A few quick points:

• Dates need to be delinked
• Use endashes for date ranges
• The 'See also' tags at the top of the page unduly dominate the lead, IMO. They could probably be reduced somewhat in size.

Remove the one about the Iraq War...not that well known anyway.

• Some of the paragraphs are very short. For instance just two sentences long, this makes some of the prose a little abrupt.

I have been trying to clean up the text for a while, looks like I'm over doing it.

• Needs a copy edit for some minor typos etc.
• The infobox looks cluttered and untidy - maybe it has too much information?

Trimmed.

• All images have ALT text, there are no dab links, although there may be some issues with a few of the external links (I'm a newbie with the Feature Article tools but check it out at: Wikipedia:Featured article tools and see what you think.

I can access all links, but the tools complained.

Anyway I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jim101 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fifelfoo

Citation nitpick:

Full cite in bibliography please, editor of the Rev. Ed. at least and trans.? Korean Institute of Military History (2001). The Korean War. Volume III. University of Nebraska Press.

Interesting point...I never found the author of the book, the copyright page didn't say anything useful.

Try the publisher, Volume 1 seems to have information for all three vols. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, fixed. Jim101 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Zhou 2000 is extensively cited. Please supply § and ¶ identifiers for the claims. If ordered using a non-Western system, please supply Chinese academic system claim position identifiers (line no?).

I broke down the citations to chapter, section and paragraph format according to the structure of the Chinese source. Although I have to point out that Chinese academic writing system is a mess in comparison to here.

Its beautiful, and verifiable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider adding locations for non academic presses (ie presses with non-obvious locations)

Add all locations except one case (China-Defence.com) where location cannot be found.

Inconsistent formatting of date position within citation "Zhou 2000" but "Korean War. (2009)" Brackets for all or brackets for none

Fixed

Miscite of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Allan R. Millett is the signed author. Citation (a) is obvious, and should be cited from a Survey history instead of a generalist encyclopedia. I'll give you (b) use of Millett only because he's a final career grade milhist specialist. I am very much dog doesn't eat dog about citing EB.

Fixed

Notes 4 and 5 cite Zhou 2000 inline... are you using inline or footnoting?.. I'll let it pass, but remove the brackets. If these are notes acting as footnotes as well, then Zhou shouldn't be bracketted.

Bracket removed

fn31b "the Koreans failed to recapture the hill due to the rainy weather and the lack of air support" I don't think TIME can support this claim of a counterfactual military science assessment

Removed

fn21 Martin is meant to support "the 1st and 3rd US battalions still suffered ninety-six fatalities, with an additional three hundred thirty seven men wounded in the first attack — the heaviest casualties the 31st Infantry Regiment had suffered in a single battle in the course of the war." as a result of oral history? This is so Original Research that it hurts. Even if Martin was part of the command team as an officer, its really quite iffy. The cite sounds like a report / transcript of the interview, not an oral history analysis of the interview by a specialist historian.

Replaced with citation #7.

Dates inconsistent, "Jan/Feb 2009" but "Retrieved February 04, 2009." but "Retrieved 2009-02-05.". Pick one. Stick to it. Even within a single ref "The New York Times. 1997-02-10. Retrieved 5 February 2009."

Fixed

Full stops at the end of cites. Some have it. Some don't. Pick and consistent?

Fixed

Pretty good. Look forward to the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Jim101 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger II

Now, after improving the article to B and GA, I'd like to progress it further; to A and perhaps even FA. I'd like some advice from more experienced editors on how to achieve this. Hohum (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Just a few minor MoS points, though the article looks pretty good.

• The lead is meant to be a summary of the contents of the article, so does not require cites.

I'm confused, that entry specifically says "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." Hohum (talk)

WP:LEADCITE states that, basically, if everything in the lead is covered and cited in the body (as it should be), than cites in the lead are redundant unless it is a quote or rather contentious point. Also, cites in the lead are generally discourage by most editors. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Emdashes should be unspaced.

I've dealt with these in various ways. some changed to more appropriate en dashes, rewording, semicolons, etc. Hohum (talk)

• Internet-based cites require access dates.

Done. Hohum (talk)

• Words should be in full form and not contractions. For example, "did not" instead of "don't".

Done. Hohum (talk)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine

• A solid effort overall, but the intro needs tweaking as per above comments. Also, I question the following under the section on Reliability and mobility it states: Also, notwithstanding its reliability problems, the Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that its mobility was as good or better than most German or Allied tanks. This was true for its on road performance, however its performance cross country left a lot to be desired. Over difficult terrain it often slowed to a crawl and its engines overheated under the strain. This is where the majority of its mechanical failures took place. As a result it was frequently used in a defensive role as a moving pill box, instead of the Sturmpanzer it was intended to be.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Doyle and Jentz specifically take the line given, so I am giving a single sentence reflecting it. The rest of the article has many examples of the reliability problems, so I think the overall balance is correct. Is that OK? Hohum (talk)

That's ok by me...however I am a bit of a gearhead when it comes to tanks. The general reader might get lost in a sea of technical details. Without a clear explanation they will see only a big, evil looking panzer which they will assume must have been world beating, when this was not the case.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nick-D

This is a very solid article. While I know little about tanks, it appears comprehensive and well cited and is well illustrated. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The lead should cover the tank's combat performance given that this is part of the article
• The rationale for dividing material between the 'Development' and 'design' sections seems unclear. Also, one of these sections should state whether or not this tank was developed from the Tiger I or was a new design. An explanation of why Germany thought the tank was worth developing and its intended role would also be useful.

I've used "Development" to contain the initial, competing projects - while "Design" is what actually got produced. I'm open to suggestions for better section names. Hohum (talk)

• Do we know why 1,500 tanks were ordered or their unit cost?
• The 'Operational history' section is focused almost entirely on tank vs tank battles. How did the Tiger II fare against aircraft and infantry?
• A discussion of the relative cost and benefits of the Tiger II would be useful; Germany's high-tech weapons are often criticised for using resources that could have been used to produce larger numbers of other weapons (eg, would the resources used to develop, build and field the Tiger II have been better used on Panthers, etc?)

I'd prefer just to cite expense (money, man hours, resources) rather than get in to the argument on how it could be better spent - that seems beyond the scope of the article, and is also a sure way to attract a lot of contentious edits. Hohum (talk)

• Some material in the 'Surviving vehicles' section needs to be cited. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, useful insights, I will work on each of these. Hohum (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MisterBee1966

• The German abbreviation Ausf. stands for Ausführung (English: variant) and should be explained.

Rather than clutter the lead with explanations, I have added a note. Hohum (talk)

• Something is wrong with the table below "Armor layout: (all angles from horizontal)". The line above the table is cut in half. I can only see see the upper half of that line.

It looks fine to me in FF3.5 and IE8. What browser are you using? Hohum (talk)

Edit. Ok, I see the problem, I think it is now fixed.Hohum (talk)

• You write: Units which used the Tiger II were as follows.

Heer: (S.H.Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511

SS: (s.SS Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503

Somewhere else you write "Turret number 121 from SS s.PzAbt. 101", shouldn't the PzAbt. 101 be listed too?

SS s.PzAbt. 101 was renamed SS s.PzAbt. 501 when it got the Tiger II. I'll adjust this for consistency. Hohum (talk)

• S.H.Pz.Abt I think that this should be s.H.Pz.Abt

I have made the abbreviations consistent now. Hohum (talk)

[edit] Battle of the Nile

For anyone who grew up with Spike Milligan's unique perspective on "The boy stood on the burning deck" this article is essential. For everyone else, I apologise for the length - I just didn't know how to fit it all in (in fact I didn't and an article on the overall campaign is in the works). This has been at the back of my mind for a while and I hope to take it at least to GA, although I'm aware that without working in Oliver Warner and Brian Laverty's seminal texts I might have difficulty at FA. The Nile really was one of the most astonishing achievements of Nelson's ridiculously over-achieving life. He attacked a marginally stronger French fleet in an ostensibly strong defensive position, with nightfall approaching in an enemy harbour for which he had no charts and with the nearest support more than two thousand miles to the west. Not only did he defeat the French, he annhilated them, destroying or capturing 11 out of 13 battleships and trapping the cream of the French Army on the wrong side of the Mediterranean. The battle is full of examples of just how tough these guys were: the French admiral refused to leave his post even after a cannonball chopped him in half, while one of his captains responded to losing both legs and an arm by having his men prop him up in a bucket of grain so he could continue to command his ship. Any comments welcome, particularly on prose and images, and thankyou to those that get through the whole thing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Just a few quick, general, comments:

• Referencing and presentation appear to be of a high order, and alt text is present.
• The presentation of the date in the infobox is that of a US date format, while the rest of the article is in the British format.
• There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates in the citations.

I think that is all I could spot on a quick run through. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Solved both issues, thanks very much for the comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ranger Steve

I think it's brilliant Jackyd, a fantastic expansion and brilliant detail. I've made minor change to clarify the Nile Clumps, it's not clear exactly who planted them or when, but it's believed they were planted by Baron Douglas after Trafalger. The only other thing that struck me as I read through was the Aboukir Bay section; the second para describes the geography, the fleet's disposition and a flaw (in the disposition). The 3rd para opens with a another flaw and then a few more problems, before going onto non disposition problems (food). Any chance of having seperate paragraphs for geography/disposition/flaws, or geography/disposition/disposition flaws/other problems for example? (Hope this makes sense) Ranger Steve (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense, thankyou. I've gone with roughly geography/disposition/disposition flaws/other problems, which I think makes it clearer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] British Army during World War II

This is a huge subject area and there must be lots missing, inaccurate etc but I would like to take this onto A Class so as always any and all comments gratefully received. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skinny87

• Well, from an initial look-through, there's work to be done, but it's in a reasonably good condition.
• The 'Armies' section made my eyes go funny after a few seconds; although they're needed, the descriptions are rather same-y and certainly need to be reworked into a more flowing format.

Subsections now added so hopefully it will prevent more damage to your eyes.

• The same goes for the 'Commanders' section. In fact, perhaps it might be more beneficial to get rid of thjose two sections and introduce the various commanders and formations as they appear through the article. It would certainly help the article flow better, and make more sense chronilogically.

Section now deleted and commanders added to the text where they enter (in fact apart from Ironsides they were already in)

• The 'Campaigns 1940' etc titles are technically accurate, but seem a tad bland and might benefit from a rethink - even just the addition of an 'of' might help things out.

I have changed this with Campaigns as the main headings with subsection headings 1940,1941 etc.

I have made this comment on the talk page but might as well bring it up here too, i feel that the wording and the subsections are a tad misleading. To me they give the impression that there was several campaigns fought, each named after their particular year. Is there not another word we can use to replace the word campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I realize this might not be the most helpful of details, so sorry. But all of the campaigns need a lot more detail; to see the entire Battle of France summed up in a small paragraph, for example, is much less than is needed.

Point taken I was trying to avoid writing the Battle of France article again, will revist this.

• There will also be a need for a great deal of analysis throughout the article, especially in terms of the Army's performance in France in 1940, North Africa and North-West Europe. Your 'bible' for this, so to speak, should be David French's Raising Churchill's Army. It is an exhaustive and rigorous academic text on the Army during the conflict, giving a chronological analysis as well as examining and critiquing weapons, officers and other ranks, battle tactics and so forth. It's a recommended text for all military history courses dealing with the British Army during that period at my old university, and deservedly so. French's other work on the British Army during the period should also be looked at, as should texts by Paddy Griffith. Skinny87 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - I think there was a copy of Raising Churchill's Army in the Library --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Buckshot06

• An accessible timeline in some sort of infobox is key, to link this article with the rest of the British army history articles. Buckshot06(prof) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the History of the British Army and Timeline of the British Army as part of the British Army template. Or do you mean something like this ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's almost exactly what I mean. A box with the 'British Army in the 1600s,' 'British Army in the 1700s,' 'British Army in the 1800s,' 'British Army in World War I,' and 'British Army in the Cold War,' articles, or what exists in their place at the moment. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There must be article I can add to the template then - will have a search later today --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok here my attempt at the time line --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Think you also need to check whether 2 NZ Division was really available for Operation Compass - you list one New Zealand brigade (the 4th, I think) as part of O'Connor's force. No other source I've seen includes the New Zealanders as part of the WDF and I believe they were acclimatising back in Egypt under control of HQ British Troops Egypt. Buckshot06(prof) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reworded and clarified in theatre but not involvd inCompass --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I think that the NZ troops and (7th Australian Division) were acclimatising/training and providing garrison forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you confirm when 7th Australian arrived I have conflicting dates ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On the time line, that's not what I meant. There is a British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, British Army during the Victorian Era, and British Army during World War I. Missing are the 1600s and 1700s. The small timeline articles all cover data in the main History of the British Army article and can be safely deleted (I can do it myself if you wish.) Buckshot06(prof) 05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This above is what I meant. Buckshot06(prof) 05:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nick-D

This article is indeed in pretty good shape. It's very comprehensive, well referenced and well written - great work. My suggestions for further development are:

• The article would benefit from more images. Diagrams of the key organisational structures would be invaluable.

I have asked Noclador to assist with unit line diagrams. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The section on the Army's organisational changes is fascinating, but may be over-long. I'd suggest that you split this (or at least the section on armoured units) into a separate article

Yes see where your coming from here - there also seems to be a bit of an edit war going on between two users so I will wait until that has been resolved. Interestedly their input has the makings of a decent stand alone article on British WWII Armoured Divisions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was only really a conflict over wording and not content, which we have both backed down from - but i still disagree with the parentheses within the section.

What are we looking to trim from this section so it is more streamlined? Most of the first two paragraphs and the last one? Although i would argue that the comments from French etc have to remain to provide historial anyalsis within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Much more coverage is needed of the recruitment and increasing integration of women into the Army during the war

• The 'Comparison of equipment' section is a bit simplistic and contains some mistakes. For instance, it's not the case that "German panzer and light divisions were equipped with the Panzer III and Panzer IV, which could out gun all British tanks." - Panzer IIs were a core part of the German armoured force until after the Battle of France and British tanks performed reasonably well in the western desert. The section also ignores the importance of logistics.

Added some text to try and make this clearer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Australian 6th Division is missing from the list of forces under O'Connor's command in 1941 (it replaced the 4th Indian Division when that was withdrawn after the start of his offensive) Y Done

• The article struggles a bit with the integrated nature of the Commonwealth force; I don't think that it's correct to refer to the forces sent to Greece and Crete as being 'British' given that Australian and NZ troops made up a high proportion of their strength and actually commanded the combat forces (the Australian I Corps - renamed the ANZAC Corps - was the field command in Greece and Crete was under the command of the NZ Division). I'd suggest that the term 'Commonwealth' be used to describe such mixed forces. Stating that the non-British units in Hong Kong (which made up the majority of the force there) only 'assisted' the two British battalions also seems wrong. Y Done

• • I disagree. We should use the terms in use at the time, which were 'British,' while potentially explicitly noting that that may be a bit misleading, and saying why. Let's not create wiki-inventions, but stick to historical usages. Buckshot06(prof) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  To be honest i think this is the wrong approach to take; its not a-historical to note that the force sent to Greece was Commonwealth or Allied etc because to use the term "British" would be historically inaccurate. Writing in the modern era we are not tied to wording of the past and i have seen few historians write in modern works; there are plenty of examples where this idea would be found to be rather offensive.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The coverage of the campaigns of 1944, which were the Army's largest (and arguably most important) of the war seems a bit short compared to the coverage of earlier years.

• The article doesn't cover the British involvement in Greece in 1944/45, which included a fairly large Army force

• There's also no coverage of the Army's deployments and campaigns in the months after the war. These included a corps-level amphibious operation in Malaya (which had been scheduled to take place in September anyway had the Japanese not surrendered), fighting in Indonesia and Vietnam, formation of occupation forces for Germany and Japan, etc. Coverage of the Army's demobilisation might also be interesting.

• More coverage of the Army's manpower problems in the last years of the war might be warranted; this imposed a significant limitation on how combat units could be used and contributed greatly to Britain's declining influence. The associated war weariness of many formations might also be worth noting - the 7th Armoured Division's mixed performance in Normandy is often attributed to it's men feeling that they'd done their part, and the men of the 8th and 14th Armies were pretty sour about being ignored in 1944/45 (some sources argue that this played an important role in the Labour Party's victory in the 1945 general election).

• It would be interesting if there was coverage of how British doctrine changed over the war. While the article discusses the poor state of the Army in 1939, the massive improvements which had been made by 1945 are never really explicitly covered. The emphasis on cooperation with the other services was particularly important in explaining the Army's greatly improved performance in the later years of the war, but isn't really covered here. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW - Thanks for the review this will give me some work to do --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jackyd101

I'm not certain if these comments have been mentioned above, but I think there are a number of areas that could improve with attention.

