Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006/Failed

Failed

F-105 Thunderchief

Completely rewritten with citations and references, comprehensive overview of this Vietnam War workhorse. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose While the article is well written and appears to do a good job of covering the topic, the citations are really too few and far between. There are a number of (presumably) easily citable facts, particularly regarding technical specifications, that lack citations, and some paragraphs have no citations whatsoever. Carom 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Needs more cites Once this article is throughly cited, it will get upgraded to A-class without trouble. But at the moment, as Carom says, it's not at that standard. Buckshot06 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I've gone through and added references where appropriate. Please re-evaluate. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not enough inline citations to warrent awarding A-class status to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me a guideline that indicates the minimum number of citations. Every claim and every significant statement has been cited, the rest of the material is assembled from sources in references. Please show specifically what needs to be cited. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the current project guideline on citations is here. Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to view a reference/note section as needing about 15-20 different sources or notes to be what I consider "well written", since that has now become an accepted guideline for FA-class articles (and to my way of thinking, A-class articles as well). This is the figure stated at WP:IC, which recieves a considerable amount of traffic from new comers and first time A-class/FA-class people who are not sure how to add inline citations. I do make exceptions to this general policy of mine if an article draws heavily on one primary source for most of the information. Having brought USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) up to FA status, and having guided them through the FAR process, I know that there are times when an article can be well written and well cited with a small amount of citations, or a large number of citations to the same source, and I have adjusted my vote accordingly under such circumstances. In this case though, I feel that the article could be better improved on. Take the following examples:

• ...by March 1953 the USAF had reduced the order to 37 fighter-bombers and 9 tactical reconnaissance aircraft, citing the approaching end of the Korean War.
• By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75.
• The first production F-105B flew on 14 May 1957.
• Nicknamed the Wild Weasel, these aircraft achieved 9 confirmed victories against North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile radars.
• Although the F-105D was withdrawn from Vietnam in 1970, the Wild Weasel aircraft soldiered on until the end of the war.
• The initial reaction of the fighter pilot community to their new aircraft was lukewarm.

None of these claims cite a source; there is no number at the end of the sentence or paragraph to back up these claims. Its not that I don’t think the article has potential; rather, the articles that we approve for A and FA-status should reflect the motto of the US Marine Corps: "The Few, The Proud", and this one is not quite there yet. I would encourage you not to give up though; I have absolute faith in your ability to get this article to A-class, or if you choose, Featured Status. As they say, the best things in life are worth working for :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I will address the issues you noted above. For future reference (yours, mine, and everyone else's), actually tagging the article with fact tags as was done with F-84 is by far the best way to give feedback on what exactly needs a citation. As I said in my F-84 comments, having done most of the writing makes a lot of the facts obvious and not needing a citation to me. I apologize for my frustration (I genuinely appreciate all constructive criticism) and I'll take care of the cites. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support Well written, did't notice major problems. I'd like to see more photos; the distribution of notes suggests there may be overreliance on a single source; but I don't think it should prevent the article from being rated as A-class. Bukvoed 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple sources make sense for controversial topics with many opinions or for very complex topics. The majority of citations are for dates and hard numbers, not something that would be subject to controversy or heated debates. I can cross-reference every number across 10 different sources (I do verify all the specs between several sources) but that would be pretty insane, wouldn't it? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Of course multiple sources for specific details aren't needed typically. What I wanted to say is that the article seems to be based on Knaack with relatively minor additions from other sources, which is sort of a shortcoming... at least I think so. Perhaps I have wrong impression; or perhaps Knaack is the definitive source; or... etc. Anyway, I like the article, it is comprehensive and well written, it probably already qualifies as A-class. Bukvoed 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is a combination of about half a dozen sources. It's easier from the writing standpoint to cite all numbers from one source but I can see how that would create an impression of overreliance on multiple sources. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I really don't care how few citations there are, as long as the information is accurate. Of course, I have no idea if it is, which is the point of citations in the first place. But, for length, detail, style, etc, I'm happy to support it. LordAmeth 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khe Sanh

Previous nomination here.

Renominating for RM Gillespie; no opinion on the article. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose still not encyclopedic writing style and unsourced claims that could be deleted. Wandalstouring 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Any chance of this objection being made more specific (particularly in regard to identifying the unsourced claims)? Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Unsourced claims
      • The Hill Fights"During December and early January there were numerous sightings of PAVN troops and activities in the Khe Sanh area, but the sector remained relatively quiet."
      • Operation Niagara"As a result, on 7 March, for the first time during the Vietnam Conflict, air operations were placed under the control of a single manager. General Westmoreland had won this battle."(the construction that this is the reason demands a source)
      • The Fall of Lang Vei"It was not until 1500 hours that the relief operation was launched and it was successful. Of the 500 CIDG troops at Lang Vei, 200 had been killed or were missing and 75 more were wounded. Of the 24 Americans at the camp, ten had been killed and 11 wounded.
        • Done, done, and done. RM Gillespie 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment regarding style. I will offer a few examples, but this list is not intended to be exhaustive.
  • Border Battles "Troops of the US 1st Infantry Division responded quickly and handed the NLF a severe beating" - this is not really an encyclopedic term.
  • The Hilld Fights "...afer running roughshod over the Marines..." - it is unclear whether or not this is the manguage used by the source. If it is, fine. If not, it should be reworded.
  • At All Costs "The North Vietnames, rocked by artillery fire..." Again, not really encyclopedic.
  • The Fall of Lang Vei "Colonel Lounds rubbed salt on the wounds..." Not encycolpedic, unnecessary English figure of speech.
  • Riddle of Khe Sanh - This is more of a general comment, but i wouldn't pose questions in an encyclopedia article. There a few questions in this paragraph that would be better reworded as statements (i.e. it is unclear whether the purpose was X or Y, rather than "But was their purpose X or Y?).

There are also quite a few passive construction that should be fixed, but I don't think that's too serious. In general, the article needs to be combed for unencyclopedic terms and phrasing. I'm more than happy to support if this is done, as I have no other queries that constitute a substantial objection at this point. Carom 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic differences aside, is the article clearly written, factually correct, and well annotated? Are any unsourced claims still out there? Is the POV (aside lack of North Vietnamese sources, which, at present, do not exist) O.K? Is it too heavily biased? RM Gillespie 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will read it again, but issues you told were done remained unchanged and I did it myself yesterday. Wandalstouring 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khe Sanh

Just finished up thie article. RM Gillespie 12:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Minor objection This article is well sourced for the US side, but the writing style is sometimes too narrative and thus unencyclopedic. Missing is information from the Northern Vietnamese perspective (POV issue). Some pictures of Vietnamese soldiers (not dead ones) could also be helpful to balance this article and get a less US-centric view. Wandalstouring 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question: The article is really POV for the U.S./South Vietnamese side. Is it that there are no English sources available that give the North Vietnamese side of the battle? Looking on Amazon, I see a several books about the North Vietnamese' involvement in the conflict, some of which appear to have been written by North Vietnamese leaders like Vo Nguyen Giap. Do these books not cover the Khe Sanh battle? Or are they of limited use as historical records? Cla68 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I' not sure how to answer the criticism about a narrative writing style. When I whip open the old "Brittanica" and look up the "Battle of Gettysburg" I find a chronological narrative of the battle. Is the length of the article a problem? There are no pictures of dead Vietnamese soldiers in this article. As to Vietnamese sources, any description of Khe Sanh (and the Tet Offensive for that matter) get only cursory coverage (here I speak of Victory in Vietnam). The works of General Giap generally tend to fall into two catagories - the first deals with the First Indochina War (and Dien Bien Phu in particular) and the second is concerned with the theory and practice of People's War (People's Army, People's War, We Will Win and Great Victory, Great Task for example). Reading Giap for a description of particular military operations is as frustrating as reading von Clauswitz's On War or Moltke's On the Art of War for the same reason. RM Gillespie 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading Clausewitz. If there are no specific sources of the North Vietnamese available, quote some useful parts of Giap's writings (they can be very general, but show how the North Vietnamese worked and thought). Some weeks ago we had a similar problem with Arabian sources/POV on Operation Wrath of God (was on the main page a few days ago. We solved it by searching someone familiar with the Arabic point of view who helped us to find some critical sources (inner PLO conflicts, wrong targets, etc.). Try our Vietnamese speaking wikimembers, perhaps they can help. There are also lots of Vietnam veterans alive who often tell their stories and lead tourists around the old battle places (US Vietnam veterans are often among the tourists) so one way or another you can get more info. Wandalstouring 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't have many native speakers of Vietnamese and English so I asked all of them for help. some of them take an interest in the field of history, so we are likely to solve this problem a.s.a.p. Wandalstouring 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. If the U.S. POV is all that's available, then I guess there's nothing we can do about it. Hopefully, someday some memoirs from other North Vietnamese officers will be published or North Vietnamese military records will be released to the public. Otherwise, I think the article presents good information on the battle. I also think the writing is too dramatic in some places, but not enough to dissuade me from a support vote. I'm not sure how to describe the style that we try to use in our Wikipedia articles. They shouldn't be as dry as a grocery shopping list or the telephone book, but should only provide any "color" to the event in very measured, careful wording, if I understand right. Cla68 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The writing style is far too dramatic for my taste - such a style might be at home in an old Britannica, but is really not encyclopedic by any current standard. I don't know how to address the NPOV issue, as we can only use the sources available to us - if there are no good sources, there are no good sources. However, I think the NPOV problems created by the lack of good North Vietnames sources (if that is indeed the case) are exacerbated by an overly dramatic style - a change of tone would be a step in the right direction. Carom 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cambodian Civil War

