Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
  3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
  4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
  8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).
  1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
  2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
  3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.


If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Henry Macandrew[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Henry Macandrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a petrol/pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A career officer of the Indian Army, he saw service in several campaigns and the Boer War prior to the FWW. A follower of Haig, he saw quick advancement once the war began, initially on the Western Front and then in the Middle East where he made his largest impact in command of a cavalry division of the Desert Mounted Corps. This is one of my first largescale dabbles into FWW content and I would appreciate any and all comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I had heard of Macandrew, as commander of a division in Chauvel's Desert Mounted Corps, but knew nothing more about him. His death reminds me of Brigadier General John Royston, who was invalided out of the service after deliberately inhaling poison gas. Another chapter in the great deeds of the British cavalry. Looks good; some comments to prove I read it:

  • Is "The Inverness College" Inverness Royal Academy?
    • I don't think so. Going by the the school's website it has been called the Inverness Royal Academy since 1793.
  • "Macandrew's position as a brigadier-general was a temporary rank, and he was still a substantive lieutenant-colonel" Well yes, but for some weird reason, all brigadier-general appointees were temporary.
    • Possibly a left-over from the older appointment of brigadier-general, from which the holder would revert when no longer commanding a brigade? Am aware this was how it worked in the Napoleonic Wars, at least
      Still the case today, with the practice inherited by the post-Great War rank of brigadier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas annoyed me, so I made some changes. Also corrected two typos. ([1]) Revert anything you disagree with.
    • All good, thank you for the edits
  • "Macandrew's commander, Lieutenant-General Harry Chauvel" should be Sir Harry Chauvel
    • Oops! Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for correcting those spelling errors that slipped through the cracks. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Tinian[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of Tinian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After the Battle of Saipan comes the Battle of Tinian. It isn't as well known as Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island eventually became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.

If someone wants to complete the Operation Forager trilogy by fixing up the Battle of Guam (1944), that would be great. I am not going to, but I am intending to take this one to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape. Please see my comments below:

  • The first para of the lead should establish which countries the battle was fought between. " the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for the Twentieth Air Force." is also unclear given readers may not know that this was an American unit or its significance
    Added who it was fought between. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I had better mention it in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could also be clearer about the purpose of the invasion - e.g. that the island was a key element of the plans for the air attacks on Japan
    The purpose of the invasion was to cut the Japanese line of communications. Tried to make this point more clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another rationale for the capture of the Mariana Islands emerged with the development of the long-range Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber." - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest noting in this para that B-29s could reach almost all worthwhile targets in Japan from the islands, which is why they were so strategically important
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'strategy' section should start with a para or so on Tinian's status at the start of the war and by the mid-1940s. Readers don't learn until the next section that it had long been Japanese territory and that it had a largish civilian population.
    Added a paragraph on this. It is of course covered in detail in the article on Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a couple of sentences about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do modern historians use the term 'comfort women'? It seems an awful euphemism.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yetch. I'd personally use something else anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the condition of the Japanese garrison? E.g. had any of the units seen combat before, were they well supplied, etc? My understanding is also that the Japanese attempts to reinforce the islands were greatly disrupted by submarine attacks - did these reduce the intended size of the garrison? It might be worth noting somewhere that the Japanese were well aware that the US wanted the islands as strategic bomber bases and regarded their defence as a top priority.
    The submarines attacks did not affect Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the second para of the 'United States' section about the condition of the Marines? I imagine that while the troops were worn out by the fighting on Saipan they would have almost all been combat veterans
    This is covered in the second paragraph of "United States". I have added a bit about their previous service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Counterattack' section is written from the perspective of the Americans. Can anything be said about the Japanese decision making here and/or the experiences of the Japanese troops?
    This has been added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the 'Tinian taken' section. This section raises the question of why the Japanese garrison didn't surrender and fought it out to the last against an obviously vastly superior force
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 404 Japanese who were captured is also a fairly high ratio for Japanese forces in the small island battles - 5% or so of the garrison. Can anything be said about the circumstances of their capture and who they were?
    Only a little bit. My opinion is that the island was not that small, that many Japanese became isolated and left to their own devices, and the presence of civilians may have been a factor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On Saipan, 1,780 prisoners were taken. This was more than the United States had taken in all the battle of the war up to that point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest checking the sources, but my understanding is that 'Marines' is usually capitalised in US works when referring to groups of individuals serving in the USMC
    They do but we don't. (MOS:MARINE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1 August 1944 and 1 January 1945, the 8th Marines lost another 38 killed and 125 wounded; 542 Japanese soldiers were killed" - can more be said about this fighting? The number of Japanese killed after the island was secured is startling high.
    Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the many horrific elements of the fighting on Okinawa was the mass rapes of Okinawan civilians by Japanese troops. The article notes Japanese troops killing civilians on Tinian, but do the sources also discuss sexual assaults?
    Astroth has a whole chapter on the subject, but it lacks any specifics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para of the article should note that the air units on Tinian represented a high proportion of the force that attacked Japan.
    Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to add material with historians' assessments of the battle. From memory, some consider it the best-conducted amphibious operation of the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're remembering Howling Mad Smith's assessment, from Coral and Brass. I will add a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an analysis section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 'Wtfiv Great article! I must say, I feel awkward reviewing on of the most-veteran and skilled editors in this section of Wikipedia. I also know my style is not in line with the more typical style, most are probably too long. Getting a sense of your experience, I can have confidence you'll be gracious about them though. So here they are:[reply]