• The armies and army groups would be better on a sub-page and the information summarised, probably under "Organisation".
• Take care with selection of images. There are a lot available, so only go for those that are good quality and clearly illustrate or highlight a point. At the moment they look like they've been added as an afterthought and get a bit messy.
• Far more required on casualties - by campaign, prisoners of war, number and treatment of wounded.

  I believe i have the figures for the NW Europe and the Italian campaign however the others i.e. East and North Africa, the Middle East and Asia may be very hard to come by. However i will add in the stuff i have.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Something is needed on support services - logistical, engineering and medical support was absolutely essential during the war but there is nothing specific on any of them that I can see in this article.

Just a few quick thoughts, but these seem like important areas for expansion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RNLB Mary Stanford

I request a peer review of this article, I want to raise awareness of the only lifeboat to be awarded a gold medal (boat as distinct from the crew) being left to rot. I waited until now until I received a just published book. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had to go abroad 5Nov - 18Nov and will have limited access to the internet (just internet cafes) and no access to books - therefore I have to put any responses on hold until then - thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brad101

I hadn't noticed you posted for a formal review. What I said on my talk page I'll repeat here just for kicks. The next step would be a good article review if it meets the good article criteria. The lead section should be expanded and make sure there are inline citations on every paragraph in the article. In its current condition the article does need some work to make GA but not a substantial amount of work. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pity I cannot add add this postage stamp image -- ClemMcGann (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Graph (P715)

Article for the captured U-boat U-570 (HMS Graph). It's clearly no longer a start class article as most substantial facts about its career have now been covered. But I'm sure it still needs work to smooth out unnoticed mistakes. Catsmeat (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brad101

What exactly are your goals for this article? If I were going to rate the article this minute, it wouldn't meet B-class as the lead section is too short. There are also missing citations on several paragraphs. If those two issues are dealt with then it will pass B-class. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess my objective is to take it to B, then see how it goes. To be honest, I think there are bits that need expanding if it's to be taken further. In particular, the boat's combat career with the Royal Navy. I came across some forum posting that claimed she was used to patrol the Bay of Biscay as a kind of decoy, to attack U-boats going out on, and returning from, North Atlantic patrols. Though I've found no reference that confirms this.

Regarding references, I've been lax in places and put in one refernce tag for paragraphs that mentions several facts, all orriginating from the same publication and page. I'll look to dealing with that. Catsmeat (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My motto is never be afraid to go to the library for books if you can find any for this subject. If your local library has online access for newspaper archives then it's a good idea to look there too. --Brad (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Underdown

I've done a bit of copy-editing, mostly removing a couple of stray Americanisms, sorting out dahses (as best I understand them), and moving references to after punctuation as per the normal practice. I've also tweaked a few references to make them link to useful things, and reflect the fact the Public Record Office became The National Archives back in 2003. David Underdown (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MisterBee1966

• I suggest to clean up the citations. Currently it looks very messy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• What is the naming convention for ships? Example: USS Ringgold (DD-500) was transferred to West Germany and later to Greece. Nevertheless the article is named after its first operator. Following this reasoning the article should be named German submarine U-570 and not HMS Graph (P715). MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are the naming conventions: WP:NC-SHIPS -MBK₀₀₄ 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The convention sensibly is "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". I'd be fine with changing the article name, except I genuinely can't say which is the better known and/or most commonly used. If there is a convention in the sources I've seen, it is to use her German name when referring to her brief, pre-capture history and the British name for her post-capture history. Can you give specific examples of the citations that need tidied up? Catsmeat (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care as long as we apply similar naming conventions. You also point to the article HMS Seal (N37) which was captured by the Germans during World War II. Either way I think something needs to change since the stories sound similar only reversed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seal had a reasonable RN operational history before being captured, and was never made operational by the Germans. U-570/Graph was captured on her first operational outing, and was brought fully into RN service, so the naming of each seems reasonable enough to me. David Underdown (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Example: citation 28: Blair, page 347 and citation 37: Blair, Clay (1999). Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted 1942-45. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 68. ISBN 0297840770. Make them consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are referrences to different volumes in Blair's two-volume work. My bad - I'll fix it. Catsmeat (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Delville Wood

I have now completed writing this article - I started working on it after visiting Delville Wood in the summer. Submitted for peer review because I believe that it is no longer a "start class" article. Also, as part of the WWI drive I thought it needed a lot more information, particularly on the German forces involved (as do some other battles ofthe Somme). Farawayman (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redmarkviolinist

Looks quite good reading through it. This would make a great A-class article, possibly a Featured Article. Thanks

• The Prose is well written, but if you could break it into a few different paragraphs that would be nice. Y Done Where feasable and appropriate.

• Make sure you capitalize all the words in the titles that need it. Y Done

• Footnotes should go after punctuation marks.Y Done

• Watch out for contractions.Y Done

• Some of the pictures (mainly the ones in the middle of the article on the left) would be more helpful if they were expanded.Y Done

• All your facts are well referenced. Thanks

Very well written! Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

More MoS pointers than anything:

• Dates should be delinked.Y Done
• Headings should not begin with "The", and only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in headings.Y Done
• Endashes are required between date ranges used in the prose, and page ranges used in citations. For example: "14 July - 15 September 1916" --> "14 July – 15 September 1916" Y Done
• Dashes used in the prose should be emdashes. For example: "The Allied objective was no longer to try to break the German Front in a sudden, surprise attack – as the depth of German defences had proven this to be impossible." --> "The Allied objective was no longer to try to break the German Front in a sudden, surprise attack—as the depth of German defences had proven this to be impossible." Y Done
• Images should not be aligned to the left directly under level three headings. For example, the images of the commanders under "The Plan" heading.Y Done

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done and Thanks insertions by Farawayman (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anotherclown

Top effort. Only one (minor) point:

• the images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT Y DoneFarawayman (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AustralianRupert

Hi, Farawayman. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this. Well done. I have made a couple of edits, only minor and relating to spaces and dashes etc. I only have two points (only very minor):

• I believe that you are accidentally using the endash incorrectly in some places where you should really be using a normal hyphen. The endash is for page ranges, date ranges and to indicate a relationship between places, values etc. So in the case of Major-General, it should just be a hyphen, not an endash. WP:DASH is the policy link. Y Done....where I assumed the need applied to revert to hyphens. Farawayman (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Map 5 is still missing alt text, although all the others have them. Y DoneFarawayman (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it. Great effort, by the way. I think that this could be an A class article. I have updated the assessment from Start to B, but it would need to go through the ACR to be rated an A (obviously). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walls of Dubrovnik

New article (B-class) - just interested in opinions of more experienced editors on how the quality and standard of the article can be improved. --Kebeta (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laurinavicius

As you and I have already discussed, Kebeta, there are numerous grammatical errors, odd word phrasings, re-directs, capitalization, year links, picture locations, etc. that needed fixing. That's probably the biggest thing, in my opinion, that needs correction. Also, most of the sections and sub-sections are quite small, so these certainly should be either expanded or merged together, though I personally prefer. Another thing is that the measurements and distances given are, generally, in the metric system, and, as such, should be converted into English units (the United States Customary System) for American readers. Lastly, in my opinion, all quotes, statistics, and facts likely to be challenged should be cited. I've noted that in several cases there are stats that are unreferenced, which should be. I'll get to work on improving these point, with particular emphasis on the first one, as soon as possible (which means tomorrow afternoon). But other than these four things, the article is, for the most part, very good. Great work with it! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you said, we have already discussed. Laurinavicius will help with prose and grammatical errors.

• Sub-sections which are quite small, should be merged together until somebody can expand them. I expended some small sub-sections. Some small sub-sections about the gates in walls should't be merged, because gates and forts are main parts of the city walls. Y Done
• Measurements are mainly in metric system. Some of them also have English units, those which have not, will be added. Y Done
• Please, tell me which stats are unreferenced, so I can referenced them. --Kebeta (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the list of information that should be cited but isn't, starting from the beginning of the article and continuing downard: Y Done

• Walls were reinforced by 3 circular and 14 quadrangular towers, five bastions (bulwarks), two angular fortifications and a large St. John Fortress.
• The city first spread towards the uninhabited eastern part of the islet. That is why the current name for the southeast part of the city, next to the St. John Fortress is called Pustijerna. The name comes from the Latin statement "post terra", which means outside the town. In the 9th and 10th century, the defensive wall enclosed the eastern portion of the city.
• The present shape of the walls was defined in the 14th century after the city was finally liberated from Venetian rule, but the peak of its construction falls from the beginning of the 15th century till the second half of the 16th century.
• largest stimulus for continued development and emergency repairs and works of the Dubrovnik fortresses came with the unexpected danger of attack by Turkish military forces, after they took over Constantinople in 1453.
• The irregular parallelogram, which surrounds Dubrovnik, has four strong fortresses at its most significant points. To the north is the strong circular Minčeta Tower, to the east side of the city port is the Revelin Fortress, and the large and complex of St. John Fortress is located on the southeast side of the city. The western entrance to the city is protected by the strong and nicely shaped Fort Bokar.
• The main wall on the landside is 4 to 6 meters thick, and at certain locations, the walls reach up to 25 meters in height.
• The town had four city gates: two that led to the harbor and two (with draw bridges) that led to the mainland.
• Communication with the outside world on the landside was maintained with the city through two main well-protected city gates, one placed on the western side of the city and the other placed on the eastern side.
• At the entrance gate to the Old Town, on the western side of the land walls there is a stone bridge within two Gothic arches, designed by Paskoje Miličević (1471).
• Outer Gate of Ploča is built by Miho Hranjac in 1628, while wooden drawbridge and twin-spanned stone bridge (15th C) by Paskoje Miličević are similar to those at Pile Gate.
• The main wall on the sea side is 1,5 to 5 meters thick.
• In the city port area, one of the most significant areas of the maritime trade city, there were two entrances: Gate of Ponte (port) and the Fishmarket Gate. The city port was protected from strong waves and surprise invasion by the Kase jetty.
• Constructed in 1476, the Gate of Ponte is situated westwards from the Large Arsenal.
• The Fishmarket Gate, built in 1381, stands eastward from the Great Arsenal. The three arches of the 15th century Small Arsenal, where small boats were repaired, are situated a bit further.
• As the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was a clear sign to the cautious citizen of Dubrovnik to quickly take ample defensive measures, the first and one of the most important tasks was to strengthen its hey points. The fall of Bosnia, which followed soon in 1463, only hastened the works. The Republic invited a famous architect, Michelozzo di Bartolomeo of Florence.
• Minčeta Tower is the most prominent point in the defense system toward the land. Tower's name derives from the name of the Menčetić family, who owned the ground the tower was built upon.
• In the middle of the 15th century, around the earlier quadrilateral fort, Michelozzo built a new round tower adapted to the new technique of warfare and joined it to the new system of low scarp walls. The walls of the new tower were full 6 meters thick and had a series of protected gun ports. The famous architect and sculptor Giorgio da Sebenico from Zadar, continued the work on the Minčeta. He designed and built the high narrow round tower, while the battlements are a later addition. The tower was completed in 1464, and is the symbol of the unconquerable city of Dubrovnik.
• The Fort Bokar, often called Zvjezdan, is among the most beautiful instances of harmonious and functional fortification architecture. It was built by Michelozzo, while the city walls were reconstructed (from 1461 to 1463). This tower was conceived as the key point in the defense of the Pile Gate, the western fortified entrance of the city. Together with Minčeta this tower is the second key point in the defense of the western land approach to the city.
• The St. John Fortress, often called Mulo Tower, is a complex monumental building on the southeastern side of the old city port, controlling and protecting its entrance. The first fort was built in mid 14th century, but it was modified on several occasions in the course of the 15th and 16th centuries, which can be seen in the triptych made by the painter Nikola Božidarević in the Dominican monastery.
• In the period of unmistakable Turkish danger and the fall of Bosnia under Turkish rule, the Revelin Fortress was built to the east of the city in 1462, a detached fortress providing additional protection to the land approach to the eastern Ploče Gate.
• Danger of Venetian assault suddenly increased in the times of the First Holy League, and it was necessary to strengthen this vulnerable point of the city fortifications. The Senate hired Antonio Ferramolino, an experienced builder of fortresses in the service of the Spanish admiral Doria, a trusted friend of the Republic. In 1538 the Senate approved his drawings of the new, much stronger Revelin.
• The new Revelin became the strongest city fortress, safeguarding the eastern land approach to the city. It is an irregular quadrilateral, with one of its sides descending towards the sea, and protected by a deep ditch on the other side. One bridge crossing the protective ditch connects it to the Ploče Gate, and another connects it to the eastern suburb. The construction work was executed perfectly so that the devastating earthquake of 1667 did not damage Revelin.
• The fortress has a quadrilateral court with mighty arches. As the height is uneven, it has 3 terraces with powerful parapets, the broadest looking south towards the sea. Lovrijenac was defended with 10 large cannons, the largest and most famous being “Lizard”. The walls exposed to enemy fire are almost 12 meters thick, but the large wall surface facing the city does not exceed 60 centimeters.
• According to old scripts it was built in only three months.
• Despite its small size, the Republic of Dubrovnik was well protected by massive city walls and used Pelješac to build another line of defense.
• The Fortress is placed at Ponta Oštro, at the very end of Prevlaka peninsula. It was built in the mid 19th century (1856-1862), as a part of the fortification system of Bay of Kotor at the time of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
• With the weakening of Byzantium, Venice began to see Ragusa as a rival who needed to be brought under her control, but the attempt to conquer the city in 948 failed.
• Ragusa was forced to pay a tribute and became a source of supplies for Venice, thus saved itself from being sacked like Zadar, in Siege of Zara.
• Around the year 1800, the Republic had a highly organized network of consulates and consular offices in more than eighty cities and ports around the world. In 1806, the Republic surrendered to forces of the Empire of France to end a months-long siege by the Russian and Montenegrian fleet (during which 3,000 cannonballs fell on the city). The French lifted the siege and saved Ragusa
• Dubrovnik was besieged and attacked by Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) forces in late 1991, with the major fighting ending in early 1992 and the Croatian counterattack finally lifting the siege and liberating the area in mid-1992.
• Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, in conjunction with UNESCO, found that of the 824 buildings in the Old Town, 563 (or 68.33 %) had been hit by projectiles in 1991 and 1992. Nine buildings were completely destroyed by fire. In 1993, the Institute for the Rehabilitation of Dubrovnik and UNESCO estimated the total cost for restoring public and private buildings; religious buildings; streets, squares, and fountains; and ramparts, gates, and bridges at US$9,657,578.

My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the reference should be after every single sentence. I meant that if two sentences are from the same source, that reference should go after second sentence, not after both of them? --Kebeta (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that references should be after every single sentence, but most sentences have some sort of quote, statistic, or fact likely to be challenged, and, as such, needs a citation. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Start fixing things. --Kebeta (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Laurinavicius analisis/opinion. Y Done --Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] YellowMonkey

If you are thinking of GA and higher, people will question you about your sources and why some random or amateur websites like Croatia gay is reliable. Also there will be questions about whether you checked serious history textbooks, as information maybe forthcoming from accounts of the use of the walls in battle, rather than just tourism. Books also need page numbers YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of GA class.

• I agree, some sources are not of best quality. But, most of the good sources which I found are barely touching the subject, enough to verify the truth of article, but not enough to be cited. I just didn't found a book which is about the Walls of Dubrovnik, only books about history. Some books that I found are in Croatian.
• Walls of Dubrovnik didn't have much of the classical medieval battles, that is why the are almost intact. --Kebeta (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed sources the best I could. I hope it is good enough for GA class. Thanks for advice. --Kebeta (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Helmut Lent

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it meets the A-Class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan) and Nick-D (talk)

The interesting story of the Dutch's plan for nine, later four, dreadnoughts to defend the Netherlands East Indies. Enjoy! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: just a quick review at this stage, I'm afraid. There are no dab links, the external links work and the images have alt text. I'm not really able to discuss content as it is not my area of knowledge, although it seems complete to me (although I notice that there was some concerns raised on the talk page). Some other points, but not anything major:
  • should endashes be used in the citations between 1914-1918 in the reference name?
  • there appears to be an inconsistency in capitalisation of the word white (as in European people). In one instance it is capitalised, where in another it is not.
  • should the citations use p. or pp. in front of the page numbers?

