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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

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).

An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.

Commenting

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

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

Comments 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.

Demotion

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

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

William Y. Slack

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

William Y. Slack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first bio for A-Class review is a fairly straightforward one. If this goes well, I may try to take on some more complex ones. Slack was a lawyer and (briefly) politician who parlayed 16 months of experience as an O-3 equivalent in the Mexican War into being appointed a Brigadier General with the outbreak of war. Serving with a pro-Confederate militia and then later the Confederate Army itself, Slack fought in three significant battles and was shot in the hip in two of them. The second wound was fatal. Hog Farm _Talk 13:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

French battleship Justice

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

French battleship Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a hiatus of (I think) at least a few years, WP:OMT is once again making an appearance at ACR (which will hopefully be more of a routine occurrence going forward!) I bring you Justice (no, not that one and only for some of you), a French pre-dreadnought battleship that saw (if monotonous) service during World War I. Actually, the ship's career before and after the war was a fair bit more interesting, being involved in a number of accidents, having an early film produced about her in 1911, and being part of a mutiny in 1919. In any event, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll take a look here later this week; will be a few days though because I'm going out of town for work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• February 1908 commissioning date is in the infobox but not anywhere else
  • Think that must have been from an old version of the article - fixed
• "Justice began having trouble with her main battery" - do the sources give any details on the nature of these issues?
  • No, unfortunately - mechanical problems of some sort, it'd be safe to assume, but I can't say what
• "company with the destroyers Lansquenet " - link on Lansquenet goes to a ship list page
  • Good catch
• "but following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the ensuing July Crisis prompted the fleet to remain close to port" - not sure that this is grammatical. Maybe a word missing?
  • Reworded
• " In mid-1916, she became involved in events in Greece, being stationed in Salonika to put pressure on the Greek government" - the body doesn't seem to put this particular emphasis on Salonika over the other stationing points
  • Tweaked the body to make this clearer
• Sources all look reliable

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm! Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

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

The first conflict of the First Boer War was a one-sided affair that can barely be termed a battle in terms of the contest. A blasé British commander did not consider the Boers to be able to present a threat to the men of the British Army, and was resoundingly defeated in around 15 minutes. The battle was a taste of what was to come over the following couple of months; a series of humbling defeats for the British.

It's been a while since I've brought an article to ACR; hopefully this one is up to snuff after a GA review from Djmaschek, but as always, I welcome all input. Unless you want to moan about citation numbers being in order, which frankly isn't covered by any part of the MOS I've come across 😂. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 20:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• " Laband also says that Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg" - unclear which Joubert this is
  • Clarified. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts" had left the 94th Regiment low on morale, with increasing levels of desertion" - maybe this is an ENGVAR issue for me, but this sentence just does not seem grammatical to me
  • No, that's just badly written. Changed to "According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then experienced "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts", the 94th Regiment were low on morale, and facing increasing levels of desertion." How's that? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "thought he spotted a group of Boers moving to a farmhouse off the road" - the implication appears to be that the scout had reason to believe this was a hostile force, not a group of civilians. If the sources permit, it might be best to explicitly state that
  • None of the sources explicitly state that unfortunately; I think in the context the implication in both the sources and the article is reasonably clear, but I can't do more with what I have at the moment. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Are civilian losses for the British known? Evidently at least Mrs. Fox was hurt
  • Again, I don't see it explicitly listed anywhere. Duxbury says that "one civilian conductor" is included on the "various monuments". (That reminds me that I should add something about the main monument / grave included in the lead photograph!) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Seeing a few Osprey books cited - their American Civil War coverage is often fairly weak. Is Osprey better for British history?
  • It's clearly written for a general audience, and can simplify things at times, but I've never had any issue with them on British history topics; I've also used them a bit before on English Civil War articles. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's all from me, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• Link "companies "?
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And in the main article.

• Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• "was ordered to intercept and stop the British." By whom?
  • It is never actually explicitly stated in the sources, which I need to resolve in some manner in the body, but is this level of detail required in the lead? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead, no.

