Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/WorkshopT&A08

Tag & Assess 2008 is now officially over. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss ways of improving the next drive, so that it attracts and keeps more participating editors, so that it's run more efficiently. This page is divided into three sections.

• The first—#Workshop—focuses on the mechanics of the drive and participants' experiences, reactions and proposals.
• The second–#Burning question–is specifically about input for the future and for brainstorming.
• The third—#Questionnaire—is more general, and aimed mostly for people who didn't participate in the drive. It would be very helpful to us if you completed the section's brief questionnaire.

Workshop

This section is intended for people who actively worked on the drive. The aim is discussion, so please comment on as many of the sub-sections as you feel able. We'd like to hear your complaints and criticisms as well as suggestions for improvement. Feel free to add extra sub-sections if you think something is missing.

Joining the drive

What attracted you? Have you done this before with other projects? How did T&A08 compare? How did it differ?

Comments

• I became a Wikipedian in November/December 2007 when Tag & Assess 2007 was just concluding. I thought it would be a good way to break in a new editor, so when T&A 2008 started, I joined to get some experience in assessing the quality of articles. It has been a good learning experience. - Canglesea (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I stumbled across the drive not too long after joining the Military History Wikiproject, and was immediately interested in assessing articles. As Canglesea stated above, it has been a good learning experience. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I had been using wikipedia for a month or two when I first noticed a notice about the drive in one of the newsletters. I signed up because it seemed like an easy thing I could do to learn more and get involved, as opposed to other things, many of which still confuse me. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't recall how I came across the drive, maybe through someone's talk page that I had watchlisted. I have done assessment drives with other projects, namely WP:Ships; this drive was much more organized; the Ships assessment drive was more along the lines of "there's an unassessed category, let's just gnaw away at it until it's gone". Which is fine, but this one worked pretty well too (with the exception of the complaint registered below about ranges being adopted and then not completed). Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I had also just joined the Military History Wikiproject, and was wondering what I could do to be useful when I ran across the drive. It turned out to be a perfect way to see what articles were out there, what task forces there were, and how things worked within the project. This was my first assessment drive so I have nothing to compare it to, but I have noticed how the drive in WPBiography has just sort of fizzled.... Ejosse1 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't participated in other projects' T&A drives, but this one appeared well structured and the idea of reviewing MILHIST articles interested me. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I had just joined WP MILHIST and I looked for a way to contribute to the WP somehow, and I saw the Tag & Assess 2008 and decided to join and help out. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I've been around the block before with T&A07 and BCAD, and since over 40% of my edits are to talk pages with assessment maintenance, this is right up my standard operating procedure for editing. I would have done more this time if it weren't for RL complications. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I hadn't participated in a T&A drive before, but thought it would be an excellent way to learn about how articles are assessed. Like User:Canglesea said, it was a good learning experience. FusionMix 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I hadn't participated in a Tag & Assess Drive like this one before, so I thought it was an excellent learning experience, and a good way to learn more about Wikipedia. It was certainly well-structured and it caught my interest when I learned about it. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• This was my first ever T&A Drive, and it was a wonderful experience, I unfortunately didn't have as much time as I wanted to participate in it, but I loved the way that it was set up, as for hearing about the drive I was a participant in the B-class assessment Drive, so I was notified by Roger Davies about this coming up, but I first heard about any MilHist drive when I was looking through a friends of mines awards and seeing some from the T&A 07', I knew that I would want to join the 08' drive, and then when the B-class assessment drive came out I joined that and then I wound up in T&A 08'. Overall, a wonderful experience :). Mifter (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• This was my first Tag and Assess, so I am unable to differentiate between the conditions experienced by editors in this one and in others. However, the Tag and Assess seemed well coordinated, and in my opinion, ran smoothly. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructions and support

Were the instructions clear or did you struggle with them? What would you improve? Was the guidance of scope adequate? Were the comments on assessment levels clear? Is there anything you'd like to see simplified? Were your questions answered swiftly enough on talk pages?