That is it so far, unfortunately as I'm pressed for time. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the topic might stop by. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure re endashes. Nick, what do you think?
    • Fixed
    • No, I started the article using a version of the Chicago Manual of Style suggested by one of my professors, and Nick continued it. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Peeler

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now meets the criteria. I have just significantly expanded this article on an Australian Victoria Cross recipient—yes, another one of those ;-)—from a stub, and have thoughts of eventually taking it to FAC. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Gorski

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because. It just passed at WP:GAC and the reviewer thinks it need some attention with regard to flow.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the GA reviewer and was able to make quite a few changes quickly. The article says he was an altar boy. Presumably he was Catholic but why is it not state explitly if it makes a deal of his faith. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your military expertise on the article. The Military career section looks much better. You may be able to do similar improvements by doing a word search for Vietnam in the Political career section.
  • I added that his high school was Roman Catholic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick Comment The article is very well written in my humble opinion, however, the only fault i can find is of the lack of photos, especially one of the subject himself. If you can find one, that would be great. I have a feeling that if you want to go for FAC that this may be a hindrance. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would love to add a photo of the subject, but am unable to find one. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

The article recently completed a thorough GA and as a result, I believe the article is closer to an A, rather than a GA, level. The intent is to improve the article to a FA level; I think the memorials task force could use a couple more. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support – quite a good article, and an interesting one at that, but a little work is required before A-Class:

• Conversion templates are required in the "Topography" section.
• Images require alt text.

The images all have alt text. Is it that a better description is needed? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed that, but yeah, a better description of the images would be best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

alt text is now significantly expanded. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Battle of Vimy Ridge" section, even though it should be obvious, it should actually be clarified in the "For the first time all four Canadian divisions were assembled to participate in a battle together" sentence that the battle actually was Vimy Ridge.

Done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency with the presentation of measurements, with some utilizing the Imperial format and others the Metric variant. One should be consistent throughout.

This one also came up as an issue at GA. The issue at hand is sources do not consistently use imperial or metric. The solution was to list both, with the whatever unit of measure is used in the source listed as the first figure and using the convert template to list the other. The suggested direction came about from MOS(dates and numbers)#Which units to use and how to present them. There is nonetheless conflict between balancing consistency with properly presenting the figure cited within the source. I am OK with the call either way, I just don't want it to become an issue at FAC. Direction would be appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the summary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge goes into a little too much detail. A summary of the battle is required, of course, to give an understanding on the background and significance of the memorial, but I don't think quite so much detail is quite warranted in some areas. This is just my thoughts, and I am open to others' opinions.

Understood. I have a test text in my sandbox, if you wouldn't mind having a look and making a comment. I thought it more appropriate the remove battle text but possibly insert text regarding the influence of the battle. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Migration from sandbox to article completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is a bit of close repetition in the "Selection" section, or beginnings of sentences that are similar to the end of the previous. For example, the decision on a competition.

Edited. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is a little confusing. It states at the start of the "Selection" section that identical memorials would be built on the eight sites, but later the committee debates on where to build the monument and decides on Vimy Ridge.

Additional information inserted to clarify. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in the application of titles, in that Byng is included with his title of "Sir" but Currie is not.

Removed titles of "Sir". Seemed like the easiest option. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Information on the acquisition of land should be mention before the design competition.

Combined the land acquisition text into the selection section. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the first three paragraphs of the "Memorial construction" section, the delay in the delivery of limestone is mentioned, and in much the same manner. I don't think it really needs to be repeated so many times.

cut down to one mention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The 20 sculptured figures on memorial" - grammatical issue here.

Removed passive text. Changed to: "Sculptors carved the 20 human figures on-site, from large blocks of stone." --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The carvers conducted their work year-round inside temporary studios built around each figure." - this sentence is without a cite.

Citation inserted. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "was not been part of the original design" - grammatical issue here.

Corrected to: "was not part of the original design". --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Interestingly, the ceremony was one of King Edward VIII" - "Interestingly" is redundant.

Agreed. Removed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "a major $30-million restoration project" - which dollars they were should be clarified, as in were they Canadian or US, etc.

Corrected and presented as directed in MOS:CURRENCY. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "Interpretive centre" is uncited, and probably should be merged with another section as it is so small.

Section deleted content folded into section lead and citation added. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates for cites.

There was inconsistencies in both dates and access dates, both have been corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cites should not be in all capitals (#9).

Corrected --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am staisfied that all of my comments have been adequately addressed, so I'm happy to support. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - About time I started reviewing around here. The article looks pretty good.
• It also serves as the place of commemoration for First World War Canadian soldiers killed, or presumed dead, in France that have no known grave. - not sure I like the flow of this sentence, remove the commas perhaps?

Agreed. remove one comma and moved the placement of the other.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• It was unveiled on 26 July 1936 by King Edward VIII, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun and 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families. - again, comma

Didn't remove comma, did a bit of text reorg. instead. Does this work: The memorial took monument designer Walter Seymour Allward eleven years to build. King Edward VIII unveiled the memorial on 26 July 1936, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun, 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• On 21 May 1916, the German infantry attacked the British lines along a 2,000-yard (1,800 m) front in an effort to eject them from positions along the ridge.[8] - Hmm, could you replace eject with a more appropriate verb? It's not bad, I just think the word choice could be better.

Changed to force. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Germans successfully captured several British-controlled tunnels and mine craters before halting their advance and entrenching their positions.[8][Note 1] - redundant... they either captured it or were successful in attempting to capture it.

Addressed. Removed "successfully" --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• By nightfall on 12 April, the Canadian Corps was in firm control of the ridge. - if corps is meant to be plural, then it should be were. I think this is singular, though, correct it if I'm wrong.

A Corps, as in a military formation, is always plural. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• In 1920, the Government of Canada announced that the Imperial War Graves Commission had awarded Canada eight sites, five in France and three in Belgium, on which to erect memorials.[31] - perhaps the five in france clause would be better with an endash?

Inserted ndash before and after "five in France and three in Belgium".--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More later. ceranthor 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Refs shouldn't be all caps (even if the original source was). Refs 67, 68.

Corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note 1 could use a reference.

In fact a number of the notes need references, not just note 1. I'll get right on that. Note work completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The last two sections are really short and make the end of the article quite choppy. Is there any way that these could be incorporated into one of the other sections?

I have folded the interpretive centre section into the site section lead. I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs. If you have improvement suggestions let me know. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Once these things are taken care of, I look forward to supporting the article's A-class promotion. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the responses to my comments above, as well as reading the new battle summary section, I believe this article is ready for A-class. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that this article meets all five criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dab link; external links and alt text are present.
    • Fixed
  • What makes all of your web site references reliable? :-/

    Umm, that they have sources and references?

    See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, my friend. "If the site gives its sources, but still seems like a personal site, it should be questioned. Depending on the text that is being sourced, it could be reliable, but all self-published sources must meet WP:SPS." Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    None of them are personal sites. The Russian-language ones are transcriptions of the Statistical Digest of the VVS and the Excel one is a transcription from a book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh. I assumed that the Russian ones were SPS because they were specified as attack sites. My bad. At the other one, perhaps you could cite the book and use the link for convenience? —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    • • • • • It's not completely cited in the file, just title and author, IIRC. Maybe I can find it through Worldcat, I'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Found it, but I'm reluctant to use it as the primary because it lacks a page #. All I know is that it's in Volume I.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • The Russian-language site is reported in Firefox as an attack site, by the way.
      • Ignore the attack warning. It's perfectly safe. And you don't even get the warning if you use Safari or Opera, it's just damn annoying when you try and run it through Google Translate using Firefox.
    • Youtube?
      • Hard to argue with a video that shows that it made a flight display.
  • Need full citations for these: current ref 1 (" MiG-9 (I-210)"), 8 ("Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG-3"), 9 ("Airforce_41.xls"), 23 ("Flypast Magazine, August 2007, Key Publishing Ltd") and 24 ("Mikoyan MiG-3")
    • OK, I'll bite. How do I more fully cite 8, 9, and 24 which are websites and already given title, URL and access date, although they're not all displaying. But I dumped #1 as unnecessary. 23 is a legacy; I don't have the issue.
  • Why do many of the books in the bibliography not appear in the references? E.g. Stapfor or Tessitori.
    • Because I don't have them. They were there before and I left them alone as something people might want to pursue.
  • Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

The youtube video definitely isn't a Reliable Source and will need to be removed.

The survivors section has been deleted.

Can you please list how the websites are all reliable sources? Simply saying 'they are' isn't good enough for ACR, and especially not if you want to take it to FAC.

Because they list references as are clearly shown if you access them.

The books in the bibliography that aren't used will need to be removed as unused, but I'm not sure that their not being used makes the article comprehensive, especially the other books by Gordon.

Deleted

They could appear in a "further reading" section... —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The bullet-points need to be converted to prose paragraphs, and should be avoided at all times.

Why? The bullet points are far easier to read and to understand than a bunch of short, choppy sentences would be.

Most wikipedia articles should have prose, not lists per this part of the Manual of Style. Putting the points into prose would, in my opinion, increase clarity and provide better context, and generally just make the whole thing flow much better; it does break up the article rather rudely as it stands. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at that after you made your first comment. But I see it as a 'daughter' of the first paragraph which mentions, but does not discuss the changes. It may well disrupt the flow, which is in the beholder's eye, but it does communicate the information better than does the equivalent paragraph. Gunston has a version in paragraph form in his book and it's not great at communicating the info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-3.jpg has been tagged for copyright problems; please either add appropriate tags or take it to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've copied it over and loaded it as a fair-use image since the Russians seem to have reasserted control over everything after 22 June 1941.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support

I support this article for A-class in the areas of quality of prose and copyediting. A good read. As has been noted, please sort out image rights and note that regardless of my POV on the matter, a fair use image will cause you a lot of grief in the review process. Dhatfield (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's going to cause me some grief, but there aren't a whole lot of options since the Russians appear to have reasserted copyright retrospectively over the bulk of their photos of World War II. The two other photos on Commons are, apparently, of the replica, which I'm not willing to use since the cockpit area doesn't appear to match the original.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• Please don't start sentences with "But".

• Changed, usually, to however.

• Please remove See Also links that are already linked to in the main body of the article.

• Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks good, good job. – Joe N 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lebaudy Patrie

Nominator(s): Ryan4314 (talk)

Greetings, I am not the author of this article (TraceyR is), already essentially passed an A-class review at WP:Aviation here. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: there are no dab links, external links all check out and alt text is present. I'm not an expert on the subject, though, so can't really say much about the content, although it seems complete to me. I couldn't find anything that needed tweaking MOS-wise either, but I might be wrong. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. More citations could be added in the Steering and propulsion, June-November 1907, and Final Flight sections. Also, watch image sandwiching in Steering and Propulsion/Gondola sections. – Joe N 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Design A-150 battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs)

A Japanese Second World War design that called for a 20-inch(!) main battery. However, the demands of the war, especially after the major loss in the Battle of Midway, forced the ships to be canceled. Thanks for your reviews, everyone. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A1 review for Citation Style. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in Bibliography: Breyer (1973), p. 330 Acted upon 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some cites end in a full stop, some don't. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple authors inconsistent: Bibliography is Author A; Author B. Citation is Author A and Author B. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Date style inconsistent, mix of D Month YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD "DiGiulian, Tony (9 October 2006). "51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?)". Navweaps. Retrieved 2009-06-08." 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) - added.

(2 and 3) - I've done this style of referencing in six of my eight other FAs...are you sure it is necessary?

(4) - good catch, changed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If (2 and 3) is consistent over your other Battleship FAs, I'll take that as a stylistic choice, and deem it consistent. As long as all your short cites end without a full stop :) ! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :-) Many thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it might need a little more work:
  • Given that the Yamato class are often cited as either under-achievers or just a bad idea, has this design also received criticism?
    • I couldn't tell you. The ships have very little to no coverage in any English sources I got ahold of. Conway's gives it a passing mention in the Yamato class battleship section, while Garzke and Dulin only give eight paragraphs. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we know who was in charge of planning these ships? The article attributes various conclusions and a quote to them, but who they were is never specified. Eg, the statement that "the Japanese" were confident about the feasibility of a 20.1" gun is imprecise an who was it that "felt" that the ships were "too large and too expensive"?
    • Nothing is stated. I'd guess Keiji Fukuda and/or Yuzuru Hiraga, as they were the lead people on the Yamatos, but i can't say for sure. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When did work start on planning these ships?
    • Good thought, fixed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As the Japanese government deliberatly destroyed large amounts of records at the end of the war, does your source specifically attribute the loss of the plans to "confusion"?
    • Yes, but I've refactored the statement nonetheless. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When did the Japanese Government cancel all further work on BBs?
    • "early in 1941". I believe I have addressed this. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what value the see also links add, and no context is provided for including these. A source tying the development of these super-super battleships together would be fantastic
    • I've moved everything into a template. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The full citation details for the Muir reference could be moved to the biography section Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the length of these guns as expressed in calibers? And a link to the definition of caliber is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • In the intro, the line all work on Design A-150 and the Design B-65 cruisers was halted doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps work on the Design A-150 battleships and the Design B-65 cruisers. Also, it also doesn't explain what the B-65s were; maybe adding a note that tells the reader something about the cruisers so they don't have to read the B-65 article. Alternatively, you could just as easily remove the mention of the cruisers and not lose much from the intro.
  • In a couple places, you've got metric tons and in others, tonnes. They're equivalent, but since this article appears to be written in American English, it's probably best to standardize them as metric tons.
  • It's probably better to spell out what "AA" is in the armament section.
  • For the "See also" section, it might be helpful to add a brief explanation of what each of the four are, and why they're being linked. Especially for the H39 and H44 classes, as someone who isn't already familiar with what they were will probably be confused. See WP:SEEALSO for a better explanation :)
• That's it from me. Nice work on a pretty obscure ship design, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • These should all be fixed. Thanks for the review and complement! It was hard to write this one. Conway's gives it only a passing mention in the section on the Yamatos, and Garzke and Dulin only have eight paragraphs on it. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  • It's a great article that meets almost all of the criteria, however I do have two issues:
  • "Initial design studies were drawn up after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39); they focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's." I think "drawn up" needs to be repalced with "undertaken", plans are drawn up but design studies aren't, at least IMO. "upon" can just be replaced with on.
  • There is one question the article doesn't answer: why were they built planned? I think you need a section on development or whatever.--Patton123 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Good first point, but I don't understand the second. The ships were never built! :-) Does the article not make this clear enough? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Forgive my incopetence! I read the article and realised that but for some reason I still wrote that! Anyway I'm talking about a section such as Montana class battleship#History and Iowa class battleship#History, which details the reasons why they were planned and how they were going to be used.--Patton123 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Haha yeah, what the heck. :P I see what you mean now, but this is the best I can do ("As the Japanese expected that the Americans would be able to obtain the true characteristics of that class (namely the principal armament of 460 mm (18.1 in)), the use of 510 mm guns was vital to keep with Japan's policy of individual ships' superiority over their American counterparts; the A-150s were meant to counter the United States' reply to the Yamatos.") —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. No major reading errors and appears to be well-cited. Good work on such a little-known subject. – Joe N 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Images are lacking the alt text. Is this not required for A-Class? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not required per say, but it's commonly asked for. :-) Added. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Yarmouk

Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I just nominated it for the FA class article and there some body advised me to list this article first for the A class military history article, so here it is. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Object because of large unsourced sections. Also the page numbers in teh cites are in various formats. Which one do you want to use. Also. The images of the maps, why are they in galleries that break up the flow of the page and leave lots of whitespace when they could just be done normally aligned?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – sorry, but there are just too many issues with the article at present, such as:

• Dates should be singular, and not use such things as "st", "nd", "rd" or "th".
• Endashes (–) are required between date ranges used in the article in place of general dashes (-). Same with page ranges used in citations.
• Subheadings should not begin with "The".
• Images should not be aligned to the left directly under a level three subheading.
• Images require alt text.
• As YellowMonkey points out, there are large sections of unreferenced text and image issues.

Please do not be discouraged by all of this, however, and continue to work on the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - citations. Per WP:MH/A, "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources". Having said that, you have done some good work on the article; I hope you and Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) can keep it up! Some other comments:
  • Current ref 3 (Akram 2004) needs (a) page number(s).
  • Citation styles need to be consistent, for example ref 12 "Yarmouk 636, Muslim conquest of Syria, By David Nicolle page 1" or ref 27 "Walter Kaegi, "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests page: 131"
  • For a future FAC, I don't know if http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/index.html would meet the "high-quality" criterion of WP:FA?
  • What makes http://www.renaissance.com.pk/jaletf95.html and http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/muslimwars/articles/yarmuk.aspx a reliable source?
  • http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap512.htm needs to be cited as being from The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire with the link acting as a convenience link.
  • Hope these help. All the best, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to resolve all the issues mentioned above, check the article now.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The citations are looking much better! Couple more things: current ref 81 ("al-Waqidi, p.148.") needs to be formatted with {{harvnb}} (and is it in the bibliography?), and current ref 100 ("Ibid., p. 17,") should not use ibid. I've struck my oppose over citations, and I hope you can address the prose-related opposes. Good luck! Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It is badly in need of a copy-edit. Many phrases don't make much sense, are unclear, or are gramatically incorrect. Please request one at one of the copy-editing request boards and have that done thoroughly. – Joe N 19:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• @user:the_ed17, i have fixed the references tht u pointed out.