  • Strategy
    • Last paragraph assumes readers knot that Saipan was the first island invaded. This is not addressed directly in this article. So this would be confusing to a reader coming to this article from some other background. Shouldn't the invasion of Saipan be mentioned in this or the third paragraph.
  • Geography
    • ¶ 1. I may be wrong, but I think Magellan only landed on Guam. He may have informally claimed it, but not Tinian. I think the islands were not formally claimed until 1565 by López de Legazpi.
    • ¶ 3. For the beach descriptions, the white beaches are saved for last, but only its location is given. The beaches in ¶ 2 are the best beaches, and the yellow beaches are bad because of cliffs and surf, but the properties of the white beaches are not given. Given their importance, shouldn't that aspect which made them unappealing as invasion sites be mentioned?
    • Last paragraph. Consider replacing "it" it had a population with a more definite noun as it is the topic noun of the paragraph. I was unsure of what "it" was. (For instance, a reader may think it is Tinian town until it was mentioned. Perhaps "Tinian" or "the island"
    • (Note added a bit later) As I was working through the pre-assault bombardment section, I thought it may be worthwhile to mention the distance of Tinian from Saipan. This is relevant in terms of the pre-assault bombardment. It also gives the reader a sense that the logistics of the invasion was more of a hop, (unlike the invasion of Saipan.) (Maybe it can go in the last paragraph of the previous section, Strategy?
  • Japanese
    • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I understand why Kakuta gets first paragraph. He is the most senior officer, and in order of battle he'd go first. But I think his relevance to the rest of the narrative puts him later. It seems to me that the actual defenders should go first. Mention of Kakuta seems like he should be more of an afterthought as he mainly spent his time avoiding the fighting. My own thought is he should go after ¶3.
    • ¶ 2. The information on the 135th infantry is unclear because the invasion of Saipan has not been made explicit in the article. The reference to an 11 June amphibious landing making the unit available on Saipan would be clear if the reader knows that this was the beginning of the aerial attack on Saipan which froze the Japanese forces in place.
    • ¶ 2. Minor suggestion only. The total number of forces, their readiness and moral seem like the topic of this paragraph, this go in the first sentence or after a sentence explaining that Ogata is in command? (And in line with my earlier suggestion, maybe this whole paragraph should be the first.)
    • ¶ 4. The opening of this paragraph is unclear because the article has not mentioned that the Saipan invasion preceded the invasion of Tinian. It should be clear if this point is made explicit.
    • ¶ 4. Comment only- no action requested. The sentence and point is fine and it can stand. But to me, this page reads like Morison's personal opinion (note comparison to the revolution. I wouldn't challenge Morison as an authority, but I'm not sure I agree with his opinion. I think other sources may come up with other reasons why the Japanese fought. I think Ogata, like a good soldier following orders, had no choice. The "fight to the death" was Japanese government policy, not that of the soldiers–many of lower class with probably little sense of being samurai– or Ogata per se. Also, in the Battle of Saipan article, I was going to reference the code of bushido too, but digging in, the fact that Japanese soldiers fought to the death seemed more complicated than following the code of bushido. It seems the rank and file had a militarized education of the 1920 and 1930s played a role with what most Westerners would call brutality played a role, The enculturation of the importance of social face, the Emperor cult, and the religious aspect of being deserving of memory in Yasukuni Shrine all could be argued for.
  • American
    • ¶ 4. There's a lot of detail and information in this paragraph, so I'm not sure adding more would be useful. But another reason intelligence about Tinian was excellent was because the Grasshopper observation planes had been scouring the Island for the 531st Artillery and XXIV Artillery Corps. (Consider Crowl, p. 271)
    • ¶ 5. Consider rewording What the intelligence reports revealed was that the best landing beaches were around Sanharon Bay but they were also the most heavily defended. to "The intelligence reports revealed..."
    • ¶ 6. Consider deleting the first sentence Turner had plenty to say. Start the second with "Turner noted..."
    • ¶ 6. I find the discussion a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure tha the northern beaches include both Yellow and White beach. But then it sounds like the Yellow Beaches because of the exposure to weather, but most likely both Yellow and White were thought to be too small to land forces of the size contemplated.
    • ¶ 8. Minor suggestion only. Consider putting the detailed challenges of White beach up in the Geography section, and in this section it just summarize the challenges and how they would be surmounted. I think moving some of the measurement details to the appropriate area in Geography would help the reader keep more focus on the narrative, which is focusing on solutions to the problem.
  • Bombardment
    • ¶ 1. I think it is important to mention that the artillery bombardments were taken place even as the fighting on Saipan continued. This is implicit to those who know in discussing the 531st.
    • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I think the XXIV Corps Artillery began shelling around the time they were first deployed around 22 June (see Crowl 133) It might be useful to let the reader know that the XXIV had also been constantly bombarding Tinian long-term.
    • ¶ 3 or thereabouts. You are very thorough in your description of aerial bombardment, you may want to also mention the USAAF's 19th Fighter Squadron on Aslito Field that started bombarding Tinian on its first day on Saipan on 22 June (consider Crave and Cate, p. 690–691) again highlights that it might be useful to note that the bombardment and recon by forces on Saipan was ongoing even as Saipan remained an active combat zone. Saipan's proximity to
    • ¶ 4. I think damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott may need context. Readers may like to know they were damaged as part of a fairly major diversion on the South beaches. **Minor suggestion only The diversionary section on Saipan may merit more discussion. Unlike the Battle of Saipan where the diversion was almost token, the diversion on Tinian was substantial, involving warships, and has been argued to keep the main Japanese forces focused on the southern beaches.

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an article that Gog and I worked on some time back. It is unusual in that it is about the American Army in the Normandy campaign. While the Brits and Canadians have subjected Normandy to exhaustive study in the last few years, the Americans have not shown much interest, preferring to produce yet another book on the Battle of the Bulge. To say that the battle described in this article is not well known would be a major understatement, but I feel that it deserved one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saipan[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk)

Battle of Saipan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because The Battle of Saipan was one of the major battles in the 1941-1945 Pacific War, it's 80th anniversary is on 15 June 2024. I started with this article cleaning up references for one issue, and realized this article could use a major overhaul and expansion, particularly with sources, maps and images. I think it has come far enough for a peer review. To those who take a look, thank you. And I hope I have helped to make this topic interesting to you and other readers. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It's good to see this article on a key battle of World War II here. It needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class status though, and I have the following comments:

  • The sentence starting with 'The speed with which the Marshalls were occupied' is a bit over-complicated, and it would be good to note when the invasion was brought forward.
  • Sentence broken into two. This diff addresses adding original time of invasion. This diff adds the date when the Joint Chief of Staff brought the invasion forward to June. Wtfiv (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should also cover the assembly of the invasion force
  • Moved assembly of forces out of footnote and added a bit more in new section. Wtfiv (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section should also cover the pre-1944 history of Saipan
  • Added background as first paragraph of the "Military Geography" section. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The 'Japanese defensive preparations' section doesn't really capture the importance the Japanese assigned to Saipan: they knew that it would become a dangerous B-29 base if captured.
  • A sentence on B-29s is added in this larger reworking. Interestingly, most sources do not focus on this. My guess is because the Japanese were focused on reacting to the action around Biak and assuming a strike into the Carolines.
  • This section should also cover the overall Japanese plan for the defence of the Mariana Islands, including the plans to use aircraft and the IJN to defeat the US invasion fleet - this appears much later in the article.
  • The background section now includes a subsection on Japan's defensive plans.
  • The 'Saipan's military geography' should note the climate
  • Added climate as first two sentences of second paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The Opposing forces section needs to be referenced, and there's inconsistencies in how the names of various senior officers are presented here.
  • Reworked whole section I disliked this section when I started editing, but thought it was a kind of template for the Pacific War island battles as I find it everywhere. As per Hawkeye7's Battle of Tinian, I just put the command structure of the major units into the prose narrative and deleted the section.
  • "The attack took out nearly one-third of the 435 planes in Vice Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet, which had been deployed to defend the Marianas" - this is the first time this force has been noted, despite there being a section focused on Japanese defences.
  • Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet has been added here in the Japanese strategic plan heading. Further modifications to Kakuta's role in the article include a change and a later update in Japanese Naval Response, and an update to Preparatory Attacks. I didn't give specific numbers as the various sources wildly disagree. What is clear is the land-based airpower was devastated. I used Toll's estimate of 100, as it was more conservative.
  • The grammar in the sentence starting 'It was had a wide gap just north of Charan Kanoa' is a bit off, and the sentence as a whole is over-complex
    • fixed grammar. Made sentence slightly longer, turning it into a list of three problems, but grammatical complexity should be reduced. If you'd like me to break it up, let me know.
  • It's confusing referring to the US divisions as the '27th Infantry', '2nd Marines', etc: these terms are usually used for regiments (especially in the USMC).
    • "Division" added to each unit when named: diff, (and minor diff to fix spelling error in first mention of "Division" in previous diff.)
  • The 'Aftermath' section should be reworked to avoid single paragraph sections
  • Aftermath section has been reworked to avoid single paragraph sections and other issues raised below. Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Naval air dominance' section doesn't seem to add anything
  • Section deleted in latest reworking. Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the use of Saipan as a B-29 base is confusing. This was always one of the main goals of the operation, reflecting long-term plans (the overarching strategy was to develop B-29 baes in the Marianas, with the operation in China always being a stop-gap until airfields in the islands were available). Reflecting this, airfield construction crews arrived fairly early in the piece. The article presents all of this as being a bit of an afterthought rather than central to the entire operation.
  • Material has been reworked as follows:
(1) Strategic bombing is now early in Aftermath to reduce perception of afterthought.
(2) As suggested, added information on when aerodrome construction started, Emphasizing its earliness.
(3) Reorganization into three paragraphs. Logic of tentative organization:
¶1. Shift to strategic bombing; Yawata synchronized with invasion symbolizing this.
¶2. Explanation of role of Marianas in being a well-suited site for strategic bombing.
¶3. Saipan's specific role in the initiation of Marianas-based strategic bombing.
(4). Removed discussion of China-based B-29s, except for explaining the origination of the Yawata Steel Works raid. The relation of China bases vs. the Marianas is a complicated issue that evolved over time. For example, China-based bombing, supplemented by bases in the Aleutians-based bombing, was conceived as a sufficient project in its own right at the First Quebec Conference in 1943, though one of the justifications for the strategy was lack of available islands. (see C.C.S 323 on pp. 995–1000). Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Arnold didn't see the value of using mandate islands as bomber bases even as late as the Quebec conference, stating most were atolls. (see pp. 861-862) Wtfiv (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material presenting one view of the importance of strategic bombing in the Japanese surrender is out of place, and this is a famously complex and debated topic so it's not NPOV to present only one view and not the others.
  • Deleted the two quotes, reworked material for perceptions of Japanese.
The intended point wasn't to get into the controversial and charged issue of what caused the Japanese to surrender (e. g., strategic bombing, submarine warfare, the Soviet declaration of war, the atomic bombs, and more.). My intention was to emphasize the effect B-29 bombing had on Japanese morale and perceptions. I'm hoping the rewrite makes this more clear. One of citations points towards quotes from ten Japanese leaders in addition to the two that I left in the text. (The remaining two were inherited from the original article.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the links in the 'See also' section really needed? If these people played a significant role in the battle, they should be linked in the body of the article.
  • The number of photos seems excessive, and it would be good to left justify some of them.
  • Deleted many, shifted a few. The original presentation was an experiment in presenting many images, each illustrating a topic in the text but avoiding MOS:SANDWICH; it didn't look too bad on a mobile.
I may have to rework again to avoid sandwiching once more maps are added.
  • More maps could be added Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this comment, I'd like to get a bit more help from you about the maps. The Battle of Saipan map has the frontlines at each section of the narrative, and labels all the places mentioned in the narrative. (Except Tanapag plain, which is mentioned in context as between Makunsha and Tanapag.) But I can see a reader may not want to keep clicking back to that map. I could certainly add more in the sections. Where would would you like to see them, How many is reasonable, and what level of focus (whole island, or zoom in to the front?) would you like to see? Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest adding maps (where available, from the US official histories and similar) to illustrate the key engagements. A map of the landing/lodgement phase of the operation would be very useful, for instance. A map showing the 'Smith vs Smith' phase of operations would help to illustrate the issue here. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the reply, Nick-D. Please see my comment at the bottom of Hawkeye7's review. Wtfiv (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note regarding Hawkeye's great comments below, it's common for articles on battles of the Pacific War to need a surprising amount of material explaining how they fitted into each protagonist's strategy and the strategic situation. This is because most of the battles were essentially small stand-alone campaigns given the geography of the war (e.g. in comparison to the European theatre of the war where battles tended to occur in fairly rapid succession as part of general offensives and don't need as much introductory material). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nick-D. When first working on this article, I could see that authors quickly got caught up in the MacArthur-King tension. My goal is to keep discussion of it to a minimum: acknowledging it and getting the facts right but focusing on the invasion. Both you and Hawkeye have provided with more guidance to help me better navigate these complexities. I'll do my best to address your concerns without being enmeshed in the details. I'm sure you two will guide me where I need to work it out more. Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is excellent work by a skilled content creator, and I am surprised that I haven't encountered you before.