Comments

• The instructions and guidance were fine. The only thing I would add is stating that the B-class checklist should be added to any article that doesn't have it. It is the basis and mechanism for assessing and promoting lower class articles. - Canglesea (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I believe the instructions were quite clear and simple to follow. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• The instructions were fine, and any places they weren't clear I was able to ask for and receive help on the drive's talk page.Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Over all the instructions were first rate. The only comment I have is that some questions asked on the support page didn't seam to be answered in a timely manner by those running the drive. --dashiellx (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my fault. I apologise. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• The instructions were pretty clear; I didn't ask any questions on the talk, so I can't say as to whether they were handled quickly or not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I was brand-spanking-new to the Project when I started, so I was very uncertain about assessing articles. But, just as the instructions said, I caught on after I had done some. Ejosse1 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The instructions were fine, but I didn't realize for awhile that I should delete the unused B-class sections/explanations. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The instructions were fine, but what I caught myself doing in the beginning was always coping and pasting the whole {{WPMILHIST}} Banner, when all I needed to do was just C & P the previous syntax and add or delete any fields that need be. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Made perfect sense, even to this user whose never done a T&A before. FusionMix 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The instructions were excellent: clear and precise. However, I only received notification of the Tag and Assess after it had already begun. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tallies and worksheets

Did you find these easy to use? Is there anything about them you'd like to improve? Can you think of a better way of doing them?

Comments

• The tallies and worksheets were great. They made it very easy to manage the work. - Canglesea (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have viewed another assessment drive simular to this, and no tally or worksheets were in place, resulting in a quite mixed and confusing environment. This drive, on the other hand, was excellent, with the tallies and worksheets provided. Whoever constructed the idea for the tallies and worksheets should be commended. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• They were great; I had no problem with them. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Same as Borg; the sheets were pretty helpful. I find it easier to work through tedious work like article assessments if it's broken up into little chunks, so the groupings of 10 articles was nice. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with all of the above. This is definitely the way to do it! Ejosse1 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto above. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The tallies and 200 article worksheets split into groups of 10 were very helpful. I mean otherwise it would have been very disorganized. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto to everything above. FusionMix 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The tallies were very well done. I could keep track of where I was, and easily pick up where I started. Also, it gave me an easier way to pursue my goal. I could set myself the minimum of tagging and assessing at least 10 articles a day. They were extremely helpful and well done. Nice job! --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The tally sheets were useful and comprehensive. No problems there. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Timing

When would be an ideal time for you for the next drive? During holidays? Or doesn't it matter?

Comments

• It doesn't matter. - Canglesea (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• As the drive goes for quite a lengthy period, it does not really matter when it is held. As for the holidays suggestion, it could not possibly work for all wikipedians, considering we come from all across the globe. For example, Mr Davies is from Europe while I come from Australia. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• No time we can please everyone, and the one we had it in was good enough. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I generally have less time in December, but any time is fine. As the above editors have stated, you can't please everyone. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Any time will do. Ejosse1 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The start/end date of this drive worked well for me. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Anytime is fine, just allow enough time between initiating the T&A and closing it and also notification of when it will close before hand so that contributors have enough time to finish what they are working on. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• So long as it's not during the summer, I tend to be extremely inactive during that period. FusionMix 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't really matter too much. Red4tribe (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• What if we start a monthyl drive in which each user has to tag 30 articles for a month it will be easy and simple with no work load --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• I also like the idea of a monthly drive, although that could cause unnecessary administration and logistics work. As for timing, any time is good, as the Tag and Assess takes place over a large period of time. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pet hates

Did anything really bug you?