@user:Joe_N, i have made request for the copy-edits lets see when they respond. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay, but why do very old sources (eg 8th century) appear in the "Modern sources" section? ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• opps my bad... just fixed it. and as for copy-edit, User:Unflavoured have did it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article list for A-Class review because it is well researched and cited and I feel it meets the A-Class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It's a list. Can you provide more background about what this award meant for German soldiers and when this award was displayed? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be something to address in the article about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross itself? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• I wish that some of the notes could be combined. For example, 3, 4, and 6 seem to be almost exact duplicates except for the names and numbers, and the same with 11, 12, and 13.
• It's not "the XX Month, year", either the the should be removed "he was killed 24 March, 1945", or the ordinal number should be used "the 24th of March." I noticed this several times in footnotes about disputed dates of death.

• I think I fixed all occurances MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, just these issues. – Joe N 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – an excellent list as usual, that I cannot fault. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

[edit] Battle of Bardia

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... although it is very recent, I think that it is of high quality. The battle is a significant one which has received little attention until recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Excellent, although could you mention how hot and how cold it got in the Libyan Desert? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• All my sources are agreed on "bitterly cold". The 16th Infantry Brigade diarist provided a daily weather report but clearly had no access to a thermometer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check No dablinks, no bad external links, images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• For maps, make sure that either the alt or the text describes what each map is trying to show (not merely their colors and appearance), and the movements that are taking place on them. See WP:ALT#Maps.
  • Done. I've never written an article where the map was so useful... added some more text to the alt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I added a bit more to the lower map. They look ok now. --an odd name (help honey) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Six Australian officers pose for a formal pictures." Should it be "formal picture"?
  • Done.
    • Changed check templates to "Done" to avoid template and image problems on the fac page; see "Supporting and opposing" above. --an odd name (help honey) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: 1c fine. 2c fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Please check your citation of chapters in larger works, and volumes in works in series. for example with "Hasluck, Paul (1952) (PDF), The Government and the People, 1939–1941, Australia in the War of 1939-1945, Volume I," are you sure you don't mean "Hasluck, Paul, "The Government and the People, 1939-1941" in Australia in the War of 1939-1945 Volume 1...

And if the chapters are authored by the author of the whole work, you don't list the chapter, you just list the whole work.

The citations are correct. "The Government and the People, 1939-1941" is the title of the book; "Australia in the War of 1939-1945" is the series of which it is a part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks :). I normally append [Series] when a series title doesn't contain the word "Series", but its really lovely to see stuff correctly cited, and the reason is listed below (you're a historian :). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

Original research, use of Wavell 1946 to support non-trivial facts. Interpreting primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Also I doubt Wavell's capacity to infer Italian motivations. (Wavell 1946, pp. 3000–3001)

But I am a historian... but point taken. I'll add another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. When we edit wikipedia we have to forgo our professional capacities. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously concerned about the lack of scholarship after the 1960s. Please explain how you've exhausted the supply of potential sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're not alone there. The Second World War has not been a popular subject for Australian military historians, and very little work has been done on the Libyan campaign until very recently, when Stockings published his book. This book, which I highly recommend by the way, was been used in the preparation of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also used Garth Pratten's recent book. I think 2009 has to qualify as recent scholarship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does. I'm satisfied for 1c. I'll probably leave these comments here for a little bit, then transfer them to the Talk page for this FAC to clear the main FAC page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that very little has been written about this battle in recent years, and this was noted in many of the reviews of Stockings' book. There's been curiously little coverage of most Australian World War II campaigns since the official history; the historiography is dominated by the events of 1942. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Morotai

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on a small but strategically significant battle of World War II was peer reviewed in February and passed a Military History project A class review in March. It has since been further improved by myself and a number of other editors (including, but not limited to, User:Cla68 and User:Ian Rose) and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dabs or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. Check the following, though:
  • Throughout, it uses "peninsular"—do you mean "peninsula"?
  • See the guideline on map alts (one I've had recent trouble with). For example, "Lines and symbols are superimposed over the map" doesn't tell us what sort of battle or movement File:Morotai landings 15 September 1944.jpg is trying to show. The map alts all have similar issues; the photo alts look fine, though.
• Dates throughout are Month Day, Year. I changed one per WP:MILMOS#DATERANGE, but I may be wrong. I see no date issues otherwise. (added on 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for those comments. I've re-written the alt text for the maps to describe what they depict as you suggest - does this now look OK? Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The alts are all good now. --an odd name 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice article, I believe that it meets FA criteria too. I have some minor comments, though:
  • In the opposing forces section, words are used for numbers greater than ten (in discussing the number of ships), yet in most other places numbers are used...
  • could a convert be added to the distance given in the second paragraph of the Allied landings section ("2,000 yards inland")?

Anyway, well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the second one, and that wording was the result of feedback in either the peer review or A class review which suggested that prose containing a mix of numbers and words looked odd (eg, "one LSD, 24 LCIs, 25 LSTs, 20 LCTs and eleven LCIs" was a bit awkward). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Definitely meets FA criteria. Looked at it a few times and couldn't think of any improvements. The article is especially impressive in that there are no major sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is there no casualties and losses section in the infobox? - DSachan (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In short, because there is no source which provides anything approaching a comprehensive number of casualties during the fighting between September 1944 and August 1945 (the period covered by the article). I've mentioned the casualty numbers for the periods where these are available in the article's text. I removed the casualties section from the infobox in July (leaving a note at Talk:Battle of Morotai) and no-one has either complained or provided a sourced figure. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Please supply original publication date: 31st Infantry Division (1993 (reprint)).

Done

Please supply publication location for all presses (eg Infantry Journal Press. )

Done

For non standard document identifiers please name the identification system (eg 6429367X.; ASIN B000ID3YRK.)

Converted to ISBNs

Chapter in book? Book in series? Help us out, make it more explicit (and generally, chuck [Series] behind series names which don't contain the word series]): Long, Gavin (1963). The Final Campaigns. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 1 – Army. Canberra: Australian War Memorial.

I've included the series name in the 'series' section of the appropriate citation templates. Chapters are displayed quite differently, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

1c:

Seriously concerned that Willoughby is a primary source (as its MacArthur's reports) and being used to substantiate facts (Willoughby, Charles A. (editor in chief) (1966). Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area Volume II – Part I. Reports of General MacArthur. )

The book was actually written by ex-Japanese Army officers and is pretty much the only source of information on the Japanese experiences in this battle (the 1994 introduction to the book states, correctly, that it's a "unique Japanese version of their operations in the Southwest Pacific that remains one of the few English-language descriptions of Imperial Army campaigns during World War II"). It's been used in other FAs such as Landing at Nadzab and Take Ichi convoy as well as A class articles including Admiralty Islands campaign, Battle of Kaiapit, Battle of Wau, Landing at Saidor and Landing at Nadzab. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never considered these to be primary documents. They were created from the monographs, a set of 200 odd accounts written by ex-Japanese Army officers. These are hard to find but there are microfilm copies in the National Library, War Memorial, and ADFA. Some were written from memory but others were compiled from orders and diaries and therefore are more like secondary documents. There are very few sources from the Japanese side, as so much documentation was destroyed during retreats and by Allied action, and there were few survivors of many important actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources in the Wikipedia to substantiate facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you've exhausted sources, especially contemporary ones and recent scholarship? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As Hawkeye7 notes, there is no single history which covers this battle from its inception in September 1944 until the end of the war; most sources cover either the first few weeks of the battle, the development of the Allied base or the fighting in early 1945. As a result, I've pieced the story together by consulting dozens of works (some useful, some not) in two major university libraries, including one which claims to have the best military history collection in the southern hemisphere and a focus on the Pacific War, and the National Library of Australia. There isn't really any 'recent scholarship' on this topic; Stephen R. Taafe's 1998 book was the most recent I could find that had a chapter or more on the topic (and he only covered the landing). I'm confident that I've consulted every significant work concerning on the battle and believe that the diverse references I've used in the article speak for themselves in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class Military History Article. Was not promoted on its last FA review because of a lack of feedback from any users. —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some minor stuff.

• The second link in External links merely shows a Indian Head test card and nothing else—it might be dead. Otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text where needed.

--an odd name 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. The dead link has been removed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (2c will follow later) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1a:

Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif should in SVG format. Try requesting at WP:GL. Connormah (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Nominator(s): —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It's rather short for an art article, but a week of library-searching leaves me confident it neglects no major information. User:Johnbod commented that the use of sources with extended discussion (as opposed to the current structure, which incorporates information from five or six primary sources interspersed with tid-bits from all over the place) would be desirable, but – as John himself noted – this is not readily available in English. I don't see it as a huge problem; tapping into a large array of sources has given me the impression that what's here is quite thorough. I look forward to criticism and will respond as quickly as I'm able. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check The links work, Dabs all fixed now but Apostle, Hellenism, Issus, National Museum of Fine Arts and Paul go to disambiguation pages. Infobox lacks alt text, format is | image_alt = Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:

"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."

"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."

"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."

Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Kingfisher article not named when cited.

No longer applicable. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple authors not correctly cited in short citations.

Please name them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, "Sacks, David; Murray, Oswyn; Bunson, Margaret (1997)." is cited as "Sacks, p. 14" when it should be cited as "Sacks; Murray; Bunston, p. 14", this is true of other multiple author works in your short cites (Corvisier, André; Childs, John (1994). Hagen, Rose-Marie; Hagen, Rainer (2003). Hanawalt, Barbara; Kobialka, Michal (2000). Heckel, Waldemar; Yardley, John (2004). Janson, Horst W.; Janson, Anthony F. Romm, James S.; Mensch, Pamela (2005). ) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

All done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a fair catch to me. Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (I had written quite a bit of the article at GA stage). There does indeed seem to be a surprising shortage of material on the painting in English, to judge from Google/books/scholar and Wood's bibliography as at 1993. But I'm sure there is more tucked away somewhere. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism, Issue 9 of Studies in the fine arts, Reinhild Janzen, Publisher UMI Research Press, 1980, ISBN 083571120X, 9780835711203 must be relevant, and the Paris exhibition catalogue Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism (ISBN: 0847854108 / 0-8478-5410-8) Maurice Guillaud, Jacqueline Guillaud, Rizzoli, 1985, especially if the painting was in the exhibition. But I don't believe there is nothing more to be said - for one thing, what the Hagens have about the painting being cut down in size is not I think in yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added about the cut down, good find. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism definitely sounds relevant. I'll see what I can do to find a copy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina class battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The North Carolina-class battleships epitomized the problem faced by 1930s designers: how to fit a maximum of firepower, armor and speed into a 35,000 long ton ship. Both ships of the class, North Carolina and Washington, served with distinction in the Second World War, with Washington sinking the Japanese battleship Kirishima in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Both ships were decommissioned soon after the war's end; North Carolina was preserved as a memorial and still exists today, while Washington was broken up for scrap. The article passed a Military history WikiProject A-class review in September. Any and all comments are welcome! Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Dates are consistent. Apart from noted below, citations are consistent. Resolved 2c at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks), but there are a couple of problems:

• Alt text is missing for File:USS North Carolina Fit out NARA 1941-04-17.jpg.
• A few of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert just from the image, and need to be reworded or merged into the caption; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "Proposed" (in "Proposed schematics"), "Design schematic, more similar to the eventual design", "16 inch" (in "two levels of magazines for the 16 inch shells"), "instructions" (in "another yells instructions"), "The explosive force", and "The King".

Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that alt text viewers were supposed to use the caption and alt text together? I.e. so information in the caption should not be repeated in the alt text? For example, in the king image, the caption starts with "King George VI of the United Kingdom ...", while the alt text has "the King". —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, @"instructions", would you rather that it say a guy is 'yelling something unknown'? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd replace "the King" with something about a man in a naval uniform of very high rank. And for the other image I'd just say that the man is yelling at the other men. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, wrong edit summary, but does this satisfy your concerns? Sorry Fifel, I assumed it was Eubulides. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above problems have been fixed (thanks) and I struck them, but there are still some phrases that can't be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability): 'Proposed design "A"' (nothing in that image says it's proposed, or is "A"), 'Proposed design "XVI"' (likewise), 'The explosive force from the torpedo' (the image doesn't establish to a non-expert that it was a torpedo, or even that it was an explosion), '—the King—' (can't tell it's a king from the image; besides, the caption already says it's the King, and alt text shouldn't repeat the caption; just remove '—the King—' to fix the problem). Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Schemes and torpedo are fixed, but I disagree on the last point... It seems like a good time to IAR. I fully understand what WP:ALT#Verifiability says, and what you are stating is within the letter of the policy, but I don't think it is in its spirit to willfully mislead a reader. Even the blind should know that he is the king, not a "high ranking naval officer" or "person decorated with ribbons" etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Even the blind should know that he is the king" But the blind will know that he is the king, because the caption will be read aloud to the blind, and the caption says he's the king. With the proposed change, the blind will find out that he's the king at the same time the sighted reader finds out. Both sets of readers will look at the picture (or listen to the alt text) and will see (or hear about) a man of high rank; and will then later read (or hear) the caption, and find out that he's the king. That's a good thing: the visually impaired will get an experience that is similar to that of the sighted. But when the alt text says "the King", the visually impaired gets a different experience than the sighted: one that repeats the caption in an undesirable way. (Thanks for fixing the other problems, by the way; I've struck that part of my comments.) Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is an "undesirable way". I'm not discriminating against the blind by ensuring they know which guy (ie the one with ribbons) is the king, am I? The caption does not—and should not IMO, because it ought to be obvious to people seeing the image—signify which one is the king. The blind do not have this advantage of seeing who is in front, hence the mention in the alt text.

Also, keep this in mind: "high rank" can equate to many different people who could be or were accompanying the King, like generals and admirals (and all of the accompanying ranks, like vice admiral or lieutenant general, etc.) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've spent way too much time on this already, but removing the identification of the king from the caption would be a clear mistake. Most readers won't know the king from a hole in the wall. (These days, most readers won't recognize any British figure from World War II, other than Churchill.) All that's clear from the image itself is that it's some high-ranking guy. It's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the guy happens to be His Majesty. And "high rank" accurately reflects his title, regardless of whether the phrase is interpreted as rank of nobility or military rank: the king was Commander-in-chief of the British armed forces. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. (a) there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is, but (b) if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king and not just say "a guy of high rank with many ribbons". "High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense because it can be interpreted in so many ways. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is" Yes, that is a problem, and as a sighted reader I at first thought that someone else was the King. But that is a problem that should be fixed in the caption (so that everybody can benefit from the fix) rather than in the alt text (where only visually impaired readers would benefit).
• "if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king" You need to inform everybody of that, not just the visually impaired. That is why that information should be in the caption. And once it's in the caption, then it should not be in the alt text, because alt text is supposed to not repeat what's in the caption. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Repetition.
• '"High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense' For alt text that's exactly what is wanted here. All that a non-expert reader can tell from the image is that the person in question is high-ranking. Alt text should describe only the visual appearance of an image: it's not supposed to explain the image (that is the job of the caption, or of other adjacent text). In this caes the alt text should accurately describe the (limited) information that can be verified by a non-expert reader who is looking only at the image. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Verifiability.

Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
- you have a point; hope I have clarified this.[1]

• I regret that I still cannot budge. Describing the king as a "man of high rank with military ribbons" willfully and deliberately misleads a visually impaired reader, regardless of what is in the caption. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done; thanks for checking. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3

• File:USS North Carolina overhead.jpg - Please give the full publication information for "Friedman (1985)".

• Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - I don't see the following onthe source page: "These photos are arranged in chronological order and are believed to be all declassified official USN photos". Can you point me to it?

• The site seems to have undergone some changes since I last looked at it... I think what we are looking for is here, but it is also unneeded. The original source is ""Naval Ordnance and Gunnery - 1952" Navpers 16116-B", which is/was a publication of the Navy's Bureau of Naval Personnel. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please add the complete publication information for "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery" so that this is clear. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the publisher (Navy Personnel Command/Bureau of Naval Personnel); is that sufficent? I don't believe that I can find any more information. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Bofors firing USS Hornet.jpg - Is something automatically the work of a federal employee because it is held by the US Naval Historical Center?

• It should be. I've been in email correspondence with the NH&HC/NHC over this in the past; their reply was

As a matter of general policy, we take the view that images presented on the NHHC website are "to the best of our knowledge ... in the Public Domain". If the image is credited as "U.S. Navy Photograph", it would have that status because it originated with an official source. If it is credited as "U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph", the image is either old enough to have made its way into the Public Domain before the copyright laws were changed to eliminate the old 27 years + 27 years rule, or because the image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned, or appears to have originated with an official source but we can't be sure.