• Added into the prose, though it is pretty nebulous, as I can't see anything more specific in any of the sources. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• "and the excessively large number of wagons they travelled with". I'm not sure about the use of "excessively".
  • Fine, removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes, the majority of their remaining force being captured." If they surrendered after 15 minutes, what remaining force was there to be captured?
  • I meant those that weren't injured, but I see what you mean. I've changed it to "..the majority of their surviving men being captured." but honestly I'm not keen on the phrasing, I'll probably come back to this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "that became a distinctive feature of the Boers." I think the Boers need some sort of introduction.
  • Expanded this sentence out to "These settlers, known as Free Burghers, established an independence that became a distinctive feature of their descendants, the Boers." How is that? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine.

• "as it provided a tactical advantage". Do you mean strategic?
  • Indeed. Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The British imposed their 1833 slavery ban on the Boers, which drove them further north to the Transvaal and Natal." The link is unclear.
  • Provided inline clarification. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine for A class. But for FA I think you need to further help a reader understand why new law might cause large numbers of people to abandon their farms and move. And one assumes that north is a direction taking them outside effective British jurisdiction?

• "The British expanded their territory throughout the 19th century" → 'The British expanded their territory in southern Africa throughout the 19th century'.
  • Good point, changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• No links for Natal or Transvaal?
  • Because I'd already linked to them in the sentence before. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "had informed the Boer leaders that they would not relinquish the Transvaal." It is unclear who "they" refers to.
  • Clarified to "the British Empire". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "he made the decision to recall men from outlying garrisons, and concentrate his strength in Pretoria". Could you mention what force(s) this was, their strength, that they were scattered across the region and why.
  • I can't find details on their overall strength, though I feel it must exist somewhere in regimental histories, so I'll keep looking. Regards the "why", do you mean why they were garrisoned around the region? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes.

• Added some more to the end of this paragraph, let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The garrison comprised the headquarters and two companies of the 94th Regiment of Foot." Do we know numbers?
  • The end of the paragraph has some figures: "He left roughly 60 men to hold Lydenburg, taking somewhere in the region of 245–270 soldiers" If we add those together, we get roughly 300 to 330, albeit not all of the 94th. Do you feel it needs explicitly adding here too? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to.

• Added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• "(4.8 km)". False precision?
  • Fixed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "less than half-distance on their journey". Is that grammatical?
  • Google seems to only think it is used in motorsports, which is probably why it seemed fine to me. Changed to the much more common "less than halfway through their journey". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "the Boers were actively taking up arms in the area." As opposed to inactively taking up arms?
  • Exactly. Removed "actively". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "trying to agitate local sympathies". Can one agitate a sympathy?
  • Reworded to "Anstruther had also been warned by apparently friendly Boers that insurgents were trying to turn local sympathies against his progress." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Link triumvirate.
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "MkIII". That should be Mk III.
  • Space added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "used guerrilla tactics, using". "used ... using". Perhaps "used" → 'employed' or similar?
  • Yup, employed works well here. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "hidden from the road. They were hidden from the road".
  • Sigh. Removed the first instance. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "advancement". Really?
  • Yes, if he got promoted to Colonel, that was it. War. Double sigh. Replaced with "further movement towards Pretoria" though that might be a tad repetitive with the later "continue to Pretoria". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers." Is it known why this was? (Come to that, how do we know it?)
  • There were quite a few primary sources for the battle; accounts from both Boers and British soldiers. I've struggled to unpick these; I want to add a bit of detail before a FAC, but it may remain pretty vague. As to why, Duxbury provides this: "Several Boers were emphatic that the British had set their sights to 400 yards and that, when they (the Boers) moved forward, the British failed to re-sight their rifles and that their shots, for the most part, went high over the heads of the Boers. These statements are based on inspection of the rifles captured, and are borne out by Egerton who stated, 'The 94th fought remarkably well, but their fire did not seem to take effect; they did not seem to know the range, and all the officers were down.'(11) In the circumstances it seems to be a reasonable assumption that they failed to adjust their sights." I just didn't know if this was getting a bit too technical for the article. Happy to put it in though. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely include it.

• I've expanded to "The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers, which contemporary reports on both sides attributed to the British having their sights set to the wrong distance." Let me know if you think it would benefit from more detail still. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It would benefit from more detail.