Thank you, Hawkeye7, for both the compliment and the feedback. I'll be one the road this coming week, so a bit slow in addressing most of the points raised until I get back. I'll first address Nick-D's. In particular, our bullet points 1, 2 and 4 look like they may take a bit more thinking through. Wtfiv (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • American strategic objectives
  • Reworked and expanded paragraphs 2–3 attempting to first four bullet points. (Major diff and minor cleanups here and here.) Intended logic of presentation:
¶ 1. (Mainly unchanged), sets up situation at beginning of 1944; defines King's support for Plan Orange and its relation to the Central Pacific offensive.
¶ 2–3. Global overview of Marianas status as strategic objective. Steps back to 1943 with focus on three conferences: discussing through King's advocacy for the Marianas and the CCS decisions. Also note MacArthur's concerns.
¶ 4. Shifts to operational implementation by Nimitz in 1944. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is not incorrect, but it is misleading, because this decision to give priority to the Central Pacific drive was taken in May 1943, before the Admiralty Islands, and the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaigns referred to in the previous paragraph. For the record, CCS 417 (at Cairo) said: "The advance in the Pacific shall be simultaneous along both axes and shall be mutually supporting, that when conflicts in timing and allocation of means exist, due weight should be accorded to the fact that operations in the Central Pacific promise at this time a more rapid advance toward Japan and her vital lines of communication." (Hayes, p. 550) So priority, yes, but the acceleration of MacArthur's timetable under Reno IV undermined the rationale for it.
  • Issue of priority has been deleted. Paragraph 3 mentions only that CCS supported the Southwest Pacific drive and the Central Pacific Drive. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third is even more misleading. King had decided that with the capture of the Gilberts and Marshalls, the Marianas would be the next objective. This goal been formally endorsed by the Allies at the Cairo Conference in November 1943, which set their invasion for 1 October 1944. This is incorrect. The Marianas were added to the objectives list (CCS 387) at Cairo,[2] but not immediately after; Ponape and Truk were to be secured first. (see Matloff, p. 377)
  • Deleted conflation of grand strategic decision making (CCS) with more operational decisions. Section omits mention of Gilberts and Marshalls. Rewords CCS statement at Cairo to adding the Marianas as an objective for the Central Pacific offensive
  • The invasion the Marianas, codenamed Forager,[22] was originally scheduled for October–November 1944. You have already said this in the previous paragraph.
  • Fixed. This was an artifact of addressing a concern by Nick-D, moving information without deleting the original. Latest reworking integrates this in the context of Cairo.
  • The debate over the schedule in March 1944 is covered in Matloff pp. 455-459. The SWPA and POA staffs debated the issue at a conference in Pearl Harbor on 27-28 January 1944. Kenney, Kinkaid, Sutherland, Towers and Sherman all expressed reservations about the Marianas operation. Sherman felt it would be costly, and there were concerns about their suitability as a base given that they had no harbours. (see Hayes, pp. 545-548) Another conference was held in Washington in March, but there was still no decision on the Marianas vs Truk. (Hayes, p. 555) Sherman argued that the Marianas could be used to neutralise Truk. (Hayes, p. 556) As noted, JCS the decided on 12 March to invade the Marianas on 15 June. (Hayes, p. 560)
  • I've kept the narrative at a high strategic level, focusing on King and the CCS in paragraphs 2 and 3. Mention MacArthur's concerns note the SWPA concerns regarding POA operations.
I know if we move down to the finer grain of the JCS, SWPOA, and POA discussions, it gets more complicated. As you mention, the Pearl Harbor and Washington conferences continued the back and forth about the Marianas. The debate constantly shifts: a number of the individuals took different sides of the argument at different times. (e.g., Nimitz being willing to forego the Marianas as a result of the Pearl Harbor discussion, and King having to him of the Cairo decision.)
I'm hoping that the two paragraphs focused on King and the CCS make the main point about King's insistence while getting the reader quickly to Saipan. It would be nice to have an article that got into these gnarly details that could be linked. I find it fascinating, and appreciate the deeper dive in terms of understanding the complexities but trying to reflect them simply that your comments have led me to. (The Granite II article?)
Is overall form of the current edit okay with you? Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although King was nominally CNO, this was an administrative role. His authority derived from being CinC US Fleet (COMINCH) and should be referred as such.
  • Although Nimitz was CinC Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), in this context he should be referred to by his other role, as CinC Pacific Ocean Areas (CINCPOA).
  • Done, see diff above. May want to check if links are appropriate.
  • Recommend moving footnote b into the body. This is an important part of the campaign.
  • Done, Nick-D noted that I needed to add that information, so it may have been missed. (Or perhaps it wasn't enough.) It's now in main text under American invasion force and its been expanded slightly. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked sentence in second paragraph to make it more clear that the capture of the Marianas the central theme of the paragraph.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese defensive preparations
    • fn 35 contains a stray bracket
      • Someone graciously fixed it.
    • " but most of their equipment ... were lost" was lost
    • " to defeat an invading force at the beaches, when the invading troops were most vulnerable" where the invading troops
      • Fixed. The diff for this and all but one change in this section below is here.
    • Link defence in depth
      • Done
    • "Other soldiers were stranded survivors headed to other islands when their ships were sunk" I Had difficult parsing this. I think you mean that they had been headed for other islands, but wound up on Saipan.
      • reworded Many soldiers were stranded survivors of sunken ships headed to other islands.
    • "the timing of the invasion surprised the Japanese, who thought they had until November to complete their defense" If you have the book, I would be interested in knowing what footnote 43 refers to.
      • I checked the convenience link the the citation, and it looks like it works. I'll put it here: p. 139 The Lacey sources a G-2 intelligence report from 11 July 1944 interrogating Major "Kiyoshi Yoshida". (see footnote g for questions regarding his reports during and after the war, which are used widely in reliable sources to describe the Japanese side of the battle.) The date can be argued for: It's at the end of the monsoon season and closer to the original date set at the Cairo conference, but that'd be WP:OR. Other sources make the same point, but none give a reason.
    • " after the Japanese government had taken over Saipan from Germany in 1914." full stop instead of comma
      • Done
    • "Saipan was the first island of the war " Can you rephrase this?
      • Reworded: Saipan was the first island during the Pacific war
    • " large urban centers" Seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.
    • "civilians lived on the island primarily serving the sugar industry" comma after "island"
      • done
  • Opposing forces
      • Deleted format and replaced with narrative section I didn't change this because I thought this was an informal "best practice" for Pacific War Island articles, as so many of them have this.
    • I really, really don't like the use of abbreviations for ranks. Are bits that expensive?
      • Section deleted, all named officers are given their full ranks without abbreviation.
    • Kelly Turner commanded TF 51, of which TF 52, which he also commanded, was a part. This should be added.
      • Kelly's dual role already mentioned, parenthetical addition of TF 52.
    • Source?
      • Narrative descriptions are now sourced.
  • June 15: D-Day
    • Recommend moving the map in the Opposing forces section down to this section.
      • Suggestion is a good one. Not implemented yet, please see response at end.
      • Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Link star shell on first use.
      • Link moved to first instance. Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Suggest moving the first paragraph of "Japanese naval response" back into the "Japanese defensive preparations" section, and the other two into the "Battle of the Philippine Sea" to reduce disruption of the narrative.
      • Material rearranged. New section Japanese Strategic Plan now has material from first paragraph and additions. Material on Submarine Admiral Takeo Takagi and his relevance added. Remainder moved to Battle of Philippine Sea.
  • June 16–20: Southern Saipan
    • First image is a red link for some reason.
      • Fixed (in some previous edit).
    • "on June 20" should be "on 20 June"
      • Corrected that, and many other date reversals.
    • "To prepare for the upcoming naval battle, the American transports continued to unload supplies and reinforcements throughout June 17." This is wrong; they would have done this anyway. Move the first phrase to the next sentence.
      • Reworked as per suggestion.
    • "On June 19-20" -> "on 19-20 June"
      • done
    • Suggest making "Battle of Philippine Sea" a separate section, as it is not part of Southern Saipan (or rename that section)
      • done
    • June 17 -> 17 June
      • done
  • 21-24 June: Central Saipan, initial attack
    • "Frustrated by what he saw as lack of progress by the 27th Division, Holland Smith relieved its commander, Major General Ralph Smith" 27th Division -> 27th Infantry Division, delete "Major General" Is it more American to use their middle initials as well?
      • I used their middle initial when introducing them, but here I'm using first names to distinguish the Smiths. If you think I should include their middle initial, let me know.
    • June 22 -> 22 June
      • done
  • 25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough
    • "the XXIV artillery corps" This is wrong; it was the XXIV Corps Artillery.
      • done
    • " had moved" -> "moved"
      • done
  • 1–6 July: Pursuit into northern Saipan
    • Move the last paragraph into the next section
      • done
  • 7–9 July: Gyokusai attack and battle's end
    • "On 11 July, the Americans found the body of general Saitō." -> "On 11 July, the Americans found Saitō's body"
      • done
    • "Though many civilians were able to surrender early in the battle.[269] surrender became more difficult as the battle moved into the northern mountains." Replace full stop with comma.
      • done
    • "The places they jumped from would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". You have forgotten to say that many committed suicide in this manner.
      • Reword Many died by throwing themselves off cliffs at places that would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff"
    • Delete the "Further resistance" heading; it is only one paragraph. (Consider moving the paragraph into the "Aftermath" section.)
    • Make "Casualties" its own section. Readers often go looking for this
      • Done
  • Aftermath
    • "The capture of Saipan, along with MacArthur's victory in Hollandia, pierced the Japanese Exclusive National Defense Sphere." Except that on your map, Hollandia is not within it.
      • Yes, it had been moved to the west of New Guinea in April 1944 following the Take Ichi convoy disaster. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • deleted point about Hollandia. Source is incorrect. Three other sources– Tanaka, 2023, Willoughby 1994 (The Reports of MacArthur, map on p. 227) and Smith 2006 (Carrier Battles to be added to sources soon)– put the line to the west of Hollandia. Wtfiv (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 289, 308: page number?
      • Both fixed
  • Nothing on logistics. Sigh.