Comments

• I'm bug proof. - Canglesea (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Nope. Organised well, no hassles. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• The only problem I had was when people adopted ranges and then did nothing with them...So none of those articles every got looked at. No way that I can really think of to fix that though...Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should publish a "back out" procedure. Those who realize they are in over their heads can mark where they left off, and turn he list back to be readopted? - Canglesea (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Borg Sphere and did wonder if they were working on their adopted ranges.
• My one pet hate was a range of 200 HMS SHIP or USN SHIP etc, I realise they need doing but I think it could have put off some editors looking for some variety Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I liked the range of similar articles (200 HMS Ships), the tagging went very quickly (mechanically). There is no requirement to select the next available set; many of us previewed the available sets to select one of interest. To each his own. - Canglesea (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with both Borg Sphere and Jim Sweeney. It was sad to see people adopt a range and then not follow through on their commitment. I also think that rather then alphabetical order if the worklist could somehow be randomized so that you aren't just reviewing same type of articles. I didn't really mind the endless list of ships, rather the list I adopted which was nothing but guns and ammo got really boring after the first 20. --dashiellx (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I like dashiellx's idea of mixing the articles up. It did get monotonous when I'd hit a long run of similar articles. Ejosse1 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe more editors would participate if the commitment were for for a smaller range, e.g a block of 50 or even 100. 200 "BATTLE OF" articles was monotonous. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe 100 article worksheets instead of 200, again split into groups of 10. It was just time consuming with 200 article worksheets, but I was fine with the 200 article setup. I thought the alphabetical listings were fine, especially when you struck a list of the same things like aircraft. Perhaps if you do change it maybe group them by topic, like WWII, aviation, maritime, biography, etc. because just randomizing the lists would take a lot more time for the tag and assessors to complete the worklist, because you would be continually changing the syntax for the MILHIST banner, but in groups of the same topics the change would hopefully be minimal and thus allowing you to progress at a steady pace. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grouping the worklists by topic would definitely be helpful. If I was able to do more (see the burning question section for explanation) I would have gladly taken multiple sections of the maritime warfare tagged articles. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have to agree with dashiellx, Borg Sphere, & Jim Sweeney. Granted, this wasn't NEARLY as bad as BCAD's stub-list was (I swear, if I have assess one more "X-inch howitzer or field-gun" article....). In addition, the adoption and then disowning or worklists is extremely aggrivating. On the onehand, the system of worklists gives coherence to the drive, yet can often prevent others from working on articles that need to be done. As a suggestion for next time, maybe we should have a monitoring system. If nothing has been done on the worklist in...say....a week, then it is discarded and put back up for adoption. Cam (Chat) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Like the others have pointed out, it would be nice if the articles to be assessed were more varied. I found myself assessing a lot of "Xth Airborne Whatsit" articles, which was quite tedious. That's probably why I never finished my block of 200, only got half-way. Perhaps blocks of 100 would be more reasonable for ADD editors like myself? FusionMix 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The idea of varied article assessements is a good idea. And also, as discussed above, perhaps if the count were lower than 200 assessed articles for an award, more editors would participate? Often the thought of a reward is necessary to inspire motivation. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewards

What did you think about the service award/barnstar structure? How could it be improved? How could it be changed? Do you prefer generic awards (barnstars) or Milhist-specific ones (the Wiki-stripes), or doesn't it matter?

Comments

• The current awards work fine. They are attainable goals to work toward. - Canglesea (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• The awards presented for this drive were great. They allowed obtainable goals, and rewards actually related to the project (service awards). I believe this awards structure should be retained for the next drive. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I had no problems with the award structure. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• They seem fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think the awards structure was great. I like the distinctive milhist-specific awards. I will say that it is a long way from 1000 to 2000 articles, but I'm not sure if having an award at 1500 would have necessarily pushed me. (Okay, maybe). Ejosse1 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I like the milhist-specific awards. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The awards seem reasonable and attainable. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Very good. So long as there isn't one made for below 200 articles, that would be far too easy. FusionMix 22:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have a great idea, why don't we have a 50 tag award, and 100, and 200? Stick with me here; let's say I won the 50 tag award, and then I did 50 more, my award would get "upgraded" to the 100 one, and the 50 one removed. That way, there is a continual incentive to keep rating more and more as the award gets upgraded. Just a thought :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea but heavy on administration (which is what we are short of). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Works wonderfully. Great job everyone! Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• The administration is always a problem: lack of participants willing to deal with rewards and logistics administration. However, the idea of a award at 100 assessed articles, or even 150, is quite appealing. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who Am I