Have just completed a heavy re-write of this article and am looking for any constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 01:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good. Could do with links at the end of the article to what came next, for instance, linking Year Zero. Buckshot06 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Under-cited and too opinionated. If the article is repeating the published opinions of credible historians, journalists, etc., commenting on the events reported in the article, that's fine. But, I can't tell if that's the case or if the opinions are from the article's editor(s) because of the lack of citations and references. The article, however, has a lot of good information and is definitely, in my opinion, at GA level. Cla68 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is undercited, but only just - the topic of most concern regarding the citations is that they are totally lacking in one or two sections. The prose is high quality (although, as Cla68 notes, it seems a little too opinionated). There are some oddities like "neutralism," and a sprinkling of awkward sentences, but nothing too serious in that regard. The biggest problem is that, given the thinness of the citations in some (not all) areas, it is difficult to tell if the article is either a) faithfully reporting scholarly opinions, or b) in need of NPOV cleanup. (Has this had a proper peer revew? I forgot to look on the talk page.)(I looked. It hasn't, and that might not be a bad idea, as you are more likely to get a thorough critique of the article through that venue.) Carom 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Agree with above comments but I would like to support. The article is well written – which is very important. Although the section entitled - Revolt in Battambang – is unsourced, and is patchy elsewhere, including:

Initially arrayed against an armed force of such limited capability was arguably the best light infantry army in the world at the time

with over 50 citations this should be enough for A–Class. There are some FAs in the showcase with less than half that number of citations.

Some nice, well-placed pictures.

Very well sourced

Good work. Raymond Palmer 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Caesar's invasions of Britain

I would like to self-nominate this page, it having been suggested to me by User:Kyriakos on my talk page. It has easily made B class and he and I both feel it has the potential to be GA / A class, or is there already. Any suggestions welcome - or even better, please improve it so it can make it.User|Neddyseagoon 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support but my only suggestion is that you put in your sources. Kyriakos 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the article needs a thorough Peer Review first.

Set up here. User|Neddyseagoon 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial thoughts -

• There doesn't seem to be any modern references used.

See new Sources section, now being expanded.User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion the trivia section should go - Carry On Cleo and the Goons?

Renamed and expanded, in line with this suggestionUser|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection some chapters need to be expanded, otherwise they have little connection to the article. Wandalstouring 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For example? Do you mean the Discoveries one principally? User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following chapters: Success?, Technology, Religion, Economic resources Wandalstouring 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing in particular that needs fixing or changing... In my book, it makes A-class, but maybe just barely. It's long, detailed, cites its sources... LordAmeth 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

T-26

I self-nominate the T-26 article for an A-class peer review because I believe it fits the requirements, and it passed the single review for Good Article status pretty quickly. Although I'm currently waiting for a book to arrive through the mail so that I can add missing information to the article, I believe that the T-26 article already has what's necessary to be an A-class article. Beyond that, any feedback would be much appreciated. JonCatalan 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose For now. Too many textual errors at the moment, eg:

With no major proponents of Tukhachevsky's theories alive or willing to speak, which previous advances were thrown out the window

After Khalkin Gol the T-26S would have a thicker armour plate and this plate welded onto the hull, as opposed to riveted.

Needs a careful re-read but the article has potential for A-Class.

All citations should come after the punctuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Palmer (talk • contribs)

I made some minor textual edits to those two sentences, and some other things I found, but I'd really appreciate it if a better writer would look over it. I also fixed all the referencing. Thanks! JonCatalan 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A few too many text errors:

• Who's Tukhachevky? (first paragraph after intro)
• The last paragraph of the "Birth" section probably belongs in a different section.
• Not all assertions are cited. One way around this is to make sure there's a citation at the end of every paragraph.

I think it's almost there. Cla68 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Kongō

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Kongō was the first fully-modern battlecruiser of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the last capital ship they had constructed outside of Japan (built by Vickers in England). This article has gradually undergone a rewrite over the last few weeks. Passed its GA earlier this week (thanks to Jim Sweeney for reviewing it), and has had some minor copyediting done since. I believe it meets the A-Class Requirements. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with some commentary below,

• The lead image is the same as the one for the class's article. Perhaps it would be better to interchange it with another image from the article?

Working on that. Cla68 has promised photo uploads. Once they're here, I'll shift the images around significantly. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 16 August 1913, Kongō was completed and formally commissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy. Twelve days later, she departed Portsmouth for Japan. — Not that important, but formerly it's written that the Kongō was laid down at Barrow-in-Furness. Was the ship commissioned in Portsmouth? When did she move from the former to the latter?

We must assume fitting out happened at Porstmouth, though none of my sources say when. I've added a note that she transferred to Portsmouth for fitting out. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 3 October 1915,Kongō and Hiei participated in the target-sinking of Imperator Nikolai I, a Russian pre-dreadnought captured in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that had subsequently served as a Japanese battleship. — To a non-layman such as myself this sentence actually came off as slightly confusing. I don't know what target-sinking is (well, after looking up the article for Imperator Nikolai I I was able to guess), so while it's clear that the article had been captured by the Japanese in 1905 this is only after you mention target-sinking. So, for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic, it seems as if the Japanese sunk a Russian ship (although, the Japanese and Russians were not at war), and only then does it specify that it had been captured by the Japanese. Like the last comment, this is borderline ridiculous, but I figure any detail is worth mentioning if it's unearthed.

I understand what your issue is, but I have to confess that I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. Prose-wise, I think this is the best we can do without getting into the overly-convoluted minutia of Imperator Nikolai I and the Russo-Japanese War. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "With the defeat of the German East Asia Squadron by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, the need for combat operations by the Japanese Navy lessened" — The second part of the sentence doesn't read well to me. Perhaps it should read, "...there was a lesser need for Japanese naval operations in the Pacific." I'm not sure, I've never been good with these type of things.

Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Excepting the above pedantry, this reads like a great article and certainly within the guidelines of milhist's a-class.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that I have had some previous input to the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "Launched on 18 May 1912 before transferring to Portsmouth, Kongō's fitting-out began in the summer of 1912.[6]" I assume that is Portsmouth, England? If so, can we wikilink that? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --I went ahead and fixed that as I found a wikilink for Portsmouth later in the article, so I moved it to the first appearance. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"By, Kongō's secondary armament was reconfigured to eight 6-inch (15 cm) guns, eight 5-inch (13 cm) guns, and one hundred and twenty-two Type 96 antiaircraft autocannon.[12]" By what? Some date I would guess. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Questions

• We usually don't mention Sanskrit word origins ("vajra"), but if the Sanskrit word is particularly relevant to the Japanese word and you want to include it, then it would be best to explain the relevance. Btw, Conway's (p. 234) says that all 4 ships in the class were named after mountains, but it doesn't say which mountains; can anyone confirm or deny, and if true, do we have a link for the namesake? - Dank (push to talk)

I included this particular one here because this one wasn't named for a mountain, though Haruna was (which I mentioned in that article). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Conway's says: "The design is usually described as a battlecruiser version of [Erin]." Should we always attribute it when a noted author says some variant of "People say such-and-such"? Anyone? This language was in Japanese battleship Haruna, which passed FA recently. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Quick note, FYI: Chicago (16th edition) is now out, and it's very influential among publishers. They're recommending "US" instead of "U.S." (and UK, and two-letter state abbreviations). Many people follow the 2009 AP though, which recommends "U.S." in text and "US" in headlines. "US" is much more common outside the US. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

updated to 16th ed style. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• When there's this much text repeated from a sister ship's article (Haruna), some will suggest that a hard look is needed to see if we can move the overlapping text to the class article. I don't have a position. - Dank (push to talk)