**See note below. Logistics section added after casualties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D I have finished a first pass through your thoughtful comments. I particularly appreciate your kindness as you wade through the typos and errors.
  • I have attempted to address the core comments, so if you feel it is productive I could address second-round comments. But, I still have a couple of more secondary tasks I'd like to try before I feel I have addressed your comments in full, so if you think we should wait and I can ping you when I feel they are done, that works too. Here's the remaining tasks I see:
  • Nick-D's challenge with the maps. Tracking all the references in the narrative can be a terror. Nick-D has given me an easy solution, which is to take the best from Hoffman, Crowl and Shaw et al and use them. I may. Before going that direction, I'd like to experiment with creating a set consistent with the .svg, but that requires some care and they'd require review. If it gets overwhelming, I can try Nick-D's suggested default.
*I'd like to build a modest logistics section as per Hawkeye's suggestion. I considered logistics. I deferred because I'd have to think about how to keep it simple. The complexity of detail could risk overwhelming an article that is already on the long side. But I like the challenge. Logistics is the bedrock of the campaign. Section created.
  • I need to run through a couple more rounds of minor copyediting.
  • Nick-D, I feel I owe you a special apology. I recently read your Bugle article on doing a review, and saw I did one of your "don'ts" when I let you know I'd be delayed in responding just after you took the time to review. An unfortunate mix of the article catching interest two days before I had to head out and the resulting real life situation require a lot more care than I thought.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Henry Biard[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk)

Henry Biard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
    • I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it! UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
    • I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
    • Bertram gives it as "it is believed" -- I don't suppose you know anything about RNAS flight training? I failed to find much background information; I assume this was simply what usually happened? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
  • "but suggested that airflow over the wings may have interfered with the aircraft's elevators and tailplanes, causing aileron flutter." - link aileron
  • We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
    • Pegram messed that one up a bit: it's engine weight, not total weight, and it was 170lb. Fixed from another source. Good spot -- I'd missed that, but it was a bit silly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known when he married?
    • I'd assume it's in Wings, but I only managed to find indirect references to his being married: I couldn't even find the wife's name. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makes The Channel Islands and the Great War pass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
    • It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography, Wings, which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assume could be easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 at WP:MILHIST - Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zawed might be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:
          • Starting off in "admin duties"
          • Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
          • Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
          • Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
          • A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
          • PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
          • Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
          • A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.
          Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Typo: "propellor"
  • Convert horsepower to Watts?
  • "the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the"s?
  • I fixed two CS1 warnings
  • Any details about his marriages? (I found his divorce)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has the date of his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn't definitively say that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
    • The source page gives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
  • "Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Jozo Tomasevich[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jozo Tomasevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. It is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović which is now an FA. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'm surprised that this interesting and accessible article hasn't attracted any reviews so far: here's mine:

  • The first sentence of the lead is rather long - do we need "and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University" in this sentence given that it already establishes that he was an academic?
Excellent point, moved down to near the end of the second para. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with " Positively reviewed by scholars such as " would probably work better as two sentences
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, the material in the lead noting reviews of the books seems out of place: just say it was well reviewed or similar
The reason I have included this is the ongoing rejection of Tomasevich's conclusions about the Chetniks by some prominent Serb historians, so I have included some non-Serb reviewers, a Serb historian's review, and a longer-term view for an accurate indication of the appropriate weight for each. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it's necessary for the lead, as it's meant to summarise the article. The details on who said what are best covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen" - do we know when?
I have looked and looked, even finding a reliable source for him being American was hard, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Scholarship' section would benefit by being broken up into sub-sections
OK, I've had a crack at this, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know how Tomasevich conducted research into Yugoslavia from California: I imagine accessing resources would have been challenging.
He was able to visit Yugoslavia and London to access archives, and both books on WWII have massive bibliographies including captured German and Italian documents held by the US on microfilm. He had great access to the huge Yugoslav archives, and they include a lot of German documents captured by the Partisans late in the war when large numbers of other German documents were lost or destroyed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as of 2024, remains unpublished" - it's tricky citing statements like this, but the reference here dates from 2003. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken out 2024, but it is really WP:BLUE as anyone can search Worldcat for Tomasevich and find it hasn't been published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nick, will get onto your comments asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Nick-D. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Placeholder - I'll start when the above review is completed. Pendright (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM - I'm reversing myself and posting my comments at this time. If some overlapping occurs, you have my apology. Regards! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Josip "Jozo" Tomasevich (1908 – October 15, 1994; Serbo-Croatian: Josip Tomašević) was an American economist and historian who was a leading expert on the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia, and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University.
  • was an American economist and historian -> how is this specifically exemplified in the body of the article?
It is from his obituary by Vucinich, in the Legacy section. But I thought it was pretty clear from the descriptions of his work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and after his retirement "he" was
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his schooling, gained a doctorate in economics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
"he" "earned"
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-1930s, he worked at the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and published three well-received books on Yugoslav national debt, fiscal policy, and money and credit, respectively.
  • Should it be "Yugoslav's" national debt...?
Yugoslavia's, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after credit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he moved to the US as the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and conducted research at Harvard University before joining the academic staff of Stanford University.
US -> first use?
Okay, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He combined research and teaching there for twenty-five years until his retirement in 1973, broken by a year teaching at Columbia University in 1954.
"which was" broken by a year "of" teaching at
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters, one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia, both of which were positively reviewed.
Look this version over: Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich had two books published on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the economy of Yugoslavia at the time and both of them received positive reviews.
Yes, almost. Changed slightly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positively reviewed by scholars such as Phyllis Auty, Alexander Vucinich and John C. Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations, it was also criticised for bias against Serbs, its length and repetition, by the political scientist Alex N. Dragnich.
  • What was "Positively reviewed"?
  • [but[ it was
  • Drop the comma after repetition
These have been addressed by a suggested change from Nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich died in California in 1994.
Might this sentence be better placed before the sentence begining with 2002?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It focused on [the] collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war , with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state , [and] the so-called Independent State of Croatia.
Look this over
I think this would change the meaning. the focus on collaborations was across the board, not just the Independent State of Croatia, and that state was the only Axis puppet state, the rest were puppet governments and other collaborationist factions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary.
"which was" part of
  • Košarni Do is near the village of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.
"in 2023 was"
  • He [Nado] returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
Look this over
  • In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".[1]
"and" availing himself
  • The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother , who [,] by then[,] was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
Look this over
  • His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948, he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University).
Drop the comma after 1948
  • He taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University.[1]
Replace the first he with his name


  • According to Vucinich, from when Tomasevich was 25 until his death at 86, he engaged himself in a succession of research projects , some of which [some] were very extensive.
Look this over
  • Between 1934 and 1938, Tomasevich published three books.
Suggest -> Tomasevich had three books published?
  • The following year, he published Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
he "had" pubished?
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
and "it" gave
  • Irwin T. Sanders of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kentucky reviewed the book in 1956 and stated that it was "the best book available for anyone wishing to understand the socio-economic pre-Communist background of Yugoslavia", contained realistic evaluations of the peasant political parties, and concluded that "there is little question about the soundness of his economic analysis or his description of the participation of the peasant in national life".
Think about splitting this 72 word sentence?
  • The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and [which was] subtitled The Chetniks , [and] appeared in 1975.
Look this over
  • Auty praised Tomasevich's detachment from the subject, and stated that it was "likely to remain the standard book on this subject for a long time."
and "she" stated
  • The second volume of his planned trilogy – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – concentrated on collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war,[1] with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state, the so-called Independent State of Croatia led by Ante Pavelić, the head of the fascist Ustaše movement, and was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda.
Could you split this 67 word sentence?
  • In a review of the book published the following year, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst lecturer and German historian Klaus Schmider described Tomasevich's grasp of the sources in five languages as "stupendous",[19] and [they] observed that the result was well worth the twenty-six-year wait between the volumes.
Add "they"
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and as of 2024 , [it] remains unpublished.[19]
Suggest the above change