Hi all I had volunteer to tag and asses the articles. I did some 30 to 40 articles after that my collage started so i didn't completed the list of articles. Since the drive is over still can i tag them?? I had some points to say do i am eligible to put them forward? or should I fill the questionnaire please forgive me for not completing the list--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I Agree with people below me this is not a good time for T&A it should be December, January, October.Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Burning question

I've noticed that the response to drives has been steadily falling since our first one last year. Has anyone any suggestions to make to reverse this trend? Is this formula getting tired? Do we need to come up with something readically new? How do we recruit taggers? How can we encourage people to do more? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the most enthusiastic and productive taggers are new to the project and looking for ways to contribute. In fact, that is partially why my total was so high in T&A07 and BCAD. Once you've been through this experience, it seems as though people are less likely to contribute at their previous levels. (Although I would have if I hadn't had to deal with RL difficulties and unexpected school commitments.) -MBK₀₀₄ 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to agree with you MBK004. In a similar way, I used BCAD to get back into the editing-habit after a 10-month break from wiki. I find that once you get more into the MilHist Project, your focus tends to shift from assessment and other monotonous tasks into things like content & article logistics (as I have shifted towards). In other words, the best way to get more people involved is to increase our recruiting. The two are proportionate. Cam (Chat) 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• With more responsibilities on Wikipedia during the Drive, I could not repeat my performance from a few months ago. That won't be a problem next time, apparently. Thus, I can devote more time to the Project as a whole, not just the Drives. I'm a bit embarrassed I did not even finish my range. A lingering burnout from the last drive might have also contributed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Late comment and no real idea where to place it. Having a T&A drive hasn't really made sense to me as this is something that editors should be doing on a daily basis. I assess somewhere between 10-20 articles per day be they either new articles via the new article feed; others in maintenance categories or ones I come across while editing. There needs to be more cooperation between Milist and ships as I always make it a point to assess for both projects if the article warrants it. But I notice that isn't the case with all editors; there is sort of a tunnel vision in regards to helping other projects out when it only takes seconds to add their tags. I think your efforts would be better spent in gathering more daily assessing as I notice the Milhist new article feed is way behind and many articles are missed. An AWB run that I made in late June found many many ship articles without the Milhist tag. --Brad (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I find the assess drive (and the awards offered) increases editor motivation. Not everyone is willing to work for free. If participation and recruitment could be be improved, then the Tag and Assess drives would work great. Jordan ^Contribs 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is really designed for people who didn't get involved. You can greatly help us by completing the questionnaire below. It will help us to understand how to improve the mechanics/administration to involve more editors. Many thanks in advance for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To complete the questionnaire, please cut and paste the following into an edit window.

===Insert your name here===

<!—What was the main reason you didn't participate in the drive?-->

*

<!—If the the timing was awkward, when would be a better time?-->

*

<!--Did the drive seem easy? Or overly-complicated?-->

*

<!--Have you ever participated in similar drives on Wikipedia? If so, how did it compare?-->