In the cases where it's repeated, it's because they did the same stuff. I figured it was a waste of time to rewrite entirely when they were involved in the same action. Hiei and Kirishima mostly operated together, while Kongo and Haruna deployed in a pair. I figure keep it in each ship article. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For stuff that this ship has in common with Haruna but not with the others, I agree, repeat it in the two ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• IIRC we decided at Haruna's FAC that muzzle flash is not a great link for "flash"; I'm not sure that we know what "flash tightness" is supposed to mean. Let's either find out, or lose it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Forgot about that. I think we've dug this issue endlessly w/o success. I'll lose it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with "First Reserve"; a quick definition or a link would be nice. Or, "reserve" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Your source says "The thickness of KONGO's horizontal armor over her magazines and machinery spaces is increased." That's different from "Kongō's horizontal armor near her ammunition magazines was strengthened, and the machinery spaces within the hull were increased." Is there a different source that supports your statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's back in Ottawa at the moment. I'll have it by Tuesday. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

K, source 2 says armour over machinery was increased, not machinery itself. My bad. I'll change it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Searching quickly through for "Kongō" gives me a lot of hits ... that sometimes means it would be better to replace some of them with "the ship" or "the battlecruiser" or "she". - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change. I'll see what I can do. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō bombarded Christmas Island on 7 March 1942, then returned to Staring-baai for 15 days of maintenance and rest.": not clear whether the ship or the crew is resting. The source says "Although on standby alert ..., the crews are allowed some rest and relaxation." "Rest" seems too informal to me ... maybe "15 days leave on standby alert"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "suffered several near misses but remained undamaged": a ship can "suffer" near misses if it's damaged by shell fragments, but "suffer" is the wrong word if there's no damage. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's "Taffy 3"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Escort-Carrier Group they happened upon. I've reworded it to be more specific. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I took the quote marks off "numerous hits"; if you add them back, direct quotes require a citation at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. My bad. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done with copyediting for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• "... dry-docked for a large reconfiguration of her anti-aircraft suite. Four 6-inch guns and a pair of twin 25-mm mounts were removed ...": Not wrong, but I don't usually hear "large reconfiguration", since "large" could possibly mean anything from replacing 20% to replacing 100%. If "most" (say 50% to 75%) of the anti-aircraft guns were replaced, it would be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

removed "large" from the sentence. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": any idea why? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of radar fire-control, it made targetting easier, especially in large surface-actions, since you could tell which shells were being fired by your guns. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like everything is done except for finding a source for "the machinery spaces within the hull were increased", or rewording that in line with the ref you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per usual disclaimer. Everything's been resolved, nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

There's numerous inconsistencies with the armaments and Conway; I would reference Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 p. 173 for the WWII stats, and I think you could add another heading for the 1937 refit. The secondary armamaent was originally 16 6" guns (16x1) not (8x2) & it appears most were replaced by 5" DP guns by 1944. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've used Stille's accounts of armament changes for the kongos, since those are the ones I have access to on a permanent basis. Fixed the 8x2 mistake. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the 1942: Early War Service section, this sentence needs a citation: "On 20 September, the fleet was ordered to return to Truk Naval Base in the Caroline Islands (now Micronesia)."
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the subsection headings are not correctly capitalised in the Service section. For instance I think "1942: Early War Service" should be "1942: Early war service";
    • They seem to have all been fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • sometimes you use spaced endashes (e.g in the 1942: Early War Service section) and then unspaced emdashes (e.g. 1929–1935: Reconstruction section). These should be consistent;
    • Done as best as I can. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the only one I could find. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Boyle appears in the Citations but not in the References;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the citations have years but some don't - is there a reason for this?
    • The ones by multiple authors usually
      • Okay, I'd suggest making it all uniform, but it is not really a major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in Citation # 4 you have "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket..." in italics but in Citation # 5 and 8 you don't;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • are Parshall, Hacket etc the authors of the website? If they are they shouldn't be presented as they are which currently makes it look like they are the publishers (or in one instance that they are the Work that the page is a part of);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Morison appears in the References but you don't appear to specifically cite the work;
  • same as above for the work by Frank;
  • same as above for Moore;
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • the Advisor script reports a possible error with the ISBNs for the Schom and Wilmot works;
    • Both fixed
  • here is an inconsistent representation of accessdates (i.e "Retrieved 2010-09-10" and "Retrieved 26 February 2009"AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe fixed
• Can you please check my last couple of unstruck comments above? Otherwise looks fine and I'd be happy to support. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Greece

This article is currently rated as "start" class. Vast improvements have been made to the article. The article is informative and well-sourced in my opinion and can be considered for at least "A-class" status. Periklis* 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article, well written, but could do with a few more inline citations.. Kyriakos 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Kyriakos is right about the citations, but I think it's a slightly bigger problem. Some of the sections (i.e. Greco-Italian War) have only one citation, and the articles they link to are not well cited either. It is especially important to cite claims like "Mussolini left Albania with his reputation tarnished." I don't dispute the statement, but it should be sourced. Carom 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've added numerous more citations. If articles linking to this one don't have many references, that should not affect the quality of this article. Periklis* 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Clarification Correct. My point was not that insufficient citations in the linked articles should prevent this article from attaining A-class. I was simply noting that the low citation count was not a result of links to well-cited articles and a desire to reduce the duplication of citations (which may or may not be a tenable position). The informal style is also a problem, as noted below. Carom 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't a bad article by any standards, but it isn't quite 'there'. My main concern is the non-formal wording of some sections (eg, "Benito Mussolini had grown jealous of Hitler’s conquests and decided to do some conquering of his own") and contested views being presented without any qualifications (especially "Greek resistance in World War II proved to be a turning point in the war. The German invasion of Greece delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union by six weeks" - Barbarossa was also delayed by the slow pace of airfield construction in Poland and Hitler didn't have to come to Mussolini's aid. A quote from a Hitler isn't enough to prove such a bold claim!). --Nick Dowling 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, being reluctant to support for now. This is a very nice article, but there are some serious flaws. Most important:1) the short lead, 2) the uncyclopedic mixture of "References" and "further reading", 3) and some wording problems that Nick Dowling has already pointed out. Additionally, there are some stylistic problems (for instance, we "quote"-we donot "quote"). Nevertheless, with a slight copy-editing and the correction of the things I pointed out I think that the article can soon get 'there'. In a few minutes a detailed review of mine will be available in Talk:Battle of Greece.--Yannismarou 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My concerns are addressed.--Yannismarou 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

American Revolutionary War

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has limited citations. I might be convinced that this is acceptable if the linked articles were well cited, but they are not. More specifically, all the sections on the various campaigns like citations, as do the main articles on those campaigns. Carom 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeThe article's citations are way too limited - this is one of those articles which needs citations practically every sentence. Nor, as Carom noted, are the linked articles well cited - they are not either. This has the makings of a good article, but it does have some major weaknesses historically:
• The Battle of Saratoga may well be one of the great turning points of history - certainly Sir Edward Creasy thought so, when he named it one of the 15 Decisive Battles of History. (Modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson agrees, among others) It is given relatively short shift in this article, and it does not mention Benedict Arnold's role at all, when most historians believe that without his leadership, the American Revolution would have been lost at Saratoga.
• The article's section on the western theater of the war is accurate, but not anywhere close to being in depth enough. The effect of the death of Jane McCrea before Saratoga should not only be mentioned there, but emphasized greatly in this theater as it, and similiar tragedies brought in hordes of undecided frontiersmen to fight on the rebel's side out of fear of the British Indian allies.
• The sections mentioned need major expansion, and the entire article desperately needs citing throughout.old windy bear 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Bliss