This is it for now! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Plum Point Bend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A fairly confusing ACW naval action. The Confederates launch a surprise attack against early riverine ironclads using "cottonclad" ramships. The plan actually worked because the Union vessels were largely unprepared. While two ironclads were sunk, the action accomplished nothing of long-term significance and the two ironclads were back in service in less than two months. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in great shape, and is an interesting read. I have the following comments:

  • "had pushed downriver to Fort Pillow." - I'd suggest giving a rough location for the fort
    • Added
  • "and had developed a routine of having a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad take a position further downriver to bombard the fort, while the rest of the fleet was upriver" - this is a bit hard to follow
    • rephrased
  • "The naval component of the Federal effort was commanded by Andrew H. Foote" - did he hold a military rank? If so, please add it
    • Added
  • I'd suggest moving the map into the 'battle' section, and/or left justifying it: it appears in the section after the battle on my monitor
    • Have moved this around a bit; both the map and the Currier & Ives image were added by another editor and I never got around to re-arranging
  • The para starting with 'A shot from Carondelet' is somewhat lengthy
    • Split
  • I'd suggest swapping the order of the second and third last paras of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D I'm not sure that I agree with this one - at least to me, it makes sense to finish all discussion of Plum Point Bend before moving on to the rest of the campaign for control of the upper Mississippi, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for my very slow response here. My comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - Thanks for taking a look! I've fixed the licensing. Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 6, 7, 22a, 50 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - I am aware that based on discussions elsewhere, I need to change the nomenclature used here from "Federal" to "Union". I intend on doing this but I am in the process of moving so I won't be able to get to this right away. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Hog Farm: Placeholder - aware of Federal vs. Union Pendright (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Second thoughts: Would you rather I waited until you substitute Union for Federal, or I could do it during the course of my review? Your call! Pendright (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - either one works for me. I'm out of town for work this week and won't be able to get to anything until late Saturday or maybe even Sunday. I still need to finish up work at Big Black River Bridge too. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Okay, then, I'll substitute them as I progress through the review.
@Hog Farm: I have decided to renege on my offer to review this article. I've changed Federal to Union for only the Lead and Background sections. All the best - Pendright (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'll get this switched over myself. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

To follow. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why don't you just add the location in main text? Would be a useful addition somewhere, surely
    • Done
  • "Union forces commanded captured" something missing here
    • Oops, fixed
  • A word or two as to the relevance of the Tennessee River and Cumberland River to the Mississippi, for the non-American reader?
    • I've rephrased and rearranged some text to try to make it clearer that the fall of these positions forced the Confedertes to withdraw further down the Mississippi
  • "position was captured on April 8"?
    • Done
  • "which was 50 miles (80 km) on the river north of Memphis, Tennessee" this seems a little awkward. Perhaps "which was 50 miles (80km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river"?
    • Done
  • "Foote's Union vessels pursued." Pursued what? You've said that the works the Union just captured were already abandoned
    • Done
  • "Captain Charles Henry Davis took command"
    • Done
  • "The Union ships were known as the Western Flotilla." I feel like this should be mentioned earlier on, feels out of place here
    • This has been moved up to the first paragraph, where Foote is first mentioned
  • Beginning of third background paragraph could be simplified to "Captain James Montgomery and eight cottonclad rams, known as the River Defense Fleet, were located off of Fort Pillow. They were faster..."
    • partially done, although I've kept the reference to vessels being siphoned off elsewhere as I think that is useful
  • Would be useful to mention the size of the Union force, as you do for the Confederates
    • I've indicated the count of ironclads. I'm having trouble finding a source for the total number of auxillary vessels but that's less important as only the ironclads and one of the mortar boats were innolved in this battle
  • While I think cottonclads have been referred to as gunboats, for the sake of consistency in the article I think they should be referred to as cottonclads throughout
    • Done
  • Give M. Jeff Thompson's rank
    • Done
  • Suggest noting that Bragg is one of the cottonclads, as it might be thought that this is a separate vessel for Thompson
    • Done
  • "Confederate vessels passed through Plum Point Bend" this is the first mention of the article namesake. Needs a word or two explaining that (I assume) this is one of the bends in the river which the Union were bombarding from behind. Might be useful to add the location, per infobox, at this point
    • I've tried to elaborate on this a bit
  • "quarter" is naval terminology that needs a link or explanation
    • Linked
  • "The damage forced the vessel out of the action"...because she could not manoeuvre?
    • Yes, added
  • "Union lookouts had spotted"
    • done
  • "third Confederate ship, CSS General Sumter to ram her." comma after Sumter
    • Done
  • "The commander of General Sumter had offered"
    • Done
  • Link boarding
    • Done
  • Give Stembel his rank
    • Done
  • "General Sumter was also badly damaged by a Carondelet shot and forced to withdraw from the battle; the fire came from Carondelet"
    • Done
  • "intending to ram it", "badly damaging it" you generally use the female pronoun
    • Fixed here, and at several other places in the article
  • "badly damaging it. The blow badly damaged the ironclad's bow" overly repetitive
    • I've rephrased this part a little bit
  • "The commander of General Earl Van Dorn was wounded during the action.[42] General Earl Van Dorn's commander, Captain Isaac Fulkerson" again repetitive, surely this could be merged
    • Rephrased/consolidated some
  • "from both the Confederate vessels" somewhat suggests that she is being fired on by two, rather than three, ships. Suggest removing "both"
    • Removed
  • "and accidental undershots"?
    • Done
  • "The former and Cairo attempted to save Mound City" this suggests you have already mentioned the arrival of Cairo, but you haven't
  • "but Cincinnati was unable to reach the shore and sank in 11 feet (3.4 m) of water" > "but before she could do so sank in 11 feet..."?
    • Done, with a slight variance
  • "the fighting had lasted about 70 minutes"
    • Done
  • "the Cairo, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis"
    • Done
  • "...and St. Louis for their minimal roles in the action." Did St. Louis do anything at all?
  • "one sailor was killed"
    • Done
  • "instead of exploding within them" Suggest this change for clarity for the less military-minded reader
    • Done
  • "compared the appearance of the River Defense Fleet's smokestacks after the battle to nutmeg graters." need a word or two more to clarify that this is relation to damage they received, the following sentence doesn't totally manage this
    • I've added a clause
  • "cottoncladding" should this be two words?
    • Maybe? I've split it into two words as Google searching seems to indicate that this does not exist in the one-word form
  • "at the waterlines"
    • Done
  • "except for General Earl Van Dorn"
    • Done
  • Link Union on first lede and main text mention
    • Done
  • "in hopes of" > "in the hope of"
    • Done
  • "Two further Union ironclads were able to steam from the main group upriver"
    • Done
  • "it was later run aground on a shoal, where it sank." pronoun change again
    • This has been fixed
  • Main text says Corinth was abandoned by the Confederates, while lede says it was captured by the Union. These are slightly different events, so suggest going with one or the other description
    • I've tried to clean it up a bit - is this better
  • A word or two in main text about why the loss of Corinth made Pillow untenable?
    • Added
  • Add the names of the commanders to the infobox, as well as the strengths of the fleets engaged
    • Done