*

<!--What could we have done to persuade you to participate?-->

*

<!--What could we have done differently?-->

*

<!--Are there any other comments you'd like to add?-->

*

~~~~

Cam

<!—What was the main reason you didn't participate in the drive?-->

• My reasoning for not getting as involved in this drive as I did for the BCAD is twofold. Firstly, I had a number of other Wikipedia-Projects on the go. During T&A, I also went through two GANs, an ACR, and an FAC, and as such had very little time left for T&A. Secondly, April to June is (at least in the high-school program I'm in) a period of intense and very heavy-workloads that are often difficult to juggle. My contributions throughout May and June were lower than in previous months (although after June 17 they bumped up significantly).

If the the timing was awkward, when would be a better time?

• November to January would work MUCH better for me (less school workload, more breaks)

Did the drive seem easy? Or overly-complicated?

• Relatively simplistic, certainly easier than BCAD was.

Have you ever participated in similar drives on Wikipedia? If so, how did it compare?

• I was part of the Biography Spring 2007 drive. In all honesty, this drive was a head and a half above that one. The creation of worklists (thanks to Kirill for doing that) aided the organization of the project significantly, as previous assessment drives with other projects were "anarchy in a box"

Cam (Chat) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

What was the main reason you didn't participate in the drive?

• School, mostly, since the drive occured in the middle of the school year I have to subtract time from RL to be in it, and unfoutunetly school this year left little room for extra activities here.

If the the timing was awkward, when would be a better time?

• December/January, and to a degree, May-August, since schools out for breaks. I can not garentee I would be more active then, but my odds of being here could go up a little if the drive were held around the same time.

Did the drive seem easy? Or overly-complicated?

• Easier than last years. The descion to split the drive pages up was a huge help.

Have you ever participated in similar drives on Wikipedia? If so, how did it compare?

• I was in the T&A 07 drive, and I placed second behind Bedford with 5700 article nailed for us. This years drive was better planned owing to input from last years workshop people. In particualr, I like the easier to digest T&A list we had this year.

What could we have done to persuade you to participate?

• I would have participated anyway (being a coordinator and all, I sorta feel the need to particiapte in a "lead by example" kind of way), but this year school just got to be too much of a burden to really crank open the T&A engine. Having fallen behind the four year graduation mark and watched friends walk across a stage with diplomas this year wasn't exactly good for morale, so I am trying to do the hustle so i can catchup. In the process though I find that I seem to have little time for Wikipedia anymore, although I do try to participate where I can when I can. As for encouraging more participation, perhaps we can offer an extra bonus to the editor(s) that tag and assess the most articles; for example, awarding a week of coordinator time and effort to work on an article to be determined by the most active T&A assessor(s) (last year, that would have been Bedford and me and the third guy whose name at the moment escapes me). If we decide to do something like this we should extend the offer to third parties as well, for example, us and VG recently shared peer reviews for a month, perhaps we could offer a similar arrangement to ecnourage other projects to help us out some. If folks from BIO, LAW, MEDICINE, and so forth think that participation in the drive will have a over net benifit for thier review process under such conditions then they may be inspired to help us with out drive knowing that they can get outside input on article within their scope for as a reward for aiding us. Just something to think about.

What could we have done differently?

• Perhaps leave a little more down time between T&A events; I think that most people hadn't gotten all the way over BCAD when T&A08 fired up, and I suspect that may have been at least partially responsible for this years lower returns. Also, I would consider leaving nine monthes between T&A drives instead of six, the extra away time may help drum up more support the next drive.

Are there any other comments you'd like to add?

• Thanks to all who have thus far participated in the Iowa class battleship FAR :) On a more serious note, I think we need to do a better job of getting the word out across the board, for T&A07 I remember seeing our ads and such across the encyclopedia, but not so much this year. You can only play before a sold out crowd if the crows knows the band is going to be preforming.

TomStar81 (Talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Avocado

What was the main reason you didn't participate in the drive?

• Well, I did start to. But because this drive followed on the heels of the B-class assessment drive, and because both of the drives had the articles sorted the same way, it was really easy to end up with a range that a) were boringly similar in content and b) had just been thoroughly assessed by a capable editor. I ended up losing momentum because I felt like I was accomplishing nothing by re-reviewing those articles.

If the the timing was awkward, when would be a better time?

• T&A '07 just happened to fall at a time when by chance I had nothing else to do. A different time of year wouldn't likely make a difference.

Did the drive seem easy? Or overly-complicated?

• Just fine

Have you ever participated in similar drives on Wikipedia? If so, how did it compare?

• Yes, T&A '07. T&A '07 was more of an adventure, to be sure. Because it hadn't been done before, it felt like we were getting a lot done. Maybe it would help in the next drive to filter the lists a bit so that we could first turn our attention to articles that hadn't been covered in previous drives, followed by those that had?

What could we have done to persuade you to participate?

• See above

What could we have done differently?

• See above

Are there any other comments you'd like to add?

• MilHist is a model Wikiproject, and the drives do seem to be effective -- keep up the good work!

-- Avocado (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)