If those considerations do not provide you, your lawyers, or the Wikipedia contributors community with sufficient certainty, and you therefore wish to avoid whatever risks might be involved with using any of our images, you are certainly welcome to seek alternative pictures from other sources.

Update: some checking revealed that this is an official U.S. Navy photograph. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:No.2 machinery space of USS North Carolina (BB-55) during construction.jpg - Please link the source description to the National Archives.

• Wow, this took much more hunting than I thought it would, but it appears to be from here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please add the link to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done, sorry, that was an oversight of mine. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:USS Washington (BB-56) launching ceremony, 1 June 1940.jpg - Please link to the source.

• Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:USS Washington (BB-56) damaged after her 1 Feb. 1944 collision with USS Indiana (BB-58).jpg - Please fix link.

• [2] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

These should be easy to fix and I look forward to striking my oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• Some of the links in the source section and those in the external links section need to use the cite web template.

  External links done, not sure which ones you mean for the sources? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can you add the WW2 portal to the article

  The Military of the United States portal is probably relevant too.

  They don't really have a lot of relevance to this article... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Use of abbreviations does appear not to be consistent in regards to knots; personally I think in regards to this one we should consistently use “knots” over “kn”

  Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest the below has confused me somewhat considering it has already been stated that the first few designs included 16 in guns.

  "Standley's only addition to the characteristics was that a switch from quadruple 14 in to triple 16 in turrets be possible if the 'escalator clause' in the Second London Naval Treaty was invoked. This provision allowed … to raise the 14 in limit to 16 in if Japan or Italy still refused to sign after 1 January 1937….[19][20][21]"

  You are correct. I have copyedited this.[3] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the main battery section we have started using the abbreviation “cal” but have not started further up the article that this means “calibre”. Can the abbreviation be added after the first use of the full word or be replaced.

  Done, I think.[4] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Barrel Life: AP and training rounds have been talked about; did these ships fire HE for shore bombardments? If so is there any information of there effect?

  The source, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm , doesn't say anything about HE. I'm guessing that HC replaced/superseded it? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Secondary battery, do we have a photograph or diagram to illustrate the weapons talked about?
  • Properly licensed Flickr image added. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Extremely detailed article thus far.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the review! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ealdgyth. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Villers-Bocage

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article meets all criteria, previous review did not flag up any major issues; the minor issues it did flag up have since been sorted out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is mostly quite good (thanks), but the two maps have problems. The alt text for File:Operation Perch.svg doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader the essence of the map, which is that the German lines run east-west, parallel to the ocean at the Allies' backs, and that there's a big gap in the German lines that the 131st INF BDE and 7th ARMD DIV are exploiting, with their goal being Villers-Bocage. There's a similar problem with File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidelines on alt text for maps. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  Cheers for that, i will take a look at it over the weekend.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  Bette rlate than never ;) I have edited the alt text for the two diagrams after reviewing the information within the article you linked to. They should now adhere to the correct standards.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• An image review was performed at the last FAC. Have any new images been added since then? Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  Just File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  What a beautiful map! Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I largely approve of the nicely written article. However I want to recommend an expansion or counter balance of some of the elements in the article. Especially since the article states that the German propaganda exploited the battle. I therefore have checked what the Wehrmachtbericht reports about the battle at Villers Bocage. Interestingly I find it very moderate in comparison to what is stated in the article. It reads on 14 June 1944

In der Normandie stieß eine gepanzerte Kampfgruppe in den feindlichen Brückenkopf östlich der Orne vor und brachte dem Gegner hohe Verluste an Menschen und Material bei.

My translation An armoured battle group attacked the enemy bridgehead east of the Orne in the Normandy and caused the enemy high numbers of casualties in men and material.

Taylor claims that it was Signal magazine in which doctored photographs appeared giving a larger sense of the destruction. On top of which Wittmann's account of the battle is also translated and presented in Taylor's work. Wittmann does give a bit of an over the top description and then clearly states that two battalions had been practically wiped out. The above from Wehrmachtbericht only appears to further support the article; however are you sure it is about the Villers-Bocage battle? V-B is west of the Orne and the Germans were reacting to the British move in this battle. 21st Panzer was operating east of the river and had launched numerous attacks on the 51st Infantry causing heavy casualties iirc thats why they could take no further role in Operation Perch.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Too be honest I am not sure, but this was the only reference I found about a battle in the vicinity of Villers Bocage at the timeframe in question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add that part of the point of that section is not so much that German propaganda exploited the battle - both the Axis and Allies did plenty of that, though the doctored photographs are an interesting nugget - but that the propaganda was given so much credence by the British both at the time and by professional historians for years afterwards. I think that's what makes it notable enough to be worth examining in such detail. EyeSerene^talk 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly I also miss references from the German point of view such as

• Agte, Patrick (2000). Michael Wittmann erfolgreichster Panzerkommandant im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Tiger der Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Preußisch Oldendorf. ISBN 3-920-72218-3. (German)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• As i have no access to this book nor do i read German, could you suggest what particular passages you are referring to that you feel should be added? The article may come off slightly Anglo-centric however we have tried to give an equal ammount of space to both points of view; it is largely determined by non-bais secondary sources, i.e. Taylor's work is mostly based off the reels of photographs taken by the Germans following the battle (quite a few we have used within the aritcle).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't get the impression that I want to rewrite history or that I want to contradict what is stated in the article. I have Atge's book and I will reread his position on the encounter. If I find something worth presenting I let you know and you can add at your own discretion. I only feel that looking at both sides of the coin makes an article more interesting and I somehow expect this from an FAC article (I know this isn't a requirement but makes for a good reading). MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You have Miles Dempsey as a General but he was not promoted to that rank until 1946.
    • Excellent catch, i have corrected this mistake.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we need to have two descriptions of the battle in the introduction? It's kind of confusing.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is written per MOS:BEGIN; the first paragraph gives a potted summary and defines the scope of the article, and the following paragraphs expand on the first. However, I've trimmed some extraneous information and tried to make things clearer. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Castles are one of the best known symbols of the medieval period and are there's no doubting their popularity, so it's about time the article was knocked into shape. It covers the development of this medieval institution and has sections on the different aspects of its use. The main points are covered, but due to the sheer size of the subject, not everything can be included in one article without digressing from the main subject; hopefully the article is still comprehensive and interesting. Any and all comments are welcome, so please do review. Thank you in advance anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: A vital article to be made FA, well-done on your work so far. I would argue that many more terms in the lead: moat, gunpowder, cannon, flanking fire, all need wikilinking.

"lay of the land" it's accurate, but not articulated.

Are two pictures at the lead necessary? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added more links to the lead per your suggestion, and substituted "lay of the land". [5]

The lead images are tricky. It is a subject that has lead to some prickly discussions on the talk page stretching back years (usually an editor popping along and asking why a castle in their country isn't the lead image). The use of two evolved over time (probably to ease the concerns about representation), but I can't say I'm particularly attached to the idea, and one would work well for me. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Response I chose the two pics, and I think two is justified, given 1. that there is plenty of room for them; 2. that they serve a purpose. They were selected to represent two very typical types of castles that are found all over Europe: those which make defensive use of a rugged position, and those that do not, and rely on massive walls and often a moat. The two images also depict two qualities associated with castles: the "romantic" image and the "forbidding" image. No single picture of a castle (that I can find) sums up what we mean by "castle" as well as the combination of the two.

Provisional Support At long last a real encyclopedia article! Let me go out on a limb and offer provisional support on the basis of Criterion 0(a) ("Notability"). I will, of course, go through the details later and my support could be withdrawn, but this is a good start. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Before I start reading the article, I wanted to make sure that you are not saying that private fortified residences did not exist in other parts of the world. In India, for example, they are simply called "forts," and most are/were residential. (Here's Britannica's lead: "Castle (architecture): medieval European stronghold, generally the residence of the king or lord of the territory in which it stands. Strongholds designed with the same functionality have been built throughout the world, including in Japan, India, and other countries." (I am assuming, though, that you're not saying this.)
• It seems to me that the lead is being a little coy about mentioning the 800-pound gorilla (named "Europe") in the room. (I see words like "symbolic," "Middle Ages," but no "Europe.") From what I have quickly gathered (from other sources), "castle" is the medieval European version of the private fortified residence of royalty and nobility. Strongholds with the same functionality (to use Britannica's language) were not only built outside Europe but also before the medieval period. The lead will need to acknowledge that up front.

I'll write my detailed comments on the talk page of the article in a compressed box. Hopefully soon! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The very particular thing about castles is that they are lordly fortified residences. Not only a defence, they are centres of administration and display. I would say that, in this instance, Britannica is not a reliable source; I think more useful is Darvill’s Dictionary of Archaeology which makes a specific link between castles and Europe, and does not include places such as India (although tertiary sources such as Britannica and dictionaries should always be treated with caution). There are of course fortified private residences that do not belong to lords or kings etc, but these are not castles; for example some farmhouses were fortified such as bastle houses but are not considered castles. It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative. It’s also important who they were built by (ie: the same type of people who lived in them as opposed to built by the state).

I’m slightly confused by your assertion that “Strongholds with the same functionality … [were built] before the medieval period”. The article does state that castles were a departure from previous fortifications (not just in Europe) which had generally been much larger and communal whereas castles were smaller and private. That’s what the source said anyway. As for extending beyond Europe, yes they did; castles were introduced to the Holy Land by the Crusaders. But the literature does not indicate that the permeated further east.

Hopefully this edit makes the lead a little more blunt (although the implication was that they originated in Europe). Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply! I'm a little strapped for time right now, but I'll mull it over and then continue on the article's talk page. All I am saying really is that you need to say something explicit along the lines of: "A castle is a private fortified residence associated with the nobility of Medieval Europe; private fortified residences were built by the nobility in other parts of the world as well, but these are generally not referred to as 'castles.'" (In other words I would use "Medieval Europe" (redirected to "Middle Ages") rather than the "Middle Ages," to help out the uninitiated. And state the scope of the article up front.) Many of the forts in the template Template:Forts in India are in fact the private fortified residences of "rajahs" or (little kings); some are bigger and belong to maharajahs (the big kings), and a few even mini-townships (of the Emperors). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: You present castles of Western Christian Europe as the only castles. That's a bit narrow. Either you define your topic better or you include castles from all over the world. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Wandalstouring, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion if you actually read the article. It devotes a large amount to castles in the Holy Land and the influence of the Saracens, and touches on the handful of late castles in the Americas. Perhaps you have some suggestions of how the article could be improved? What exactly do you think is missing? Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't mention large parts of Eastern Europe, Spain and Asia and Africa. I don't think a rewrite is feasible during this review. Make a better definition of your scope and explain to the reader how castles in other regions of the world were different. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not happy with the caption to the Bodiam Castle pic: Bodiam Castle in Sussex, England, was described as "an old soldier's dream house" in the 1960s, although its defences are now considered more ornamental than practical.[1] The bit about how it was described in the 60s, comes across as rather sentimental. It's OK for the article specifically on Bodiam, which might present a range of quotations, but it's out of place in this general article. Secondly, the bit about its defences being considered more ornamental than practical needs discussion and clarification. Once again, I think it's not relevant to the generic page. Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point so I've stripped back the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I reviewed the sourcing and commented on some aspects of the article in an informal Peer Review held before the article was nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Doornenburg Castle in Denmark" - Doornenburg Castle is definitely not in Denmark.... See Doornenburg Castle. Are there other such basic factual errors!? Also to expand on Wandalstouring. Why aren't there anything about castles in for example China, Japan and Korea? I would imagine they are quite different from the typical European castle.--Harthacnut (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You’re quite right, I went back to the sources and it seems that first time around I misread Dutch as Danish. A silly mistake, but shit happens. As to your second point, it is addressed below. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While this is an excellent article, I share Wandalstouring's concern about it not including castles in Asia. There are good reasons to have separate articles on the various different traditions of castle-building and use, so it may be best to split this article's content into a separate article (or articles). At present it's not a comprehensive account of castles around the world and so doesn't meet FA criteria 1(b). Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied below so it is highly visible as several people are concerned about this issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is present (thanks), and the images look great. but there are a few problems with proper names. Alt text should ordinarily be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and most non-experts won't be able to look at these images and verify the proper names in the alt text. For example File:Alcazar de Segovia.JPG has alt text saying that it's a Spanish castle, but a naive reader can't see from the image that it's Spanish. Please remove or move-to-captions the following phrases in the alt text, which have veriability problems: "Spanish", "English", "Tower of London", "Thames", "Traitor's Gate", "Windsor Castle". Also, please fix the capitalizations and spellings of "A Square" and "crennelations". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply With regard to the alt texts, this has been a matter of discussion. Because the alt text is normally read before the caption, it needs to give the clearest possible picture to a blind listener. Saying "A large castle seen from a river rising above a gateway" (and then a caption saying "The Tower of London" is simply not as revealing as saying "The Tower of London seen from the Thames River". Likewise saying "picture of a man with a beard wearing a black jacket and white shirt, looking left" is not as revealing as saying "picture of Charles Dickens wearing a black jacket and a white shirt" or "picture of Sadaam Hussein wearing a black jacket and a white shirt". In an alt description, the place or person needs to be immediately identified so that the blind person knows exactly what the object is, in order to relate to the description. Neither must we presume that the blind person has never had sight, or that they are ignorant. The description "Spanish castle" conjours up a different image to the description "English castle". This may not be true for ever listener, but it will certainly be the case for some. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The previous comment underestimates the intelligence of visually impaired readers. Just as sighted readers don't need text at the top of an image saying "TOWER OF LONDON", but can deal with seeing the image first and then the caption later, visually impaired readers are used to listening to alt text first and captions later. One of their major annoyances is repetition, and the strategy of saying "Tower of London" in the alt text and "Tower of London" in the caption hinders accessibility far more than any relatively-minor clarity rendered by saying it twice. (See WP:ALT#Repetition for more on this.)
• Dickens, Saddam, the Tower of London, and Windsor Castle are arguably iconic enough to be recognizable to most readers, and thus not to need description (as per WP:ALT#Proper names, which gives Big Ben and Napoleon as other examples of icons), so I've struck those from my comment.
• However, the other proper names in this article's alt text presume too much from a typical Wikipedia reader. It's OK to respect the readers, but it's not OK to confuse them. The vast majority of readers won't know Traitor's Gate from a hole in the wall. I'm particularly mystified as to why the phrase "Traitor's Gate" would appear only in alt text, where most readers can't see it: if this info is important enough to tell visually impaired readers, it's important enough to tell the rest of us; and once that's done, then as per WP:ALT#Repetition this info shouldn't be in the alt text.
• I'm dubious that a typical reader (visually impaired or not) will know what a English or Spanish castle looks like, as opposed to a castle in some other country; I don't think that one Wikipedia reader in a hundred could reliably tell castle nationality from these images. I suppose an expert in castles could tell, but please try to pretend that you're not an expert when deciding what should go into alt text.

Eubulides (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding criterion 1b I can speak only from the books I have read relating to the subject of castles. Not one has mentioned any of the countries that have been suggested by the above editors. I have to wonder why. While compiling the article I read beyond those included in the bibliography section; the reason they were not all used is that many repeated the same points, and usually one particular book covered the subject better than the others. Although some were focused on Britain, many took a wide view of castles. For them to ignore what several editors have suggested above is peculiar if they are correct in their assertions. And so I come to the conclusion that they are sadly wrong.

The fact of the matter is, I have taken this article as far as the literature allows it; to brand that as incomplete is not a judgment on the article, but on the scholarship of the subject. That is not the purpose of WP:FAC. The castle is a primary European development, so it’s hardly surprising that the article concentrates on Europe - although I have already noted that Saracen and even American castles are included. That’s why chivalry is linked with castles in literature, and why Gothic Revivalism was sparked in Europe. The entry for “castle” in Darvill’s Oxford concise dictionary of Archaeology declares that it is a European concept. Should you doubt that Darvill takes a wide ranging view of things, his dictionary includes terms such as the Cashibocana Phase (a South American cultural grouping), Quynh-van (a Neolithic site in Vietnam), and Babylon. If you disagree with his definition (as well that used by the likes of those included in the bibliography section, heavyweights of castle studies), I put it to you that you are going against the policy of WP:RS. There may very well be a gap in scholarship that should link castles with other things such as Tibetan fortifications, but that is not Wikipedia’s place as it would be original research. Twenty years ago it would have been impossible to have the landscape section as there simply wasn’t the literature about it. As more research is done into the subject of castles - an already heavily studied area - the scope of the article can increase, but until then it should work with the sources and not be synthesis.