This is an article I have spent some three monthes overhauling in an effort to take it all the way to featured status. As it stands the article meets all preexisting requirements for A-status, so I am placing it here to gain consensus. Objects, if any, need to be specific, because I do not have time to conduct a through investigation to find the problems in the article (school work comes first). If your objects are not specific then I will ignore them. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several sections, including "Reconstruction and the Pershing expedition," "Fort Bliss today," and "Base realignment and closure" have no citations, or the existing citations are insuffcient. For example, the article states that the base was realigned in 2005, and gives detailed information about the changes made, but gives no source. Carom 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectThis is an article which has excellent potential, but again, as Carom said, it lacks citations. For it to be A status, it needs the citations. I like the article, consider it well written, informative, and as far as I know, it is correct. BUT, it has to be sourced throughout. Once that is done, I would support it for A status, but not until then. old windy bear 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you spot any sections aside from the three Carom pointed out that need citations, or were those three sections it? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information in Early Fort Bliss needs sourcing - for instance, the information on "8 September 1849 the garrison party of several companies of the 3rd U.S. Infantry, commanded by Jefferson Van Horne, arrived in this area. On the noth side of the Rio Grande they found only four small and scattered settlements." What source gave this information? Also the entire Following September 11 needs sourcing. For instance, that section states "Fort Bliss has served as one of the major deployment centers for troops bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. This mission is accomplished by Biggs Army Airfield, which is included in the installation's supporting areas." What sourcing says so? What source do we have for the training of the Afghans later in that subsection? I believe the information is accurate - but we need sourcing. I realize this may seem trivial, but I think we need to point out specifics where we feel sourcing is necessary. This is a good article, but for A status, it needs much more sourcing. old windy bear 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know its not trivial; you are in the right as far as sources are concerned, but in some cases the sources are hard to come by, especially for the more recent things. To be frank some of the information comes from my own observations about the post since my family moved here lo those many years ago. At other time information comes from news broadcasts in the city, but those are not print sources and finding a copy of adio/visual information is difficult. I will do some further research into the material and see if I can find any sources for the information, but at the moment I have backlogged school work that I have to see to, so this project will have to take a backseat for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 Please do not be discouraged! You have done an excellent job, but you just pointed out the biggest problem we sometimes encounter. We just cannot use information you simply observed - it violates the bann on original research. If I may make a suggestion, check with your local paper. Also the chamber of commerce. Also the Fort Bliss public information officer. The local paper should have articles on the updates and upgrades on the post, and they could give you the day of the article, why there you have your souce! As to the information on the early years, again, check with the Post information officer, he or she may have a good book that will give you the sources you need. You have an excellent article here that you have put a great deal of time and hard work in. I really do commend you on that, and suggest you check with the local paper, the chamber of commerce, and the Post Information Officer, and I believe you can come up with your sources. Additionally, if you remember which news broadcast it was, you could check with the station, and if they have the date, again, you have your source. old windy bear 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, that will be easy. The UTEP Library has a very generous collection of newspapers from the El Paso Times and the now defunct El Paso Herald Post, so I am not short for resources; however, finding and securing enough time to look through the archives is hard due to conflicting interests. At the moment, I am checking the online archives from the Fort Bliss Moniter to find BRAC info for 2005; since the moniter is the official Fort Bliss paper I know that I will find something in there that I can cite. Checking the Fort Bliss public information center will be tricking since the security at the base has been increased, I have heard horror stories of people waiting an hour just to get on to base, but I will take that suggestion under advisement. Thanks for the kind words ans suggestions! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 I grew up as a military kid - an army brat, actually! - and served myself during Vietnam, so I know how the information officers can be! But you seem like a nice person, and they generally respond to nice people who are trying to portray the post in a positive light, which you certainly have! Your access to the libraries is outstanding, and I will be surprised if they don't resolve most of the needed cites. I think you have written an excellent article, and don't kill yourself, but as you can, do the things you are talking about, and I would wager you will find the sources! Again, please don't get discouraged, because you have done a fine job, with a lot of hard work and genuine interest in this subject - and it will get sourced, and rated as it deserves! old windy bear 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to failure to cite sources in all sections. Carom 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: You'll find that inline citations are a de facto requirement for an article to even attain good article status these days, much less A-class standing or featured article status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Not ready yet.UberCryxic 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks citation in all sections and has small base of reference for such a well published subject. As well it needs to be more pressice on the number of soldiers presented in the early sections, was this the number of soldiers over the course of the years or the regular enlistment every year of the conflict? the Napoleonic wars were not the first instance of state runned armies instead of mercenaries. Louis IV's french army was a standing army long before Revolutionary France. The Seven Years' War saw professional, pan-europe state funded armed force engaged in war half a century prior to Napoleon... --Dryzen 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

United States Navy

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Prose and organization are pretty good; in many places was my model for the now-FA USMC. A few suggestions:

• Good sources but more citations needed. Judgemental statements like "are roughly equivalent in striking power to most foreign aircraft carriers." definitely ought to be cited.
• ToC is a bit loosely organized; there are too many top-level items. Relationship with the Marines and the Coast Guard could be tied together, perhaps under organization. Items like Special Warfare, MSC, and Coastal warfare can similarly be placed under "organization".
• Some of the lists could be converted to prose, e.g. the list of fleets. I know it's inviting to tabulate them, but it does break up the flow of the prose.
• The prose needs some fine-toothed combing before FAC but it's good enough for A-class. --Mmx1 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article and a very good model for the development of other articles on branches of an indidual nation's armed forces. The only suggestion I'd make is that the section headings could be tweaked a bit to make it clear that the article is focused on the USN as it currently stands. --Nick Dowling 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citation of sources in all sections. Carom 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very few citations.UberCryxic 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal Barca

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citations, particularly in the section on the Second Punic War. Carom 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not bad, but lacks citations, particulary when the first five citations deal with the same issue. There's also an error in the section called 'Stalemate'. I think there's a picture missing. Raymond Palmer 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Currently Oppose The final legacy to the modern world could use some work and the Military History segment some citations (in particular, but not only, the 3 demands)as well as the bogeyman comment. As Raymond Palmer described there is some mauled code for an image. An enjoyable read and quite informative on his rather overlooked out-of war years.--Dryzen 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose still lacks content in the biography section. Hannibal wasn't only a general. (I'm working myself on the issue). Wandalstouring 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group

Completed nomination for RM Gillespie so no opinion from me on the quality. Carom 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objections

First of all, I want to say this is a well-referenced and researched article, into which a lot of effort has been invested by someone who obviously has taken a keen interest in the subject matter. Kudos are in order. There is a great deal of information here, and the material is covered in depth.

However, I think there are some organizational and stylistic issues which should be addressed before the article is promoted to A-class.

1. Article Name: The article name is overly "Military Speak". I would recommend that the article be moved to Military Assistance Command Vietnam, Studies and Observations Group with MACV-SOG being a redirect page to it.

2. The Lead: This section is extremely short at one sentence. Ideally the lead should be a short summary of the entire article. A casual reader who only reads the intro should come away with a general idea of the entire article. I would refer you to the general Wikipedia guidelines and Military History Wikiproject guidelines for what should be contained in the lead.

3. Organization: Ideally, the table of contents should read as a hierarchy of sections and subsections. For example:

Unit Description

Unit Foundation & Mandate

Unit History

Event #1

Event #2

Event #3

etc.

Recognition

Notes

etc., etc.

This makes it easy for people to get a general "feel" for the article at a glance, and allows people coming back to use the article for reference to find a particular section quickly.

Again I would point you towards the Military History Wikiproject unit article guidelines for cues on how the article might be better organized.

4. Images: The article has none even though the infobox contains one. Regional maps of operations, images of the unit logos, snapshots of the terrain, vehicles, etc. would be helpful. Not only do they provide visual interest and break up the text, labeled detailed maps can clarify sections immensely. Especially helpful would be Table of Organization chart showing how the unit fit into the overall structure of the military units and commands operating in the theater. You describe this in the history section, but an organizational chart would be much clearer.

5. Wall of Acronyms: "MACVs and PAVNs and SOGs, oh my!". For the casual reader who is not well versed in modern military history, or the Vietnam conflict, the prose is very dense. It conveys a lot of information, but it does so in a very jargon-esque way. Remember that your typical audience member is probably intelligent and interested, but not well-versed in the field you are writing in. I understand that military acronyms are a fact of life in modern military organizations, but I repeatedly found myself flipping back and forth in the article trying to relocate the definitions of some of them.

6. Neutrality & Language: The text needs to be neutral, as accessible as possible by culture and background, and not allow the opinions and views of the author/editor to show. Statements like "How Washington could not comprehend the difference between the overt and the covert, after dealing for eight years with an enemy who was notorious for doing so, is beyond belief", seems to project the author's opinion and "tougher nut to crack" may be overly colloquial and informal.

All in all, this is an article that has a great deal of promise. It needs a lot of polishing and hammering, and work to bring it up to A-class level, but I think that the authors' efforts to date should be applauded.