« Return to A-Class review list

Fort McKavett State Historic Site[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort McKavett State Historic Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another Texas fort and, briefly, island of Anglo-American settlement in the West Texas plains. Here's to a sixth A-class! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Texas was annexed by the United States of America in 1845,[4] which led to the start of the Mexican-American War the next year" - isn't this a bit of the over-simplification of the causes of the Mexican War? Maybe which was one of the main causes of the Mexican-American War the next year or something like that
  • Yes and no. Annexation itself can be said to be and to not be the main cause of the war, because what Texas was was a breakaway Mexican territory that legitimized its independence with a treaty that the post-pre-Santa Anna Mexican government refused to recognize. And then after annexation, Polk parked US Army soldiers in disputed territory to back up the claim to the Nueces strip. The Mexican Army attacking those soldiers was what enabled Polk to secure war from Congress and toss Mexico out of what is now the state of Texas. But while that could be considered the cause, those troops were there because of the annexation. Suffice to say, I believe the current wording of "led to the ... war" is apt. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking more of the idea that I've read (don't remember where) that the US was basically looking for a pretext to fight Mexico and then get a landgrab after the war but that's well beyond the scope of this article; what's in the article is fine. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.[5] The next year, gold was discovered in California, enticing an unprecedented number of white migrants to go west, across Texas" - I'd recommend tweaking this a little bit. The major immigration happened in the following year (1849), but wasn't the Sutter's Mill gold find in 1848, the same year as the treaty?
  • " In 1851, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas, " - it is possible to use Smith's exact rank? While this wasn't a formal rank in the US Army in 1851, simply "General" is a term that formally refers to a specific four-star rank today (and also in CS Army).
  • Yes, I think so. According to the Handbook of Texas, he should be a brevetted Major General in 1851 (added). Ah, hm. Old Army in Texas, page 114, lists Smith as a Colonel. 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied " - do the sources indicate if this is just a paper formality, intergovernmental dealings, or did somebody actually own this land at the time?
  • I believe it was owned but I no longer have Sullivan 1981 to hand. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem overly important; I checked the libraries local to me to see if any of them had a copy but none do. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as part of Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, The Old Army in Texas: A Research Guide to the U.S. Army in Nineteenth Century Texas by Wooster & Smith has some more detail on units stationed at the fort - it gives a listing of what units provided the garrison in each year
  • Oh, I have that book now! I'll see what I can sprinkle in with it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes. As I recall, this was the only source I am aware that alleges that McKavett was a PoW camp. Every other one I consulted said that the Confederate/Texas frontier forces were minuscule and fairly mobile. They did camp at abandoned US Army forts during the war, but didn't dig back in at most. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this by North Texas University has a throwaway mention of "Fort McKavett [...] was operated briefly as a Civil War POW camp" but no footnote of course. That Texas state historic site website is sourced to someone's 1890s memoir so not great there. I've searched in the relevant volume of the ORs and McKavett isn't mentioned by name. Some stuff that I wouldn't consider to be reliable enough suggests that the POW camp aspect was holding one company of the 8th Infantry for a couple months. This is barely verifiable and quite miniscule so on second thought I don't think this warrants a mention given the shaky level of sourcing that can be turned up. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fort McKavett was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on June 18, 1969, and was included on July 6, 1971" - infobox has July 14, 1971

I think that's it from me for a general content perspective. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, I've left a couple replies above - I'm fine with the article as is on both points. Please let me know when you're done looking over the Wooster & Smith source. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Consider archiving online sources.
  • "Frazer, Robert Walter (1965)" pre-dates ISBNs. It looks like the version you are citing is a 1972 reprint of the 1965 edition, so should take |year=1972 |orig-year=1965.
  • MOS:YEARRANGE prefers year ranges to be written out in full, ie. YYYY–YYYY, not YYYY–YY; this should be changed in various places.
  • Rephrase to avoid the WP:EASTEREGG link on "a presidio": I expected it to wikilink to a page explaining what a presidio was, but instead it took me to the specific one.
  • "Construction of the post began immediately and saw rapid progress as though there were.." Need a comma after "as".
  • "..for Texas settlements." Would this not be better written as "..for Texan settlements."?
  • "..and the return of the US Army to Texas as on June 19, 1865.." I don't think the "as" is needed here?
  • "..Sherman narrowly missed being killed.." Another WP:EASTEREGG link.
  • "..who arrived at the fort in 1881." To help with clarity and tense, recommend "..who had arrived.."
  • "..established a 1 mile (1.6 km) to its north." Either remove the "a" or the "1".
  • "..but wound up with.." isn't very encyclopaedic language.
  • "..for Fort McKavett C.S.A..." Do we know what C.S.A. stands for? And unless there is an exceptional reason, space out the initials per our MOS.
  • "..during its military operated were.." This should be "operation", not "operated".
  • I find the title of the article curious; the vast majority of the article is about Fort McKavett, only the Preservation section and the first sentence of the subsequent Grounds and architecture section seem to be about Fort McKavett State Historic Site. It doesn't affect the ACR, but I'd recommend a page move once it is complete.

That's it from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done. Some embarrassing mistakes you highlighted here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a small edit to fix the Frazer short citation. The year range issue remains outstanding, however as the A-class criteria states "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", I'm happy to support this irrespective. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Four images only:

- all images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 2, 9a, 65a, 69 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Vami IV has sadly passed on - User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. I will try to take this one on; it is in very good shape and shouldn't require much more work for promotion. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, HF. Put yourself down as co-nom; I think we'd also need to discount your support if you take over, unless any other coords have another opinion -- if so you could just collapse your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I don't see the need for this. The support can stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed – comments[edit]

Feedback as follows:

  • In the First Occupation by the US Army section, it says "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied...": who was the land leased from?
  • Construction of the post began immediately: because of the different dates mentioned in the first paragraph, it is not immediately clear when this was. Could we say something like "Once the site on the south bank of the San Saba had been decided upon, construction of the post began immediately..."?
    • Or is it referring to immediately after the lease had been signed? I don't know. Alexander and Utley only supports the " as though there were no local civilian professionals to assist construction, there was a local abundance of usable stone and timber" part of this sentence and I can't access Sullivan.Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Use by Confederate Texas, 1861–65 section, it says " soldier Benjamin McCulloch. McCulloch passed...": could this be rephrased to avoid back-to-back mention of McCulloch?
    • I've changed where the sentences split and have done some rewording to avoid this. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...began regular patrols for and pursuit of raiding indigenous peoples: this "for and" wording seems really odd to me.
    • Comment: I suspect the "patrols for and purusit" means something like "patrols to locate and pursue". FWIW Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone with an adjusted version of Donner's phrasing (patrols to locate and/or pursue). Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...subsequently issued orders for more aggressive measures against the Plains Nations. Maybe put a link to [Plains Indians] on Plains Nations?
  • The "Grounds and architecture" section seems odd to me. The first sentence could finish off the previous section, while the rest could be integrated into the "Use as military outpost" section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Please note that a response to Zawed's comments should bring this one to a favorable close. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - all the rest are addressed except for the first two, which I cannot resolve without access to Sullivan. Unfortunately, the nominator has passed on and the nearest publicly held copy of Sullivan to me is about 150 miles away. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Zawed: I have added a ref note, citing the 1934 Crimmins article, that several persons claimed ownership of the land but the government paid a man named Robinson for the lease.
Since the camp had been moved several times, and the sentence about construction "following immediately" is in the text right after the mention of the lease, it might be logical to assume that construction on the fort did not begin until after the lease was signed. Some doubt may be shed on this becaue Crimmins wrote a series of articles in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly from 1947 to 1950 in which he provided edited notes from Lt. Colonel W. G. Freeman's Report on the Eighth Military Department from his inspection trip in 1853. In Crimmins, M. L. “W. G. Freeman’s Report on the Eighth Military Department (Continued).” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, 1950, pp. 308–19. JSTOR, Accessed 17 Mar. 2024. Page 308, Freeman's report on Fort McKavett, which he inspected on August 19, 1853. On this page Freeman notes that lumber has been cut and within 30 miles all necessary wood for construction can be found. Yet on pages 308-309, Freeman said the buildings "are put up of stone."
A camp being established, a few miles away, in March 1852 and then moved would appear to rule out a March 1852 date for the beginning of construction. Some doubt on the 1855 date for construction of the fort not beginning until after the lease was signed does not appear to correspond with Freeman's language about stone buildings being put up. But I note another possibility that I can surmise in the next comment.
Perhaps the construction after the signing date after the lease could be based on the full structures with all the wood needed for completion installed not being started until after the lease was signed which could justify the 1855 date, though the inspection report could be read to specify an interim date.
This is the only information I could find about the date of beginning of the construction. The bottom line is that I could not find what I would consider a definite, specific statement concerning the date construction began. Maybe it is given in Sullivan or some other source - or maybe what I found is all that can be found and the date was some time between March 1852 and the signing of the lease. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently a copy of Sullivan at a library near-ish me. What pages do you need? Schierbecker (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think page 10 is the relevant one - who the land was leased from, and what "Construction of the post began immediately " is immediately after. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to make a trip tomorrow. If not, next weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current reassessments[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

Sihanouk Trail[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Sihanouk Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. As User:buidhe pointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

T-26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article rightly lost its FA status in 2014. This article was promoted to A class in 2007, when standards were much lower. This article has many issues with verifiability and I don't see them being resolved any time soon. Schierbecker (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - the (unsourced) list of individual surviving examples can probably be culled, but there are still 17 other CN tags outstanding. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Corcoran[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Fort Corcoran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Barrel Roll[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Operation Barrel Roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was promoted to A class in 2007. It does not remotely pass muster for A class now. Almost half of the content is uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per nomination. Much of the lengthy article is unreferenced, so would require very substantial work to return to A-class status. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - significant sourcing work needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Mickl[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Johann Mickl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article failed a good article review in 2019 due to alleged POV issues because of unreliable sources. This is a routine A-class review to determine if this article still meets the A-Class criteria. Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I mentioned in the MILHIST talk about these articles, my view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with and preceded the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PM - just one other question on Schraml - does Richter use this source heavily and/or refer to it positively or just use it lightly? As an example of my line of thinking, I've seen a lot of sources, including ones we'd consider highly reliable, cite the works of John Newman Edwards to some extent but I don't think we'd ever want to rely on Edwards on enwiki. I don't see why Richter should be considered unreliable at all and would just like a little more clarification on Schrmal. Hog Farm Talk 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HF, regarding Schraml. This is an example of a participant-written history, where a source should only be used for what it is reliable for. Franz Schraml headed the Kameradschaft of the German-Croat divisions, i.e. the veteran’s organization of the three divisions that were manned mainly by Croats but had predominantly German cadre (368th, 373rd and 392nd). His book covers these three divisions. Participant-written histories are a valuable source of information of units, for example, Cecil Lock's battalion history of the 10th Battalion (Australia) is used heavily in that article, despite the fact that Lock was a private soldier in the battalion, and a wheelwright by trade. The same applies to Frank Allchin's history of the 2/10th Battalion (Australia), Allchin was the battalion quartermaster and a clerk by trade. Neither was a historian. For plain factual information, such as where the unit deployed and when, which battles it fought and where, how many casualties it suffered in those battles, the names of commanding officers and those who were decorated, both of these books are outstanding sources. For critical analysis of operations those battalions undertook, not so much. For that we go the Charles Bean's official history of Australia in WWI, or Gavin Long's official history of Australia in WWII, or history books about specific battles. So far as Schraml is concerned, it is my view that he is fine to use for the sorts of things that one might use Lock or Allchin for, but not for the sorts of critical analysis that Bean or Long might provide. So to say that he is entirely unreliable and cannot be used for anything at all is just nonsense. Schraml's accounts of the outcomes of battles, especially where we know the Germans often counted civilians murdered in reprisals as enemy casualties, must be clearly attributed and contrasted with accounts from Partisan sources, for example. The same applies to Kobe (who was Mickl's principal operations officer) and although their relationship may have been difficult at times, obviously held him in some regard. My point here is that the labelling of Schraml and Richter & Kobe as entirely unreliable sources is nonsense, and should not be used as a justification for downgrading the article. All that said, this was written fairly early in my WP career (2015) and I have learned a lot since then, and even with some of the deleted material reinstated it needs some considerable work, trimming flowery stuff and attributing Schraml and Kobe where needed. I wouldn't nominate it for GA in its current condition, mainly because it was butchered by an editor who was on a crusade at the time. I'm not against it being downgraded to B, but it should be for the right reasons (probably lack of comprehensiveness, a few areas where better sources are needed, and some balance issues), not some weird ideas about the sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, strongly leaning towards delisting I know nothing about this person, but it's surprising that the material on his lengthy and fairly senior service in the fighting in Yugoslavia makes little reference to the civilian population of the area: it's like the war was being fought in a desert or similar. Given that civilians are central in all partisan warfare and atrocities against civilians were common in this fighting, this doesn't seem credible unless there are sources explaining the matter. The tone of the article as a whole is similar, and never acknowledges the political and criminal aspects of the war Mickl was involved in. Likewise, there appears to be no material on his views towards the rise of the Nazis and the resulting Nazi-led government. This doesn't reflect the way in which modern biographies of senior(ish) German officers of World War II are written, and I don't think the article would pass an A-class review now in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Nick-D, I agree. It isn't A-Class, desperately needs context, and I wouldn't nominate it at GAN as it is now, for that and other reasons. My point is about the identified sources and their uses. ie the reason for delisting, not whether it should be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm not disagreeing with your views above, and I'm not at all competent to comment on the references here. If the sources are reliable but not sufficient for the article meet modern A-class bio standards, then the article likely wouldn't pass a nomination. From looking in Google Books, it seems that the English language literature on Mickl is largely lowish quality works on his role as an armoured commander. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]