I cannot say myself that there are definitively no castles in China, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, but common sense tells me that writers did not feel it necessary to spell it out in the same way they did not feel it necessary to state that there are no castles on the moon. If you still believe the article is incomplete, please give me some examples of what should be included with an explanation and some good sources. If that is not possible, then I shall stick with reliable sources and the article’s scope will remain as it is. I applaud those who say we should include as many things as possible as castles for their egalitarian attitude, but sadly in this case it is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy that there must be no original research. I understand how it may seen that this article has gaps, but I hope I have demonstrated that that is not the case. My apologies for not replying sooner, I should have foreseen this.. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing a quick search I find for example Japanese castles 1540-1640 and Castles of the Samurai: Power and Beauty. I can't speak for the quality of the books, but considering there are books like these, I find it hard to believe that it is not a subject that should be explored in the article. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese castle (Shiro in Japanese) is in see also here. They are certainly a case of parallel development, apparently beginning just as the European castles were ceasing to be of military significance, but a different phenomenon. I've argued at the talk page that they are worth a few sentences in this respect, but they certainly don't belong in the main sections. See page 5 of the first book you link to, for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The case with literature might be a result of authors being unable to read papers in other languages. Concerning the crusades it's quite common that European historians don't have a clue about medieval Arabian, Syriac and Hebrew and for this reason leave out a lot of sources or only quote English translations of a few works. Same is often true for the modern languages in which works on these subjects are published. Same could be applied for castles, however the term castle is used in English for Chinese, Japanese, Muslim and ... structures. I stand by my suggestion to make a clear definition that you talk about castles of Western Christianity. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That writers may not be able to read reports etc in other languages has crossed my mind, and it does hinder the spread of information. But what can Wikipedia do about it? It means that we're reflecting the literature, criterion 1c: "[a] representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". But no, the article is demonstrably not restricted to the castles of Western Christianity, so please stop insisting it is. Again, I’ll go back to Darvill's summary that emphasises Europe, as do many, many other sources. If you disagree with that, you are going against the sources. There are many things called castles, not all actually fit the definition. It may, however, be worthwhile including a brief section on Japanese castles due to their similarities, despite that they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Castle comes from the Roman castelum, simply meaning fortress. If you feel there's any other definition to it, please make it clear and say why other structures called castles aren't considered castles by your authors. That someone has written a book about castles doesn't mean it completely covers the topic. Books are written for selling and you sell to people what interests them. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition in English is clear, and given and cited in the article. Despite some stately country houses, usually on the sites of former castles, having "castle" in their name, the English term is much clearer than the French or German one (though I think the Italian "castello" is also more restricted). What exactly are you suggesting? A disambiguation page for "castle", going to Western castle, Japanese castle and, er, what else? There is clearly no point in merging the long Japanese article here. Most other cultures, for example China, have concentrated on fortified cities. The Tibetan/Bhutanese fortified monasteries, dzongs, are the next nearest thing I'm aware of, but these are not referred to as castles. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We have this definition of castles in the article and the different use in other works where castle is refered to structures in different parts of the world like some ribats in Spain. The problem is that the definition of feudal isn't clear, does it exclusively refer to the Western Christian organization of society or is it the general structure of a society like we also find it in Muslim countries and in Japan. Another problem arises with semi-non-feudal societies in Europe that hold control over "castles" like the Swiss. Does a castle become a fortress with the change of ownership and why is it still called a castle in literature? I know that sounds pretty much like hairsplitting, but we have to make a very clear point because of actual differing common use in English as opposed to a few scientists's definition. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition in the article doesn't bring in feudalism at all, or any particular form of social organization. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition given in the lead seems to be "a fortified structure that also served as a private residence (in medieval Europe)" and this is repeated under "Definition". Even if we for the sake of the consistency of the argument decide to entirely ignore the fact that Japanese daimyo appear to have lived in their own "Japanese" castles, does that mean that "medieval Europe" ends somewhere west of the Vistula (except where Western Christians like the Teutonic Order set up shop)? At least that's what the actual content of the article seems to imply.

I agree that there's probably a good reason to limit this article to Christian European structures, maybe even just Western European ones, but I think it requires a better summary of the definition among historians. The current one is either too vague to be this narrow or hasn't been reported clearly enough.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's another title that seems to discuss castles on a worldwide scale.[6] The table of contents appears to imply that non-European fortifications aren't quite defined as castles, but it most certainly includes Eastern Europe. Peter ^Isotalo 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Eastern European castles are excluded from the article as it is, though i agree they are not much mentioned, but then nor are many other areas. The literature I've seen suggests that France, England and the Crusader States mostly led technical developments, but then I've never read a Polish book on the subject. Perhaps a vmention should be added when brick is being discussed. The book above gives 16 i think pages to Eastern Europe, half what it gives to Spain & not much more than Ireland gets. The WP article is not a geographical survey in this way. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no information at all about Eastern Europe except for the picture of the Teutonic Order castle in Malbork and a mention of "the Baltic". If I've simply missed it, you're welcome to highlight it for me.

Again, an overall focus on Western Europe isn't unreasonable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any other information to speak of at all. I agree that the availibility of literature should to one degree or another decide the article focus, but in this case it just seems quite obvious that we're dealing with a systemic bias. That Ireland and Eastern Europe are given equal treatment seems like an obvious indication of this. We could afford to at least describe Eastern Europe just a smidgen more than we are right now. And we should probably also include something about Japan as long as the verifiable definitions fail to explicitly excude them, especially now that we have a source available through Google Books. 1b does not automatically overrule all requests for neutrality just through sheer quantity of references. Peter ^Isotalo 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are relatively few indications of place in the article at all, other than the examples given, which are indeed mostly from France, England and the Crusader States. What should be said about Eastern European castles, other than that they exist? The book on Google on Japan arguably excludes them itself by saying they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". In other words, they need their own article here, which they have. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You call them castles. They may derive from a different source, but it's common English usage to call them castles. This pretty much cristalizes the issue around the definition. We have few scientists arguing against the common English use. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's basically wrong. You're suggesting that the article be expanded to include hill forts such as Maiden Castle because they're colloquially and wrongly called castles. People in the medieval period called walled cities castles, but the article uses the academic definition as it obviously should. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring and other commenters here that this is a fine article, but that it is geographically biased. There is one photo of a Central European castle built by Germans and none from Eastern Europe. This reflects the text well. It is very interesting to learn that brick castles are common in Scandinavia and why, but there is no mention of comparable trends in the Balkans, for instance. There are also some phrases such as "the 13th-century ruler of the Saracens," which could be clarified. In this instance, it is worth noting that there never was one unified Muslim state in the Near East. The works cited for this article are slightly unsatisfactory, but that does not get in the way of FA status, in my opinion. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

References have been found which explicitly call the structures in Japan 'castles'. I visited Japan last year and they were called 'castles' there on all the English-language signage I saw. There is no reason to exclude them from this article and I'm surprised that they haven't been included. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a reason. They may be analogous, but they are not the same. I'll give you an example, recently I came across the description on Wikipedia of the Hellots of ancient Greece as serfs, a medieval concept. Academic sources are split on whether to describe them as such because it's anachronistic and there are many differences, but the term serves as a convenient short-hand so many do use it. Some academics attempt to apply modern models of economy and society, such as Marxism, on ancient societies despite evident differences, incompatibilities, and anachronism; it's not necessarily wrong, it's used as a short-hand to aid people to understand something they are unfamiliar with by associating it with something familiar. What we have in the case of "Japanese castles" is something that was used because it was an easy term despite their obvious differences. They should be recognised as a separate, though similar, phenomenon which is why Japanese castle is an independent article. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the 'Castle' article, not the Castles in Europe and the Middle East article. As such, it needs to cover 'castles' worldwide. I'd suggest that you either expand this article to include Japanese castles or, perhaps better still, create a new article which covers the European and Middle East tradition of castle-building. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The argument that something is too different to merit inclusion requires some kind of backing from references, or it's just a subjective editorial choice. And if you're saying that academic sources are split on this issue, then there's even more reason to include the Japanese castles (and others) on grounds of neutrality. Peter ^Isotalo 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Finding a solution for 1b. We have scientists of the Middle Ages defining "castle" because castle is a term that's not always used according to this definition. That's why it's necessary to provide this definition in the introduction. We are writing for wikipedia, thus we have to reflect the opinions in science and use the most common English name. If an object is classified differently in science than in common use we have to point out this difference. So the whole issue boils down that you point out that the term castle is commonly used for different structures than what scientists of the Middle Ages define as castles. It would be good if you give as many example of different "castles" that aren't considered castles in the science of the Middle Ages to give the reader an idea where to look them up. Is this an agreeable solution? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Alcazar de Segovia.JPG - Please add a description of the castle and an author to the image description page.

• File:Carcassonne(France)4.JL.jpg - Please add a description of the castle and an author to the iamge description page.

• Nothing has been done on this one. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Striking, as this has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tapisserie motte dinan.jpg - Please add a description of the tapestry (including date and author (if known)) to the image description page.

• The file says clearly it is from the Bayeux Tapestry, whose Commons cat it is in. Johnbod (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please add the date and author, if known, of the tapestry. Once that is included, I can fix the license (which is incorrect - clearly a medieval tapestry could not have been licensed under CC-by-SA in the middle ages!). Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Krak des chevaliers - artist rendering.jpg - This image cannot be licensed under GFDL/CC-by-SA since it is from 1871. Please add the publication location so that we can fix up the licensing. Thanks!

• Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg - The uploader and the author don't appear to be the same person. The uploader needs to be able to release the copyright (which belongs to the author). Can you contact the uploader and see what the situation is?

• Problem still exists. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Echafaud.donjon.Coucy.2.png - Please add an English translation to the image description page.

• File:Malbork zamek zblizenie.jpg - Please remove the watermark from the photo. I'm confused by the source - it says "pl.wiki" - does this mean that the it was user generated by User:Topory?

• Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Trebuchet.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person. Please contact the author and make sure that he has released the rights to this photo. He can indicate as much on the image description page, for example.

• Problem still exists. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, although I think most have been fixed. Regarding File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, Lapo Luchini (who is attributed as the author) edits infrequently and as far as I can see hasn't edited since October. The confusion arises because Elya transferred the file across to commons, but I should think the license was kept the same. I'm not sure what to do about the drawing of Krak des Chevaliers as I don't have the book it came from and was taking the source on good faith. I could replace it with another image of Krak des Chevaliers (there are several on commons) if it's still a problem. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all the issues addressed. The two images that haven't yet been sorted (the old drawing and the one with the watermark) have been replaced. As for File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, I just noticed that the edit summary of the person who transferred the file from the Italian Wikipedia to Commons was "(* Castle (Fortezza Firmafede) of Sarzana, Italy * author: it:Utente:LapoLuchini * date: 2002-08-07 {{GFDL}} Category:Cities_in_Italy)", which I assume means it was under a GDFL license there so should be fine on Commons. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The issues regarding the uploader/author questions is not about the license precisely - it is whether the person who is claiming to release the rights through the license has the right to do so. When the uploader and the author are the same, we know that the uploader has the right to release the rights. However, I'm not seeing in the documentation here that the author ever uploaded the image (even to another wiki). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see a record of the uploader being the author (I might just be blind from looking at too many images, though). If the author and uploader are different, the author needs to give explicit permission, either by signing the page or going through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please link any new images that have been added to the article here so that I don't have to go searching for them - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The trebuchet image has been "signed" by the author, this can be made more prominent if necessary. I have replaced File:Carcassonne(France)4.JL.jpg with File:France cite de carcassonne chateau comtal2.jpg; the other two new images are File:Crac des chevaliers syria.jpeg and File:Marienburg 2004 Panorama.jpg. I've also added the date to the Bayeux Tapestry image (author unknown and probably multiple, the date is uncertain but probably 11th century). I think looking for the author of the Fortezza image may be a dead end as they're probably not around now, so I'll look for an alternative image. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the Fortezza image with File:Copertino.jpg. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:France cite de carcassonne chateau comtal2.jpg - Please add an English description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• File:Copertino.jpg - The description does not indicate the original source of the image. I presume it was taken by the uploader, but we need verification of this from the uploader. The history of the file, which might have clarified this, is unreadable, unfortunately. Also, please add an English description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dab link fixed. Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The notion that the "other European words for castle derive from castellum" appears to only hold true if if you limit yourself to English and Romance languages. I don't know if other words were used in Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric and other languages during the Middle Ages, but the modern terms are certainly not derived from the Latin term. -Peter ^Isotalo

It's verifiable: the source states that other European words for castle derive from castellum, but that's not to say all of them do. The section is about the derivation of the word "castle" so it's relevant to mention other similarly derived words. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest rephrasing the section for clarity, then, because currently "other European words" implies what I said above. Peter ^Isotalo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've made the phrasing less ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In German, castle is Schloss; don't know it's origin is though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The German article is at Burg in fact. Schloss has as its lead pic the highly unfortified rococo Sanssouci, and even more than chateau means a grand country house or "stately home", regardless of architectural style. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the trace italienne or link to the article (other than in the template at the bottom, which is insufficient). Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They are to some extent the successor of the castle, & could be mentioned as such, but are essentially different: "the star fortress was a very flat structure composed of many triangular bastions, specifically designed to cover each other, and a ditch". Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point; the article talks about the obsolescence of castles with the advent of gunpowder artillery, and should really mention the trace italienne, which succeeded the castle in the role of area defense. Yes, the walls were shorter and thicker, but the point was the same: to project power over a local area. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning them in the sense that they were major fortifications with their roots in castles (with the Henrican artillery forts as a notable predecessor of star forts, but only in a one liner. To state simply that their purpose was the same is to take an old fashioned view of castles and focus solely on their military role at the expense of other important facets. Country houses are already mentioned as their successors in social terms, a mention of castles' immediate military successors would not be amiss. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support Let me say what an achievement this article is. To write about a topic as diverse as the castle is extraordinarily difficult and the editors are to be commended for their success. On the point raised above about comprehensiveness, I do not feel that adding information about other areas of the world is necessary to fulfill 1b and 1c. In fact, if extensive information on Japan and China were added, I think it might distort the summary of the academic literature. I looked at the "castle" entry in a few reference works today, all of them tertiary like Wikipedia aims to be; all of them focused on the castle in medieval Europe and the Middle East. If they mentioned any other place, it was Japan and for only a phrase or a sentence. I might also add that our article is in many ways better than those I looked at because it goes into so much detail. However, before I fully support, I do have a few issues that I would like to raise:

• Above, Nev1 wrote in his explanation of the castle, "It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative." - I'm wondering if the article could do with a bit more explanation of what feudalism was and what the relationship between the lord and his tenants was. I'm thinking here of a very basic explanation - just a reminder for the reader of what feudalism was. This could be added to the "Defining characteristics" section or the "Social centre" section.
• The material on courtly love seems like a tangent in the "Social centre" section. I would suggest removing it or explaining what about courtly love was related precisely to castles.
• Little of servant life inside the castle is described. Would it be possible to add something on this?
• This source is a children's book and thus does not meet the requirement of "high quality" source. There is only one fact sourced to it, however ("Brick castles were predominant in Scandinavia and the Baltic"), so replacing it with a good source should be easy.
• At times, some of the sentences ran a little long and a few were a bit awkward. I plan to put a list of these sentences on the article's talk page in the coming days. These are very small issues and will not keep me from supporting.