In the future, it may be better to run the article though the project peer review process, and even the general Wikipedia peer review before submitting the article before submitting it to A-Class status review.

A good start, and I look forward to seeing this article evolve. - Vedexent 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Civil War

After looking at this one for assessment, it seems up to scratch. Carom 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Kyriakos 05:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Critical comments for further improvement : a little cleaning for consistency would improve the readability ("Civil War", "Finnish Civil War" and "War of the Year 1918" are used throughout - pick one), and there is potential for more consistent linking (years are sporadically linked) Medains 09:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The intro needs a rewrite and overall I am not a big fan of the writing style employed throughout the article. It also needs a big time edit to make it sound more professional. Great info in the article but needs some major editing.--Looper5920 11:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Looper5920'comments. The article definitly needs some clean up on the writing style and structures.--Dryzen 13:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Looper and Dryzen. The writing style could use some work, particularly in the intro, but once that is done, I think this is an excellent candidate in all other respects. LordAmeth 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great information, and correct information as far as I can tell, a little cleanup is needed however. —MoRsΞ 11:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  The nomination was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, The article is copyedited / has been copyedited by RelHistBuff, "The intro needs a rewrite", done. --Pudeo (Talk) 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

Submarine

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Organization has gotten better since I last read the article, but I feel that it can be better improved on. Also, the inline citations are noticably lacking for an article that tops out at 70 kilobytes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with everything TomStar81 has written above. The article is very well written, it just needs many more citations and a more logical organization. Might be better to move the history up a bit. Also, it just does not read right to have modern civilian subs as the first paragraph after the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose Needs Citations Raymond Palmer 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why is there no mention of the legendary Yellow Submarine, with which the Fab Four bravely defended Pepperland from the Blue Meanies?! I don't think the article can be complete without at least a 20kb section on this venerable fighting machine! ;-) --kingboyk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, inline citations lacking, {{cite web}} format needed, and the external links section needs pruning. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian Campaign

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Needs citations. Raymond Palmer 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Raymond.UberCryxic 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Marathon

One of the most famous battles of history,the first with double envelopment. After a recent merge a section was added with religious events. Has a large lead section, every section is referenced and has several images. While some improvement is necessary before FA (I do not know how to turn links into refs) it is worth IMO of A-classIkokki 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not listed on the review page until now. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Not too bad but the English lets it down in places:

"Eretria was sieged and fell, and then the fleet landed in Marathon bay"

Needs copy-editing. The layout at the end needs changing Notes and References. Raymond Palmer 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes, I'll put a request for copyedits Ikokki 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor support and Comment Good article, with a good overview of sources and backgrounds. The article will need some polish though and why all the hoplite pictures? I see no need to put 2 hoplite drawings, one will do to indicate the forces against Persian.--Dryzen 17:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to put pictures to make it more readable and higher in quality. These were the related pictures I found at Wikimedia Commons. That simple. By now it seems it won't pass, I'll put a request for copyedits first and then renominate Ikokki 23:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the Royal Australian Navy

Article is currently at GA and has been peer reviewed by the project. I think it is at A-class level now. I am withholding my opinion on its quality as I have done a large majority of the work. Hossen27 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is at least one place (under 'Malaya') where a statement appears to be a quote drawn from a source, but no citation is provided (and indeed, even if a quote is not being used, the information needs some kind of citation. There is also some unfortunate use of the passive voice that hinders readability in a couple places. Carom 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Content is excellent but I think that some major editing needs to be done to make it read smoother and more professional. --Looper5920 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Frederick II of Prussia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some problems with the footnotes (the format is poor) and I'm not convinced that there are enough. I also think some sections could be expanded, particularly 'Legacy'. Carom 18:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be more about his possible sexual orientation then his history. The tone of the article shifts radicaly form an Enlightened despot to military master mind to a hater of poles and jews. I also find that the article could be better partitioned in sections than what is currently laid out.--Dryzen 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I failed this for GA nom last month and I don't know if any of the issues I raised were addressed? --plange 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, no inline citations and not enough refs. Is B-class easy, though... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Although I guess two oppositions are unneccessary. Carom 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is missing something very important. Actual paragraphs about the battle. 90% of the article is about the preparation. There still needs to be info added on the actual course of the battle.--Looper5920 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gallipoli

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs to (vastly) improve citation, and there are some spots that could use editing for readability. Carom 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object More citations would be nice, and the article is generally disjointed.UberCryxic 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose The article contains many assertions which require a citation and it isn't a very easy read. The graphics in the article are well chosen though. --Nick Dowling 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

Battle of Fort Donelson

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, too few citations. Carom 01:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above Raymond Palmer 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Scheldt

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too few citations. Otherwise, it looks acceptable. Carom 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. The layout at the end need sorting. Notes: References: External links. Raymond Palmer 11:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me, although some of the sections (i.e. Gettysburg) might benefit from a link to the main article. Carom 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support KingPenguin 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object - whole sections lack any inline citations and there are places where refs are appearing before punctuation and I'd like to see the trivia items re-worked into the prose. Also, Notes should go before References, right? --plange 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It's very well written, but I'm troubled by the lack of citations and the use of only three sources (the sources are themselves good, but given the wealth of literature on this topic, I think a more complete list is necessary). Carom 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally I feel there are far too many headings and sub-headings (I counted 54!) – it needs a major reorganisation. Also the info box is lacking in detail. A lot of quotes but no citations. Only three references. Raymond Palmer 23:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac's Rebellion

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Carom 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Dryzen 17:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Servile War

After much blood, sweat, and tears in researching, editing, writing, and map-creation, I think I've finally got the article on the Third Servile War beat into "acceptable" shape. The current peer review comments have prompted me to make some changes and to try the article out in the much tougher arena of the A-class review. While the article is currently listed as "A-class", this is the "old style" A-class, not the "reviewed style" A-class. Comments, criticisms, and suggestions are all most welcome. Finding means to improve the article, even if it fails this review, would still be a "win" in my books :) - Vedexent 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support No real complaints from me. Carom 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Minor objection Some more background of the social crisis feeding this conflict is needed. There are neither links nor info. Wandalstouring 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Article includes nearly all of the regiments history, is well sourced and cited, contains additional information about the regiment including blazon and heraldry, and links to official regimental pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It is indeed well cited, but I think some of the sections are a little bare, and I would be very surprised if one could not locate information to bulk them up. Carom 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a good article, but it's not A class. As noted by Carom some sections lack detail and I think that it would benefit from the addition of photos to illustrate the Brigade's history. --Nick Dowling 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objection well sourced, but a bit limited. Give more info or links to other articles containing more info. Wandalstouring 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment with 3 objections, I'll consider this failed. However, I'd like some help finding the photos (I'm no good whatsoever at finding fair-use or pd images) and bulking up some of the more recent history (i.e. post ww2). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted by The ed17 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [1]

---

HMS Hood (51)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I think that it's ready for A-class. That said, I've worked it over until my eyes are crossed and there's probably still plenty of things wrong with it because I've incorporated much of the original text. I look forward to new sets of eyes helping to improve it as there are probably numerous overlinks and other small problems. Hopefully I've taken care of the larger issues, but perhaps not; belike, I'm a bit too close to judge.