I hope these comments were helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I always find it very exciting when broad articles like this are brought to FAC. Although I usually review science articles, I think my critical eye may be beneficial to a popular article such as this one. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Like Awadewit, I'm leaning towards support, but there are some serious prose issues that need to be addressed. For instance: "Walkways along the tops of the curtain walls allowed defenders to rain missiles on enemies from above." When did it become become possible for rain to defy gravity and target flying enemies? Having said that, I don't see anything that can't be dealt with pretty quickly. I'll add my efforts to those of Awadewit's and Cryptic C62 to address the prose issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SMS Lützow

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This article passed GA in August and a MILHIST A-class review in September. It's somewhat short, but the ship was sunk after having been in commission for less than a year. I look forward to any and all suggestions from reviewers. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments No dab links, no external links (I made the "training" link an InterWiki), the four images have alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article are consistent Day Month Year. Yay. --an odd name 01:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those. And your enthusiasm is quite refreshing :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I made a small clarification in the intro. Otherwise, I think it's a good article. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• The article should have a wiki commons link and a First World War portal link?
  • The only image on Commons of this ship is this one, which doesn't meet the sourcing requirements and should probably be deleted. Hence, it's not in the article.
    • No problems on the commons link. Would a link to the Portal:World War I not be approbirate on this article?
      • Ive added the portal link.
        • Thanks, I forgot to do that :)
• Nothing in the infobox appears to be sourced, am sure it is but there is n evidence; can we add a note or some inline citations?
  • Done.
    • Cheers.
• Not a major issue but do the Germans use First World War or World War One?
  • I seem to think this was discussed years ago on Talk:World War I, and I believe they use both "der Große Krieg" (the great war) and "der ersten Weltkrieg" (the first world war).
    • I would suggest to change to the latter per some twisted form of Wikipedia:ENGVAR, if there is consensus for it.
• Should we not have an English translation after Kaiserliche Marine, i made the educated guess it meant German navy but i dont believe it is a common foriegn word used in English i.e. Luftwaffe or Panzer etc
  • Note added
    • Cheers.
• "Lützow was commissioned on 8 August 1915, but did not join the I Scouting Group until 20 March due to engine damage during trials, after most of the major actions that had been conducted by the German battlecruiser force." To me this sentance reads a little awakward; is I Scouting Group the battlecruiser force?
  • Yes, the I SG was where the battlecruisers were assigned. I split the sentence and reworded the second half; does that read better now?
    • On the whole yes. Would it be incorrect to also add "battlecruiser force" infront of I Scounting Group just for confirmation?
• "During the battle, Lützow sank the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible and is sometimes given credit for the armored cruiser HMS Defence.[1]" Leads should not have references in them.
  • Leads can have references, but I can move it if you like.
    • The idea is that everything in the lead is sourced in the article, but thanks anyway :)
• The Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft section to me doesnt seem to really focus on the ship, could we trim it slightly?
• "The operation was to be a repeat of previous German fleet actions" Is there an article covering this, if so can we link to it?
• Lützow withdraws: do we know which ships were firing on the Lützow at this point or was it the entire battleline? If we dont know dont worry :)
  • Nope, I haven't seen anything giving credit for the last few hits on the ship. I can look through Campbell again, but I don't know if I'll find anything.
    • No problems :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than that an excellent informative article in my opinion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Most if not all items i have raised have been addressed, excellent article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: just a thought, should a quick line to be added to talk about the KMS Lützow (not completed iirc) or the Lützow class heavy cruisers? Although they are not related to this ship and they are all named after the Prussian guy (i would imagine) it may not be approbriate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There was the Hipper class cruiser, and Deutschland was later renamed Lützow. I can add a line at the bottom later. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, i was completly mistaken i was thinking of the Hipper class; dont know how i managed to confuse them all :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Support

• In the lead, it says "Lützow was sister ship to Derfflinger". Should this be "a sister ship"?
• Construction section, "Lützow was ordered as Ersatz Kaiserin Augusta". What was responsible for the name change?
• Lutzow scuttled section, "The ship was capable of 7 knots up until around 00:45 when the ship began taking on more water." Repetition of "the ship". Actually, I count "the ship" repeated seven times in the first paragraph, two times twice in one sentence. Could this be reworded a bit to make it more varied?

Overall a nice article. I look forward to supporting when these issues are rectified. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I fixed the points you raised (I added a note explaining the German ship naming stuff) and reworded the scuttling section. Is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes. I have read through the article again and nothing else jumped out at me. I believe this article meets the featured article criteria, and so I am changing my "comment" to "support". Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Still needs conversions for displacements, speeds, range, etc.
• Needs clarification of what caused the flooding. Was it the 8 hits from Invincible? Or, perhaps, the later hits? Inquiring minds, etc...?
• Link to an explanation of points. Non-sailors have no idea how far that is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, I think I've got all the conversions, let me know if you find one I missed. I added a line to the text to clarify it was the 8 hits from Invincible that did the fatal damage. For points, I linked to the appropriate article and added a footnote explaining it. Thanks, Sturmvogel. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USS Congress (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Self nomination. Article has passed GA and A reviews within the last two months. Information on this ship has been very difficult to find. Apparently the ship was not deemed worthy enough by historians resulting in the small size of the article. Nevertheless, throughout the GA and A reviews I was able to find further information to add which has expanded the article to some extent but there are still gaps. This article is part of my larger plan for a featured topic on the Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Decline: 2c.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this page is so long, resolved comments moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by Kirk on 3, 1(a,b,c)

• Regarding the image in the lead, I'm not sure the USS Chesapeake is a 'sister ship' since it was built differently (the whole 44 to 36 to 38, plus it had slightly different dimensions) so I think the better choice here is a picture of the USS Constellation.

Just prior to this nomination for FA I removed File:USS Constellation.jpg from this article because it is of questionable origins. The original link it was downloaded from is no longer resolving therefore not allowing a verification. If you compare that file with File:USSChesapeake.jpg there is an eerie similarity between the both of them. The only file in this case that I can verify as being true and valid is the Chesapeake one. The use of "sister ship" is in regard to Congress being one of the original six. None of these ships were exactly the same as any other. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm almost positive I've seen a painting of the USS Congress (1799), but its so historically less significant than the other original frigates they probably haven't digitized it yet; have you attempted to call the Historical center to find out? I think with a little leg work you can get the actual photo of the painting.

There are plenty of photos of USS Congress (1841) because of her notoriety as being sunk at Hampton Roads by CSS Virginia. I have thoroughly searched several times for pics of the 1799 Congress and have turned up nothing. Calling the NHHC asking for pics of this ship is more than I'm willing to do. It smells of original research and I am not willing to expend any funds to cover the costs of obtaining a photo. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• You can't send an e-mail to see if you can find it in a secondary source? I'll have to check your A review for the exact issue but at this point I think no picture is probably a better choice here. Also, according to this Guide to Remarks Made on Board the United States Frigate Congress, 1817 the image is a wood cut of the USS Congress (1799) on page 274 of John Frost's The Book of the Navy, 1842. Maybe that will work?

I have seen this one before and neither source specifically states that the photo is of Congress I could certainly use the photo as it's public domain but the best caption I could use for the photo would be something like A representative illustration of an 19th century frigate.--Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Its probably worth including; can you add the sail plan? Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, [American LIght and Medium Frigates 1794 - 1836. Has a picture of the Congress from 1817 on page 35, and some explanation of the rating system in the US Navy - basically, three classes 44, 36, 32 which simply meant the amount of crew on board, the number of guns actually varied in each class. Kirk (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Google is not allowing me to see page 35. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, maybe check it out from your local library. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• ...which lead me to Canney's Sailing Warships of the US Navy page 45 - 46, with the ship sail plan on page 46. Original armament was 28 18-pdrs and 12 9-pdrs (ugh); by 1812 the armament was 24 18-pdr and 20(!) 32-pdr carronades, as all the surviving frigates were turned into '44's. See page 41, which claims it was a 38, not a 36; I think the rating by crew makes a heck of a lot more sense. Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that I mention the original armament in addition to the 1812 setup? What a ship was rated at is different from what amount of guns it actually carried. The author is not claiming that Congress and Constellation's ratings were changed to 44 gun ships but that they "carried" 44 or more guns. The article here on Congress clearly states in the lead and in the infobox that she was rated at 38; and mention is made that she was originally designated a 36 by the Naval Act but was re-rated to a 38. I don't see what the trouble is with that. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. I just realized that I have the armament referenced to DANFS and the DANFS article doesn't agree. I've no idea where I got those figures from but I will work on fixing this. This might have caused some misunderstandings here. My apologies. --Brad (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The armament discrepancies have been straightened out using Canney as a reference. --Brad (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it, thanks! I have one question regarding the 38 gun rating (footnote #4) - does that source actually have a footnote which explains why it was re-rated? (The sentence "...re-rated as 38s while under construction" on page 128?). Never mind, Chapelle didn't cite his sources...how annoying. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Construction section is missing some important details. For example, I want more information about the transition from 36 to 38 guns - we have a sentence and as source, but I think this should be expanded to explain what ship rating meant in the US Navy at the time. I looked in some other sources and they usually discuss why carronades were used and the difference betweeen 18 and 24 pound guns. I'm curious why they didn't use 24 pound guns during the War of 1812 like the other frigates. Also, USS Constitution has a slightly different take on the construction methods you might consider researching, because a historically interesting thing about the Congress was it fell apart quickly. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know more about the change from 36 to 38 guns but have not been able to find anything further. It would be apparent and necessary to explain why the Naval Act called for 36 gun ships and later on they've all been referred to as 38s. Chapelle and Beach are the only sources to mention the rating was even changed but the only reason given is because of their size.

"Rating" may be the wrong term to use in describing the ships. Unlike the rating system of the Royal Navy the US never had one to my knowledge. "Classed" might be more of an appropriate term to use but I am not sure.

I really believe the hows and whys of what armament was used and when belongs in another article. I don't see the value in introducing the explanation to an article on a particular ship when the issue would involve all ships of the Navy during that period.

Since I brought Constitution to FA last year I can most definitely tell you that all of the extra information given in the construction section is only citable to Constitution. As a blanket statement to any sparse descriptions in this article I can answer that there just aren't any. This article was very difficult to find information for. Two years prior to Congress being scrapped, Constitution was in the same condition but funds were approved to make the repairs. Apparently there was no funds or public outcry to save Congress. --Brad (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I looked in a couple of other sources & all the original frigates were ordered to be built the same way, so you should be able to add that to the article. Toll should have something you can use. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about another article, maybe there should be a Rating System of the US Navy article, but the problem for this FAC is that this rating system stuff is not common knowledge, so a reader who finds out its rated as a 38 gun frigate in the infobox but was authorized as a 36 gun frigate is going to be confused. I can't actually check the source you cited for 38 guns, but DANFS lists 24 18-pdr., 12 12-pdr long guns (which you can see in the woodcut) & as opposed to Constellation, with 38 24-pdr long guns; Chesapeake, 30 18-pdr with 12 carronades. 12-pdr long guns would have been almost useless in the war of 1812; must have been replaced by carronades which would probably have resulted in the re-rating to 38 guns. I'll see if I can help.

• There are also some fixable prose problems with paragraphs which are too short, missing en dashes, etc. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Summary

• Re: 1c, I have requested a copy edit.

• Bellhalla has copy edited the article. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are still at least 4 paragraphs which are too short (only two sentences). Also the last section is too short - can you expand those? Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Re: 3, There are two generic frigate photos that could be used for this article: File:Frigate (PSF).png or File:Frigate J-644 (PSF).png. I believe either one of these would be just as effective as uploading something else generic. --Brad (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since there are no further comments regarding the infobox pic I'm going to leave it as is. I have changed the caption and believe that while the current pic isn't exactly accurate, it is more visually appealing than any alternative. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Using the woodcut in the infobox & the sail plan in the construction section would be my preference; both are in the public domain but you'll just have to upload them. Also, the book Constellation has the design diagram for the Congress (which shared it with the Constellation) toward the beginning (i'll send you the page tomorrow), also PD, which really supports my original objection (that one you may need to scan in). I'll also ping one of the MilHist ship admins to look at this issue, kind of 1b&3 but maybe I'm being too picky! Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Constellation - page 8, but unfortunately not digitized yet. Kirk (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• You're making assumptions that I need to clarify. I am a total dolt when it comes to working with photo programs and I've been that way for years. I do not own a scanner and my computer is an aging 7 year old relic. It cannot even handle photos through MS Paint or gimp. With that said, I believe the article meets the C3 criteria. The pics are not perfect but neither are the alternatives you've suggested. The current pics do not misrepresent the subject or make claims of any similarity to Congress at all. Both photos have solid public domain status with applicable licenses. --Brad (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will help with the technical doltness - Ed agreed the sailplan should be in the article, so I'll see what I can do today. I'll also start scanning some Constellation images since you'll need those eventually. However, I'm not sure I can get that done in the timeframe of a FA review. Clarifying my objection: the article barely meets the MilHist B5 standard for appropriate supporting materials...the closest I could see in the FA was 3, but maybe its 1b & if I was your GA reviwer I wouldn't have promoted it until we had more supporting materials in the article. I'll do what I can to help - I've enjoyed learning about this part of US Naval History. Kirk (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added sailplan as the infobox image & updated alt text, let me know what you think. Kirhess (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Added cross section of the Constellation/Congress design to both articles. Kirk (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but needs work. "A ship at sail" is too terse. I suggest mentioning the number and types of masts and/or sails and/or decks, the U.S. flag flying, and any other details that jump out at you and can easily be confirmed by a non-expert. The alt text "John Rodgers in his naval uniform" is both too terse (it says little of what Rodgers looks like) and contains the unnecessary phrase "John Rodgers" (this should be removed as being both repetitive with the caption and unverifiable by an expert looking only at the image). Please see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Portraits for advice about alt text for that portrait. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo fixed the John Rodgers alt. I'm going to wait on the infobox pic until it's decided if it should stay or not. --Brad (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been ten days now, and the infobox pic is still there. Assuming it'll stay, can someone please add alt text for it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been completed. --Brad (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks good; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I checked some congressional documents via Lexis-nexus congressional, and they always refer to the three smaller frigates in text and tables rated at 36-guns. I think what happened here is either the builders (or Chapelle!) equated them to the 38-gun frigates of the Royal Navy, but officially, the US Navy had three ratings of frigates during this time period: 44 (United States), 36 (Constellation), 32 (Essex). I'll add a note and write up this with some of the sources that describes some of this in detail. I think as long as the rating is consistent for Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake in the info boxes/prose and has a footnote to Chapelle that's fine with me. Kirk (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have not read beyond the introduction. I want to congratulate the writers in putting all the significant information- what was it/where was it/what date was it... into the first three sentences. It is amazing how many articles are put up for promotion without this basic content in the first paragraph. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I went through the article and performed some copy edits. Some items I noted:
  • In "Construction" section was there a single event that began attacks on American ships? Or was there just an uptick in attacks that prompted the ship construction? The way it's worded now suggests that no American ships were attacked prior to the 1790s, which may or may not be the case.

I've hopefully clarified this section. The real gritty details in the main article. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Lots of compound adjectives that incorrectly have en dashes. It should be "36-gun frigate" rather than "36–gun frigate", for example. (I've attempted to change ones that I've seen, but it wouldn't hurt to check that all have been corrected.)

Found one more and removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In "Armament" section: In order to reduce the strings of numbers and ×s, I've violated the MOS guidelines regarding numerals/numbers so that each enumeration of guns is listed as twenty-eight 18 pounders (8 kg), for example

Agree. The 28 x 18 starts to look like a circus of numbers when closely used together. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In the same section: why the comparison to British ships-of-the-line rather than to comparably sized ships? One wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) discuss the armament of a destroyer, for example, and say that it has fewer guns than a cruiser.

Removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In "War of 1812" section: Did the Commodore Rodgers-led squadron consist of the list of ships that follows? Right now it reads as if the squadron as a unit sailed alongside these other ships.

Should be clarified now. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In the same section: Diversion of men and materials created a shortage of only materials? Maybe, depending on what the source says, it should read something like By this time of the war, materials and personnel were being diverted to the Great Lakes, which creating a shortage of resources necessary to repair Congress

I added your suggestion. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In section "Second Barbary War": The sentence beginning Peace having already been secured by Decatur with Algiers and several other Barbary States… is confusing. If it means that by the time Congress and her group arrived that the war was already over?

Clarified. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In the "Bibliography" section: there's one entry that is formatted with {{citation}}, giving it a slightly different format than the rest, all formatted with {{cite book}}

Fixed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article is a little sparse, but I see the comments above regarding sources on this ship, so that doesn't really bother me that much. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy edit; replies above. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - Image copyrights check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I have given this a quick copyedit; few changes, as Bellhalla had been through before me. One quibble: the Citation template used inside the one Note is not displaying properly. I'm not fond of two-sentence paragraphs, but recognize that sometimes they're better than smashing unrelated events/information together. Otherwise, looking good. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections. You bring up a point I've been trying to figure out myself. The note currently uses a Harvard style reference which is not inline with the rest of the article. I'm not sure how to use a ref within a note to produce the [#] citation and have it match the others. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to solve that directly. Given that it's just a single citation, I've rewritten it in plaintext, to display inside the footnote itself. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image thoughts - File:USS Constellation.jpg has been updated with source stuff, but I'd email the Navy Art Collection to ensure that Schmidt painted it in the course of his official USN duties. However, the Library of Congress has a few images of Constellation; [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ...never mind, I see that a "sail plan" of Congress has been uploaded. :-) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Image problems should now be resolved. --Brad (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comments by Kirk - Striking objections; I tried finding an image of Captain Sever for the Quasi-war section but failed; I'll see if I can find/scan the sheer plan. The placement of the body plan image is in a bad spot; it could be closer to the construction section where I originally put it, but if you don't like the text sandwich, I think that can be accomplished by expanding the lead. Kirk (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Winter War

Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
• Citation dates are consistent Day Month Year after a minor edit.
• All images have alt text. The Joseph Stalin navbox had default "Joseph Stalin.jpg" alt text, so I changed that. Some of the earlier alt text has text not obvious from seeing only the image—there may be more such problems:
  • For the first one, perhaps just "A group of soldiers are wearing snowsuits and aiming a heavy machine gun."? (The caption already says they are Finnish, which is not entirely obvious from the image.)
  • For the "Background" map, specify the Baltic countries.
  • Instead of "The signature ceremony in a small office in Helsinki.", maybe "Two men sign papers at opposite sides of a table in a small office"?
  • Instead of "Several people surround walking Paasikivi. The picture is taken at the front.", try to describe the group of men wearing hats to the left, the woman to the right, and the crowd behind.