This had an ACR back four years ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hood (51)/archive1, but there's not much meat there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments It's good to see that the article on this interesting and important ship has been brought to a high standard. I think it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • The piping of the link to Mackensen-class battlecruiser in the lead para looks a bit untidy (the piped text is probably longer than the name of the article it links to)
    • Agreed.
  • "She was refitted twice before being stationed with the Mediterranean Fleet due to the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War" sounds a bit awkward
    • Cleaned up.
  • "and later as an intercept force" is also a bit awkward (particularly as the intention wasn't to intercept the invasion force - which was impossible for Scotland-based ships, but rather to attack the follow on forces)
    • How does it work now?
  • " the resulting orders from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the Royal Navy to "sink the Bismarck" culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that ended in the sinking of the Bismarck" - 'sink the Bismarck' is effectively repeated in this sentence
    • Recommend: "...culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that sunk the German battleship." bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but I like the new wording better. What do y'all think?
  • "Partly because of the manner in which Hood was lost in World War II, the battlecruiser remains a popular subject for naval history, with extensive research being done into the reasons for the loss of Hood and into the subsequent chase of Bismarck by the Royal Navy, which deployed nearly 100 ships of various types in the effort to locate and sink Bismarck" - this is a long sentence and it's a bit repetitive
    • Deleted the whole paragraph as not relevant.
  • "She was the only ship to carry these guns in the hydraulically powered Mark II twin turrets which were designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear." - did other ships carry these guns in a different configuration of turrets as this implies, or were the turrets given different names on other ships? (or both?)
    • Rewritten.
  • "The gun house for this mount was larger than the previous mountings" - what were these previous mountings? (eg, were they fitted to Hood or, as I assume, earlier BBs/BCs)
    • Cleaned up.
  • The paragraph with begins "Construction of Hood began" seems to repeat much of the content of the 'Protection' section.
    • How so? This section talks about the layered scheme of the deck armour, which isn't well covered in the protection section.
  • The sentence which begins "She was launched on 22 August 1918" is a bit over-long and should be split
    • Done.
  • Hood and her companions during their world cruise was designated the 'Special Service Squadron'. You could note that this squadron was present at the scuttling of HMAS Australia (1911) during its visit to Australia.
    • Happy to, got a cite?
      • Yep, in the HMAS Australia article Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article refers to the "reputation and legend of the "Mighty Hood"", but doesn't actually explain what this was. From memory, she was considered one of the more significant symbols of the RN and British Empire (her visit to Australia was considered a very big deal at the time) and this explains why her loss was such a shock (except to people who actually knew how obsolete she was).
    • I second this one and expand on it below. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "This lasted until January 1941" - it's a bit unclear what the 'this' is here (patrol work or being dispatched against reported German raiders?)
    • Where? I'm not finding this phrase.
  • "Holland’s ships caught up with Bismarck and her consort" - this implies that they over-hauled the German ships in a chase, when they actually intercepted them from the south.
    • Agreed.
  • Do the sources allow anything to be said about Hood's crew? (including her habitability). At present all that's specified is how many of them there were and that they once participated in a mutiny. Given that she was the RN's most prestigious ship for much of her career, did she receive unusually high quality officers (including captains)? Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Uncertain about the quality of her officers, although I suspect it was a plum assignment. I can add some stuff about her habitability. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Everyone of Hood's captains made flag rank so I've added them in, mostly as a bunch of redlinks. See how well I've integrated them into the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments have now been addressed. I'd suggest looking for further details on the ship's crew before this goes to a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Done a bit of a copyedit, undo anything you disagree with
• In the lead, 2nd para (and again, in para 3 of "Inter War Service"), the status of the ship in relation to the Mediterranean forces is unclear. Was she deployed for the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, left, then came back for the Spanish civil war, or does the claim that "When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet" mean that she'd 'unofficially' been with the fleet since the Italo-Abyssinian War deployment, and had just been hanging around before being formally integrated into the order of battle?
  • This is spelled out in the main body. She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly afterward and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Hood returned to Portsmouth for a brief refit between 26 June and 10 October 1936. She formally transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet on 20 October
    • Although its definitely clearer in the body (although a date associating with the posting at Gibraltar or the war's outbreak would be a good addition there - I've added "in October", but feel free to remove/change), I think the lead could do wit a little tweaking to make clear the 'go, come back' sequence of events clearer. May I suggest She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet following the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935. After returing to England in mid-1936 for refit, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly after the Spanish Civil War broke out. She remained in the Mediterranean until she had to return to England in 1939 for an overhaul. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Honestly I don't really see a need to get this level of detail in the lede. It's only a summary.
        • Its that the 'attached', then 'permanently assigned' thing reads to me as really confusing. Let me try a less-detail version: She operated with the Mediterranean Fleet during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War, and remained in the Mediterranean until 1939., dropping the 'status' of her operation with the Fleet, and the "return for overhaul" bit. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• I've copied in the boiler and turbine details from the infobox to the second paragraph of "Description". Can you doublecheck and cite if necessary?
  • Done
• The broadside torpedoes tubes: were three facing off each side, or could one (or more) be reaimed to fire in the other direction? This is probably a stupid question, but it needs to be made a little clearer in the article
  • Added fixed to the torpedo section.
    • Unfortunately, now it reads to John 'Idiot' Landlubber that all six tubes fire in one direction. May I suggest Six fixed 21-inch torpedo tubes were mounted on Hood, three on each broadside. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed.
• In "Fire Control", the 'fore-top' where the supplementary secondary rangefinders were fitted: was that the same place as the second primary director was located (spotting top of the foremast)?
  • Yes, spotting top, fore-top, control top; the usual multitude of names for the same place.
    • Would this be worth specifying? -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Would it be worth renaming the "Protection" section as "Armour"? That's all it seems to deal with
  • It also mentions the anti-torpedo bulges, though I think one could argue that it is a type of armor. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Because it includes the bulge info, I prefer to use protection.
      • Fair enough. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Any particular reason for the inconsistent use of the {{Convert}} template for armour thicknesses?
  • Each number is only converted once.
• In the fourth para of "Protection", were the two torpedo tubes removed to allow for more armour in addition to the six mentioned in "Armament", or was it reduced to four?
  • It was reduced to four.
• Is there somewhere the single-paragraph "Aircraft" section could be merged into. Maybe "Armament"?
  • I wouldn't recommend that. The recon/observation function of these aircraft mean they don't fit under armament or fire control very neatly. Most other battleship/battlecruiser articles maintain aircraft as a subsection of the design section, so we ought to keep it consistant. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Second para of "Inter-war service": A couple of sentances describing the actions of the Special Service Squadron (specificly Hood's actions) during the cruise would be valuable.
  • I can add her intinerary, but it's not like she did much other than "she saw and was seen".
    • Maybe a list or numbers of the nations called into which would fit nicely after They returned home ten months later in September 1924... with ...having visited A, B, C... or having called into X ports in Y nations. If there was a sort of goal or 'mission statement' behind the cruise (the Cruise of the Special Service Squadron article indicates the aim was to make port visits to Britain's WWI allies), that might be good to add. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The purpose would be better than the stopovers, not least because it's a shorter list.
• Third para of "Inter War": Was there much damage to Renown? If it was only light, could maybe rephrase as "...the ship collided with the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935; both ships suffered only minor damage." Is there also any indication of specificly what/where the damage happened on Hood?
  • Hood was rammed by Renown at her quarterdeck. Her left outer propeller was badly damaged and her hull had a bunch of plates started by the impact as well as a dent 18 inches (.45 m) deep. Renown was more badly damaged, although I'd have to look to see how long she was under repair and what exactly was done to her.
    • Maybe rephrase/elaborate as While en route to Gibraltar for a Mediterranean cruise, Hood was rammed in the portside quarterdeck by the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935. [Although Renown was out of service for X months because of main problem-my idiot guess is bow damage?], the damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18-inch (460 mm) dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935.? Your call if you feel the need to specify Renown's damage or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed.
        • I've added a bit on the court-martial and its verdict.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fouth para: "new, lighter machinery"...does this refer to propulsion machinery, or something else?
  • In this context it almost always means boilers and/or turbines/engines, but I've specified it.
    • Always better to specify for John Landlubber. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Operation Catapult", para 1: Does it specify what means the French were to take to stop their ships falling into Axis hands? I imagine either scuttling or disarming. It would be good to specify.
  • Somerville's ultimatum actually told the French to sail them to a port (suggesting Britain, a French colony, or other neutral place) where the Germans couldn't get at them. He never suggested the French actually damage or destroy the ships themselves. But I'm not entirely sure it's especially relevant to the Hood's history. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Expanding the sentance Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty had issued an ultimatum to the French Fleet at Oran to ensure they would not fall into German or Italian hands. a little to indicate the expected measures would be good context; simply 'to ensure' is very vague and the reader is left to wildly speculate if Hood and others firing on the ships is an adequate response to the refusal or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed. How does it read now?
        • Tiny tweak made. Maybe condense ...fall into German or Italian hands. to {{xt|...fall into Axis hands. if you become worred about an overly-long sentance. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• There's a quote reference in "Aftermath of the sinking" that's been tagged as dead since September last year (and still is). Are you able to find a replacement, or alternatley provide a different cite for the quote?
  • Fixed.
• In "Modern Theories", the quote from Anthony Prestion does not have ending quotation marks, so its unclear where it ends.
  • Fixed.
• For "Wreck", a little more information on the finding of the ship (what effort went into locating the wreck, had there been any previous attemtps, and if so, why had they been unsuccessful) is needed. To that end, I have a book Mearns wrote following the search for HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (which contains content on some of his previous disoveries, like Hood) that may help (although you may get more from his co-authored book with White). I'll hammer some notes together in userspace over the next few days, and you can integrate them if/as you see fit.
  • User:Saberwyn/Hood search...Here's what I got. There wasn't much detail on the condition of the wreck itself, but that's fairly well covered already. -- saberwyn 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Wreck" also needs some rejigging: at the moment its a two-sentance paragraph, a block of text, and another two-sentance para. This will probably fix itself as information is added, but keep it in mind.
• There's two books cited to Anthony Preston. The second (published 2002 by Conway), lacks a title.
  • You've fixed it. Thanks -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• There are a fair number of citations to the website for the Hood veterans association. I don't know where it falls on the scale of reliable sources, but the question will probably be raised at FA (if not here), so you may need to start thinking about responses.
  • I'm not too worried about it qualifying as highly reliable. It's an organization and most of what I'm using are copies of Admiralty documents.
• There's a glut of images in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" section, and not too many elsewhere. If you can, address the balance. I'd suggest finding image examples of some of the features discussed in "Description" and subsections, because I get almost three screens of text between the profile drawing near the top of the section and the Sydney Harbour photo in the "Inter-war Service" section.

Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your efforts so far. My apologies if I'm being unclear or nitpicky. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, I'll probably be responding only sporadically for the next week or so. Finals week, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• You use Second World War in the lead, and World War X in every occurence in the body. Probably needs to be standardised. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.

I still think the "Wreck" section needs some reorganisation of the info to make the paragraph size more consistent. but that should only a light copyedit. Support for A class. -- saberwyn 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from baha (who is pissed that he got a BSOD while typing this and has to do it all again):

• The image imbalance is rather clear. Of the nine images (including the lead), four are of Hood's loss, and one is a bit of her wreck. It shouldn't be too hard to find images of specific components in the description section, like the guns or an aircraft flying off the ship. The phot and sketch of the explosion can be combined side-by-side using {{double image}}. This will free up space to move the Schmitz-Westerholt painting down, because it's sandwiching (boxing) text between it and the Prince of Wales photo.
  • You've done some work here, and I've taken care of the left-right jogs and double image. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Nick is entirely right about the impact of Hood's sinking. If I were a reader who didn't already know, reading this article would leave me wondering what the fuss was about, why Churchill was so upset at her loss that he demanded the Bismarck be sunk, and why the RN devoted so many resources to the task. Her status as the pride of the fleet needs to be expanded, possibly into a subsection of the aftermath section (which could also use some wordage on the subsequent hunt for and sinking of the German battleship). This would be a great place to display the Schmitz-Westerholt painting, kind of a pop-culture impact. There should probably be some more written about the sinking of the Bismarck in the aftermath section, since it is more or less directly related.
  • • Done.
  • You did mention more about Bismarck, but I think you really need to emphaise the importance of the Hood outside of just the Royal Navy more. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • How does it work now?
• I echo Nick again in talking about her crew. Surely she had notable captains besides Tomkinson and Kerr over her twenty one years (and I actually had to search for Kerr's name, John Leach's name was more prominent IMO, and he commanded a different ship!). The only others mentioned are the three survivors.
  • Excellent, I'm happy with the names now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The logical organization needs a bit of work. For one, the lead is a tad long, and you can probably move some of the info on the ship's history out or cut duplication. The background in the lead (i.e. unfinished sister ships, Emergency War Programme) and the "construction" subsection should either be in the sections regard the ship's history, or in a background section between "description" and "inter-war service". The "surviving relics" section should be a subsection of the "wreck" section, even though they aren't from the wreck itself.
  • Improvements are done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• It seems like two sentances on the collision with Renown are not enough. Wouldn't such an incident be followed with inquiries, firing the captain, and maybe a court-martial? "lightly damaged" is rather vague, and it was significant enough that she needed to be serviced more than once (and they picked bits of the propeller from her bilge).
  • Good idea about the court-martial. I'll add something about it when I get a chance.
    • Excellent, Much more clear on the incident. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The last sentance in the "inter-war service" section ("Her condition meant, among other things, that she was unable to attain her top designed speed.") should state what speeds she was actually capable of in her degraded state. You mention it in the next section, so it's probably best to move that sentance up.
  • Unfortunately, I think that her maximum speed would change depending on how long since she'd had her bottom cleaned and when her last machinery overhaul had taken place. Furthermore, I don't know what it was at any time except when given.
    • OK, I'm happy with the follow-up info. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Is there more information about the damage she took in September 1939? Was this a German attack (if so, where the devil did the aircraft come from?), or an accident... was there a battle/skirmish or just dumb luck?
  • Lemme look.
    • I like the expansion; very good info. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the "description" section, you mention Hood being chosen to chase down the Bismarck due to her speed, and it's probably worth repeating that in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" subsection.
  • Rephrased as it more a question of availability than anything else.
• "This was followed by a devastating magazine explosion that destroyed the after part of the ship." Maybe I'm confusing my naval terminology (or perhaps an ENGVAR thing), but shouldn't it properly be "destroyed the aft part of the ship"?
  • Indeed.
• "Memorials to those who died are spread widely around the UK..." and on should probably be moved to the aftermath section, or wherever you expand upon the imact of the Hood's sinking.
  • Done, thank you. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the second theory, about the underwater shell strike, how far would a shell have had to penetrate to reach the magazine?
  • Not sure, but I've added the available info.
• What kind of boats/launches did she carry? I think it's worth mentioning in the "description" section, since the impacts to the boat decks are significant to the accepted theory.
  • Honestly don't think that it's that important. As you can see from the one aerial photo, the answer is lots of boats.
• The line "...as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarck's 38 cm shells..." seems inconsistant since the Bismarck's shells are described as "15-inch" everywhere else.
  • Fixed
• There are a few spots where you use the degree symbol (°), and some where you spell out the word. Is there a reason for the inconsistancy?
  • Nope, fixed.

It's mostly small issues, and shouldn't be too hard to fix for a support from me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; like I said above I'll only be able to sporadically respond for the next week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the issues have been addressed, and some not. Please follow up on your thoughts as to the ones that you haven't acted on yet. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Compelling writing so far, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• "She had a metacentric height of 4.2 feet (1.3 m) at deep load, as well as a complete double bottom. The additional armour added during construction increased her draft by about 4 feet (1.2 m) at deep load, which reduced her freeboard and made her very wet.": A suggestion here. "As well as" has a connotation that what follows amplifies what comes before. There's a connection between those two things, but it seems to me there's a stronger connection between the extra weight of the double bottom and what comes after; is there a way to move the double bottom into the next sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The double bottom did not relate to her overweight problem. Lemme see if I can find another place to put it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• What's an "F IV H catapult"?
  • Deleted as superfluous.
• "the US continued with their established design direction, the slower but well-protected South Dakota-class battleship": I think a reader is likely to come away with the impression that there actually was such a battleship ... there wasn't, just a design. Is there a way to reword?
  • How does it read now?
    • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• "armour/protective arrangement": see WP:SLASH.
  • Fixed.
• Done for now. I stopped at HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work so far. See how well the double bottom info fits; I'm not really happy with it right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hey guys, I'll finish this one as soon as I'm done with Vyborg. On the list question, the best link is WP:EMBED#Appropriate use of lists, and that's one of the Good Article criteria. I'll get to this soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oops, have to do some FAC work before this one, but it will be today for sure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Got a little farther, I'll finish up tomorrow morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• "HOOD V RENOWN OFF AROSA 23–1–35": See WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• IMO the list format in Modern theories on the sinking is supported by MOS, specifically WP:EMBED.
• "; a world first": what was it that never happened before? Underwater video streamed to a website, or video from a certain depth, or underwater video streamed to a national broadcaster's website, or .... ? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What's the difference between a messdeck and living quarters? I think you should just have living quarters, or specify which mess (probably the enlisted one) which was drenched.
  • The messdecks were the living quarters for the junior enlisted men. Some NCOs and all officers had separate living quarters, most all of which got wet. There were different messes for many specialties and I don't propose to detail all of them.
    • Messdeck could use a link; anyways I guess even with the jargon its clear enough to the reader that some parts of the ship where some subset of the crew ate and/or slept were uncomfortable.
      • Linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Which page of Taylor (pp. 92, 94 or 123) says she was "the largest submarine in the Navy"? I think you should cite that individually.
  • Done.
• You kind of mention this obliquely regarding her high speed and armament earning her a nickname, but that sounds kind of POV-ish to me; wasn't there an actual story how the Hood received the nickname "Mighty Hood"?
  • Nope, just consensus as to why.
    • Hmm, ok just checking. Hood is not the only ship with a nickname of dubious origin.
• Super-long third paragraph in Inter-war service should be split; it will make the last image format better.
  • Done.
• Sinking; wasn't there a story how each of those three survived that massive explosion?
  • Sure, but not really relevant to this article; it's more appropriate to articles on the fellows themselves, if they're notable in their own right.
    • I think simply surviving the sinking makes them notable; anyways, you have a one sentence paragraph that easily could be expanded. I'd redlink the names, add their ranks, and detail the 3 hour wait to be rescued by Electra, then mention all three testified in the official inquiries. Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I've followed the same procedure that I used on the battlecruisers blown up at Jutland where I provide numbers and the ships that rescued them. I don't feel that simply surviving makes them notable in any way. I've added their ranks and corrected their time in the water before rescue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per WP:BULLET I don't think you should have the bullet points in the theory section and you should summarize the 6 theories in the lead paragraph.
  • I disagree. The bullets nicely organize the theories, especially as several of them are really too short to stand on their own as paragraphs. I've added a discussion as to the investigations into her loss and some, but not all, of the theories. I only covered those that disagree with the board's conclusion; those that only focus on how the magazines exploded are left for later. See how it reads.
    • The section doesn't even have a lead sentence, just a sentence fragment, and if you didn't have the bullets it would read the same to me; which is what the MOS says Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. I don't think Dank got this far in the article, he might have a comment or two once he gets here.
• The motto is not cited.
  • Done.
• I'm confused about the torpedo tubes - they removed the two underwater tubes ahead of the A-turret but why did she have 2 torpedo tubes in 1941 - shouldn't it be 4?
  • Look again, 2 x 2=4
• Good work, very interesting and comprehensive article. Kirk (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I crossed off a few; more comments added...Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support but here are a few comments: Would it be too much to ask for a separation of notes and citations? I find that much easier to read. What I found particularly interesting are the slight discrepancies in timing when I look at the German sources about who fired when during Hoods final battle in the Denmark Strait. The distance between Hood and Bismarck was also judged differently by Von Müllenheim-Rechberg in comparison to the numbers stated here. But all of this is minor. This may be difficult to address but not much is mentioned about the crew and its structure, such as how many officers, how many men per gun or for driving the engines were needed, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've updated the crew numbers based on the best info I've got, but I can't break out the info on them to the level that you want, nor do I ever expect to be able to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object The only referenced or cited source is a very old Britannica, and I would imagine it is possible to get more recent (and potentially more reliable) information about the subject. Carom 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources needed. Wandalstouring 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of printed reference sources on Turenne; using a single source is never sufficient, particularly when many printed sources can differ on the 'facts'. Also needs citation. Raymond Palmer 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above --plange 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.UberCryxic 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, although I wouldn't complain if it were slightly better cited. Carom 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some issues with citations and pictures. Is this picture legal? Image:Alexanderbattle.jpg Wandalstouring 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost sure that it is not, seeing as how it comes from the video game Rome: Total War. I believe there was a discussion a few weeks ago, and it was determined that such images did not comply with the proper Wiki rules on images. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be; given that the article is explicitly discussing how he's depicted in modern culture, there's probably a valid fair use claim for such an image here. Kirill Lokshin 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object picture missing (redlink?) and there are several sections where there are no inline citations at all --plange 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Insufficient in-line citations.--Yannismarou 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Krasny Bor

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A nice, long, and detailed article. But not quite as long and detailed as I personally believe A-class should be. LordAmeth 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs more citations to be A-class, although otherwise, it seems ok. Carom 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, more citations. Wandalstouring 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good article, not A-class. See comments above. Raymond Palmer 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

M1 Garand

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have zero knowledge or expertise as regards firearms, but a cursory examination seems to indicate that this article contains exhaustive coverage of the subject. Pictures, tables on variants, diagrams, and a fair number of references. LordAmeth 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I think it should probably cite sources a little better in a couple of sections, but I'm not too troubled. Carom 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources, especially if quoting somebody. Wandalstouring 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Charlemagne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid I have to vote "oppose" for now. Though well beyond many B-class articles for length and detail, this article has a very short introduction, and not nearly enough references. LordAmeth 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too weak on citations (only three in an article of this length is really not quite right). Carom 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Missing citations. Wandalstouring 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A nice long, detailed article, with pictures, maps, good sections, a link to a translation of Hitler's directive itself, even a quote. But even so, it is not as long as many other GA+ articles are. Also, there aren't very many footnotes, and all the references are in Russian. LordAmeth 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not troubled by length (an article is what it is), or the references in Russian (if they aren't available in English, they aren't available), but the lack of citations is troubling enough for opposition. Carom 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too few sources and mostly Russian. There are several books listed under further reading. They could be used better. Wandalstouring 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Landing at Anzac Cove

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 11:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as not citing any sources or providing any references (not even weblinks). Carom 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with no sources at all, no way it can be A-class. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no sources. no A-class. Wandalstouring 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Central Asia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support (is that even an option?). I'm a little troubled by the low number of references. Carom 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong objection needs some quality sources.

"Even his invasions of China, to that point, had involved no more bloodshed that nomadic invasions such as the Huns had previously mounted, had caused.[1]"

This claim can be severely contested. Chinese sources in other articles say 100% different.

"but Genghis Khan introduced the world to tactics that would not be seen again until the Germans used them so well in World War II - indirect attack, and complete and utter terror and slaughter of populations wholesale as weapons of war."

Seems to forget the Boer War and the Confederate Cavalry, while slaughtering of population was an ideological motivated instrument of German warfare in the Nazi era and served very contraproductive to the efforts of establishing a stable German rule (partisans). For the Mongols it was an instrument of establishing a rule and so say all contemporary sources.

"(It must be noted that Genghis Khan eventually abrogated every allegiance he ever made, but in the short term, he probably did not intend to invade the Khwarezmid Empire when he did) [3]"

Alliance with equals or rebellions of allied minors who had to serve?

"Genghis then sent a 500-man caravan, comprised of Muslims to officially establish trade ties with Khwarezmia. However Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, had the members of the caravan that came from Mongolia arrested, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. It seems unlikely, however, that any members of the trade delegation were spies. Nor does it seem likely that Genghis was trying to provoke a conflict with the Khwarezmid Empire, considering he was still dealing with the Jin in northeastern China.[3]"

Needs some more sourcing about Mongol spying practice and intelligence gathering.

"The city leaders opened the gates to Bukhara, though a unit of Turkish defenders held the city's citadel for another twelve days. Survivors from the citadel were executed, artisans and craftsmen were sent back to Mongolia, young men who had not fought were drafted into the Mongolian army and the rest of the population was sent into slavery. This was to be Genghis' typical treatment of captured cities throughout the rest of the campaign. As the Mongol soldiers looted the city, a fire broke out, razing the majority of the city to the ground.[7]"

Did this happen to the cooperative population of Buchara or did someone misquote?

"After the fall of Bukhara, Genghis headed west, towards the Khwarezmi capital of Samarkand and arrived at the city in March 1220. Samarkand was significantly more fortified and there were as many as 100,000 men defending the city. As Genghis began seiging the city, his sons Chaghatai and Ogodei joined him after finishing off the reduction of Otrar and the joint Mongol forces launched an assault on the city. Using prisoners as body shields, the Mongols attacked. On the third day of fighting, the Samarkand garrison launched a counterattack. Feigning retreat, Genghis reportedly drew out a garrison force of 50,000 outside the fortifications of Samarkand and slaughtered them in open combat. Muhammad attempted to relieve the city twice, but was driven back. On the fifth day, all but an approximate 2,000 soldiers surrendered. The remaining soldiers, diehard supporters of the Shah, held out in the citadel. After the fortress fell, Genghis reneged on his surrender terms and executed every soldier that had taken arms against him at Samarkand."

These claims really need sourcing. So many defenders in a city? How did the Mongols win so easily if they mistreated all allies all the time, this needs really more sourcing and an expert. Wandalstouring 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

10th of August (French Revolution)

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - needs more inline citations and current web links inline converted to proper footnotes --plange 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Although otherwise, it looks good. Carom 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose same reasons Wandalstouring 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose references and inline citations are both lacking.Raymond Palmer 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaker Morant

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - not a single footnote in the text. No way should any unsourced article ever be rated more than Start in my opinion.Michael Dorosh^Talk 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD, though I'd say it's B-class -plange 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, although I also think it's B-Class. Carom 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's B-class only. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)