--an odd name 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Peltimikko (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Struck issues (finally). I changed ref 24 to be a bulleted list of cites instead of the "tl;dr" bunch. --an odd name (help honey) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this excellent article easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support A very good article, in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks!), but it has some problems:

Resolved alt text commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline Nearly resolved: 1a, 1c, Fully resolved: 2c ; expect it will make it, it looks great. I can't see any 1d issues which is very good.
  1. 1a - remaining language stuff needs a once more over. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. We need to recruit a volunteer English First Language person to smooth some of the grammar, and weirder English tenses in writing. Done (or?). (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

        Because of Finnish mates, I'm doing a second-look-over myself. Happy with the strike. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

     2. fn9 needs to use English format percentages 22.6 not European 22,6 Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. New 1a decline reason: Talk:Winter War#For decision: US English, UK English, Australian English, Indian English... needs to be resolved and implemented. I don't particularly care which version of English is used, but one needs to be used consistently. ise count is 3, ize count is 4. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. 1c - remaining points moving towards resolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Original Research at fn8. Done. (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. fn11 lacks page references, as does fn12. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. Not convinced of the quality of scholarship from the 1950s in the last two paragraphs of the Section "Aftermath - Finnish views". More recent scholarship available?... aaah... this is meant to be a historiography / reception section. Needs a rewrite to be less "actions during the war" as content to "debate within Finland on the war" Response: Some grammar done. I have not figured out how to answer this. There is much more detailed article Aftermath of the Winter War. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. Speaking of which, convince me you've searched for post 1991 Russian scholarship of high quality (I can't transliterate fn21 rapidly enough myself) Response: I moved references inside a note. A purpose is to demonstrate, that a word "Winter War" (as well as Soviet–Finnish War 1939–1940) is also widely used in Russian histography. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. You've got a "[verification needed]" needed tag Additional sources added. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. 2c Consistency Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Inconsistent attribution of language sources published in in notes. Compare fn141 Author Title (in Finnish). fn21 (Russian) Author Title, and fn93 [no attribution of lanugage supplied]. Corrected Russian fn21 and changed fn141, fn142 and fn143. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. Full stops or not at the end of notes. Full stops. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. If you're using full citations in the format Author (YYYY). Title. [p./pp.] nnn. (ie fn4), your short cites should read Author (YYYY). [p./pp.] nnn. Currently your short cites read Author YYYY, [p./pp.] nnn [note the lack of full stop]. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. fn8, not an archival cite. Please supply translations (pref: Authorative Organisational Translations) for the Archive's repository, location, the originating institution, etc. Russian Government ? Archive, File 37977. Op1 ? Document 595? Leaves 57-59?. Citing archival sources for manpower totals is original research. Solved (another sources). Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. Multiple author inconsistency between Bibliography and Notes. Pick one of Author and Author (example fn47) or Author; Author (bibliography, fn80). Author; Author Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     6. fn146 spelling of Programme / Program Note: (sic!). Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Non decline related comments:
     1. 1b: Home front? Was the war too short?
     2. I would really appreciate seeing fn21 having Latin lettering as well. It would allow me a surface chance of checking fn21's 1c status.
     3. Relevant in any way? RR Reese "Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940" The Journal of Military History, 2008.
     4. Relevant in any way? Varpu Lindström "Propaganda and identity construction: media representation of Finnish and Finnish-Canadian women during the Winter War of 1939-40" in Sisters or Strangers?: Immigrant, Ethnic, and Racialized Women in Canadian History Marlene Epp (Editor), Franca Iacovetta (Editor), Frances Swyripa (Editor) University of Toronto Press: 2004. ISBN10 0802086098 (probably not, but this demonstrates how little has escaped your 1c research).
  5. Support related comments:
     1. 1c looks great. Sources not of Highest Quality are used sparingly, and to verify obvious, simple, uncontestable elements. With the exception of my complaint about using archival sources to generate a man count as OR, this is an excellent 1c work.
     2. This has been one of the easiest long articles to check 1c and 2c on as the author has already excellent citation, footnoting and bibliography habits. Big congrats on that. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are there Wikipedia documents concerning the citation matter (multiple authors in a book)? Currently the template "cite book" is used, and it does not give citations as requested. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Template:cite book has a number of bugs. Looking at the article. Your shortcites are manual: [[#JowettSnodgrass2006|Jowett and Snodgrass 2006]], pp. 10–11 => [[#JowettSnodgrass2006|Jowett; Snodgrass (2006)]]. pp. 10-11.. The choice of citation style is up to you. If you want to keep using cite book for your bibliography, then change your manner of short citation in the footnotes to match it (like I just recommended and exampled :). Feature Article reviewers can only demand consistency in citation style. Its up to you to determine how to get there. I can give advice about how if you've chosen a way forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed citations. Hopefully the citation style passes the review. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well you got the citations down but do you still need help with the grammar. Engilsh is my first language.--Coldplay Expert 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Extra hands are always needed. Would you? Peltimikko (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure I was already an extra hand for this article I uploaded a map of Finland that showed the soviet offensives in the winter of 39-40. In the next few days Ill read the whole article and see what I need to fix. At first glance however you seem to have done a good job at spelling as well as the grammar. Even if English isn't your first language. Good job!--Coldplay Expert 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?

• Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?

• A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 18 (Krivosheyev...) needs a page number in additon to the link. Also, this link seems to redirect to a website in Russian, needs to note that and is this a reprint of the book?

• Done (Thanks Illyth!) Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=62 a reliable source?

• Semi-reliable. Mika Kulju's book "Raatteen tie" has more reliable figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=92 a reliable source?

• Not reliable (Wikipedia as a source). Instead added Mika Kulju. Peltimikko (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review (Temporary Oppose) (Support on images NW (Talk) 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Resolved image commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations on a very good opening paragraph which includes the major details that a reader needs to know. Amandajm (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Picked this one up on the backlog list, and it really is a fascinating read. These comments cover only the first few sections; hopefully other reviewers can give the rest some attention.

• Unless there's material in the lead not backed up by the body, the lead doesn't require references unless the material is controversial or part of a quotation. Perhaps a couple of the statistics-related cites in the lead should be removed, though I don't consider it mandatory by any means.
• Watch for overlinking; I see an unnecessary second Moscow Peace Treaty link just in the lead.
• "Moreover, the war cast heavy doubt on the fighting ability of the Red Army, a doubt that may have contributed to Adolf Hitler's decision to launch Operation Barbarossa." Little redundacy hiding in here with a pair of "doubt"s, one modifying the other. To fix this, either change one of them or make secind one "which may have contributed".
• Comma after Finns in "The Finns however,".
• Politics of Finland before the war: "Another Finnish miltary policy was the top secret military cooperation between the Finland and Estonia." Drop second "the", as it is ungrammatical.
• Soviet–Finnish relations and politics before the War: "Finnish–Soviet border" should probably have an en dash instead of the hyphen, if the section title is any indication.
• "Despite the signing the treaty". Missing "of" in the middle.
• Again you have multiple links in a section, this time C.G.E. Mannerheim. A run-through of the remainder of the article for similar overlinking may be beneficial.
• "and wanted the newly-christened city of Leningrad to enjoy a similar security." No hyphen after -ly here.
• Picky reference formatting comments: Ref 17 should have an en dash for the page range, and ref 18 should give the page number as p., not pp.; the latter problem also exists in several of the books in the bibliography. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Done/Fixed, except the lead. "Too many citations" is usually better, as getting (fact) tagged is easy (my humble opinion). Peltimikko (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Also picked it from the backlog list.

• "Moreover, the war cast doubt on the fighting ability of the Red Army, which may have contributed to Adolf Hitler's decision to launch Operation Barbarossa." There's nothing about this in the rest of the article. I sort of expected to find it under "Germany" down the bottom. So it's really unreferenced.
• "Finally, the Soviet forces did not accomplish their objective of the total conquest of Finland" There's nothing in the article to suggest that this was the Soviet objective.
• "At this time, to protect their imperial capital Saint Petersburg, Imperial Russia" "their" should be "its"
• "Finland enjoyed wide autonomy and its own Senate until the turn of the century, when Russia began to assimilate Finland as part of a general policy to strengthen the central government and unify the Empire by Russification." Suggest linking to Russification of Finland instead of Russification.
• "artillery preparation" Why is this red-linked? Do you intend to create an article? "Barrage", on the other hand can be linked but I don't think that it was a barrage - see that article for a formal definition. Suggest: "The Battle of Taipale began with a forty-hour Soviet artillery preparation."

All in all, a fine article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ton That Dinh

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A general of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Mainly known for being an "adopted son" on president Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem promoted officers on loyalty not competence, and Dinh later turned against him. Diem was deposed and killed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support 1c & 2c checked. double checked (06:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Decline 1c. Location of publisher use inconsistent in bibliography style., eg. Rowman & Littlefield, a publisher without place identification lacks place identification; E.P. Dutton has it. Penguin Books a publisher notorious for having different publication locations. You probably want to keep New York: OUP. Suggest: Location data provided for non-obvious locations (non-University presses), or where University presses are notorious for having multiple publication locations (Oxford etc). This would impact on your citation-in-notes style. Otherwise citation style is mostly consistent (see below on Tucker).

  Completeness, obviously there are limited journal articles dealing with Ton That Dinh, Why was George McT. Kahin "Political Polarization in South Vietnam: U.S. Policy in the Post-Diem Period" Pacific Affairs, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 647-673 not used? 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Comments: Tucker (fn4) not in bibliography, and full cite follows first citation. Either move bib data to fn4 from fn7 or add Tucker (2000) Encyclopedia for bib and short cite both. Tucker's cited 3 times. Consider adding to bibliography.

  Consider style wrt Halberstam; Singal (2008) in short cite format. Its only co-authored, not an "and others" situation, consider changing citation to Halberstam; Singal, p. n. in short cite format. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done refs. Hadn't known about Kahin. Will have a look. I don't think I need to put Singal in the shorthand. All he did was prune the book, removing whole chapters, whole passages. He didn't tweak in the middle to change the meaning or anything. He didn't even bother to check some rather obvious typos etc by DH YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated Kahin YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its beautiful! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Diem dead.jpg - We need more specific information on the source for this image. What does "National Archives" refer to? Also, what does the book say that leads us to believe this is a work of the Federal Government? Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed it. It was made by a unnamed govt official YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Since the image is from the US National Archives, you can probably find a link to the image record online. It will have detailed information about the image and perhaps a digitized copy, which would be of higher quality. I suggest looking for it. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
• "as forces personnel were redeployed" Forces? Personnel? Both?
• No reference for Hung, but two cites. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Born into a nominally Buddhist family, Dinh converted to Catholicism in the hope of advancing his career." When? Seems to have been prior to 1954, according to "Cold war mandarin: Ngo Dinh Diem and the origins of America's war in Vietnam" p. 160. Another sources places the conversion in the 1960s, but that would seem to be erroneous.... That whole paragraph... could be reorganized a bit IMHO.

that book didn't say when, it isn't clear. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find the year of the conversion, then that's OK, but the sequence of events should still be clarified. The way the paragraph reads now, it seems as though he converted after 1958. I don't think that's the case. His conversion should be mentioned at roughly the spot where it happened in the context of the article... probably in the first paragraph of the "Early years" section. Do you agree? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• In "that all the generals except Cao were in the plot" and "and would prevent Cao from storming the capital" I'm a little unclear who Cao is.
• "falsely accused of promoting a neutralist plot". How sure are we that the accusations are false? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the section, it says that Khanh later admitted it was trumped up. Doing the rest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the charges, "falsely accused" (as the article says) and "trumped up" (your words above) both suggest that Khan knew the charges were false at the time when he made them. However, the article merely says he later produced documents which proved the charges were false. That sentence is more noncommittal... Did he know they were false when he made them, or not? If not, or even if it is unclear, the the phrase "false charges" in the lede should be changed to "charges that were later shown to be false." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed strucutre and made explicit YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment - Engaging prose with few significant issues, but could a couple of the larger sections be split up into a few sub-sections? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Will be done in 10 minutes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article reports highly critical observations about its subject who is a living person. Given the high standard expected in BLPs, and WP:LEADCITE, I am concerned about there being no cites in the lead for the following:
• "A favourite of the ruling Ngo family, Dinh received rapid promotions ahead of officers who were regarded as being more capable."
• "He converted to Roman Catholicism to curry favour with Diem, and headed the military wing of the Can Lao Party, a secret Catholic organisation that maintained the Ngos' grip on power."
• "he was regarded as a dangerous, egotistical and impetuous figure with a weakness for alcohol and partying"

Reiterated in lead for convenience YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's prudent. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The bibliography supporting this article appears to contain no works at all by Vietnamese authors. Almost every single item was published in the United States. In these circumstances, I would welcome nominator's (and others) comments in relation to FA criteria 1c and 1d "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" and "it presents views fairly and without bias". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well none are published in VN, but Nguyen Tien Hung was from SV and became a professor in the US after the fall of Saigon. As for Jackie Bong Wright, she is a Viet who married a westerner. As for publishing in Vietnam, wrt communist historians, their official history of the VN War is only one volume, short and simply refers to the war as VN vs US and habitually just refers to SV as US "lackeys" and "puppets" without going into any detail, just attack style. So there is no info at all, let alone informative info. As for South Vietnamese contemporary books that may present RoV people in a more sympathetic or normal way, they would all have been locked away in an archive far from public access after 1975, and aren't in the Western World except for a few government reports and PR that would have been exported to the US before 1975, but I checked a US uni library, and these seem to be restricted to collections of speeches by Presidents Diem and Thieu and other trumpeting of high-level stuff. I doubt Dinh and his colleague's secretary would have had time to write much in three months in power. As for memoirs by these officers/politicians after fleeing in 1975, they are printed in ramshackle Vietnamese American printing houses, and none are close to RS, and are more like printed webforums. The diaspora Vietnamese printing industry is very homemade and more of a billboard; in the newspaper where I live they usually print random things about some local cleric or community politician being a communist employee or a monk with multiple wives without any source. Sometimes they even photoshop pictures of their opponents with some woman and the glueing is all messed up. Another favourite is to write a story about communists and add a photo of one of them with a scar or a cross on their forehead. Straight copying from the BBC is the norm and goodness knows why they haven't all gone broke for being sued yet. Another officer also wrote his memoirs printed in a diaspora press and contradicted himself about his age three times and claimed to be a battalion commander at the age of 18, and gave out the names and addresses of some minors who were allegedly raped by a political opponent (BLP with a wiki bio so I won't name the accusee) in his book. So Dinh and his colleague's autobios aren't RS at all. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. While I do not feel confident enough in this field to explicitly vote 'support', I found that response thorough. For the record, the depth of research appears excellent, the prose likewise and the referencing sound. If other editors find Yellowmonkey's response to my concern to be adequate, then I would certainly be happy to see the article promoted. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have problems with the article per se; I wanna go find out what the best sources are. But again I whine: it's Midterms, I'm spending tons of time grading papers, and my family is busily engaged in other family stuff. I hope I can contribute something soonish. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support by karanacs. I found the article well-written and very informative. I am confident in YM's description of the available sources, and the article does not appear to portray any particular POV. I also checked the images. All appear to be appropriately public domain (and note that 2 of the 4 were used in a previous FAC and were screened then). Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Notified: User:Balloonman, User:Awiseman, WP:MILHIST

I have nominated this article because I feel it has significant structural weaknesses and does not meet certain criteria of WP:WIAFA. I noticed that there was a prior FAR, however I do not feel that it touched upon any of the critical weaknesses of the text. So here I am.

The main issues as I see them are 1c and 1d. There appears to be a heavy "pro-military" view pervasive through the text. Most strikingly, it shows in the choice of images—US armed forces pics of smiling families and happy kids complete with inane captions reads like a US Army brochure. The references do not appear to meet the "high quality" requirements: I could find little in the way of evidence that Aletheia Publications, for example, meets the criteria, and a great deal of references (Ender, Cottrell, Eakin, Jordan, Price, Tyler, Smith, Williams) are from one or more Aletheia publications. They do not appear to have a web presence, but they are definitely a small press and [13] suggests they are relatively recent and only have five employees.

Examples of in-text POV language or issues with tone:

• "...In researching her book, Wertsch identified common themes from interviews of over 80 offspring of military households. While this book does not purport to be a scientific study, subsequent research has validated many of her findings..." There is no citation for this; the next citation comes for a blockquote and is a dead link.
• Weasel phrasings: "While some may not like the origins of the term, most are comfortable with it", sourced to [14], which shows that the citations to Wertsch may not be the most neutral either.

Among the more minor issues are dead links (as mentioned above) and ^{[citation needed]} tags in the body. I'm concerned the external links section might need auditing as well. I'm a bit pressed for time, so I haven't fully chec