• "received five shots to the legs." Suggest "shots" → 'wounds'.
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "the British commander". Given "all of the British officers were either killed or seriously wounded, including Anstruther", is it known who that was?
  • It was Anstruther, despite his injuries. I was trying to avoid sounding repetitive, but I've stated it explicitly now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "4 officers and 85 men injured". Suggest "injured" → 'wounded'.
  • Changed in all three instances. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "they had been hidden on one of the stretchers under the wounded Mrs Fox, and he then wrapped it around his body". "they ... it"; which?
  • Made consistent. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "those who remained wounded". I am unsure how one becomes unwounded. Suggest rephrasing.
  • Changed to "..those who had not recovered were evacuated.." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• " Most of the prisoners were later released." Is it known when? Or what happened to those who weren't?
  • Not in the sources I've seen, at least. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A good, sound looking article. Most of my comments above are nit picks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Dealt with most, thrown a few queries in on others. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Addressed a few queries. If I have said nothing, I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you; I think I've at least offered a solution to everything. Whether they are acceptable or not, I'll leave up to you! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Looking good. Well up to A class, so I am supporting. Not far off FAC class. Just a couple of areas which, IMO, could do with a bit more unpacking - both noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review

• Images look good, all licensed and sourced, apart from the PD-100 tag on File:Gevär - Livrustkammaren - 96971.tif (which appears to be a problem with the template they're using for that file). Objects like rifles don't have copyright, so that really ought to go (though, if you can't make the template work correctly, I won't cause a stink!)
• Source all appear to be high quality and represent recent scholarship (along with a couple of interesting contemporary newspaper articles
• I did a light spot-checking, and everything looks ok to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Cheers Parsecboy. As you say, unpicking the template looks more effort than it is worth at the moment. I'll probably have to do it for the FAC, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Effectively at the moment, we have the appropriate license for the photograph (the CC BY-SA), and a superfluous one for the object, so it isn't the end of the world. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think it's ok for now - what you might do is ask at the error reports page and see if they can fix it for you. Parsecboy (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Radoje Pajović

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Radoje Pajović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came to this article via a key text that Pajović wrote which I used in my first FA, Pavle Đurišić, a controversial Montenegrin Chetnik leader of WWII. Pajović is considered the most prominent historian of the World War II period in Montenegro, and one of the most prominent Montenegrin historians overall. He did his PhD on the WWII Chetnik Federalist movement in Montenegro, and was on the faculty of what is now the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Montenegro for forty years. He wrote or co-wrote twelve books, and railed against historical revisionism of the WWII period in Montenegro and in the former Yugoslavia more generally. He died in 2019. This article went through a GAN by Hawkeye7 late last year. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Grand Gulf

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Grand Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of my 2020 GAs I just gave a thorough revamping too. The battle itself isn't much to write home about - a few ironclads shoot up a couple forts, the forts shoot back and beat up three of the ironclads pretty good. The context of the battle is one of the most important events in American military history: Grant's famed crossing of the Mississippi River. The original plan had been to cross at Grand Gulf, but the inability of the ironclads to take out the fortifications led Grant to cross at Bruinsburg instead. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Harrias

Overall, a really nice article that was enjoyable to read. A few small niggles, nothing more:

• "..between the Confederate defenders and the Union Navy ships the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross." I found this a little difficult to keep track of on the first read. Maybe split the sentence a little more, something like "..between the Confederate defenders and two Union Navy ships: the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross."
  • Have rephrased, I think I had meant to write "two Union navy ships" instead of "the Union Navy ships"
• "..with the Union having.." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
  • Done
• "..which saw Union warships and transports loaded with infantry move up the Yazoo River on April 29, skirmish with Confederate forces the next two days." This is either missing a word, or should be "skirmishing".
  • It looks like Nick-D has fixed this
• "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other bore the name Fort Wade." "bore the name" seems a bit laborious, and I think could just be cut: "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other as Fort Wade."
  • Done
• "..a 40-foot (12 m)tall bluff.." Missing a space. I should have just sorted this myself, but...
  • Fixed
• "..was located 0.75 miles (1.21 km) downriver.." Unless we know it is really this precise, drop the precision of the conversion to one decimal place.
  • Rounded off
• "..and 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away from it.." Same here.
  • Rounded off
• "..suggested that the army march further south, with the navy's ironclad warships to cover.." Add a comma after "warships".
  • This seems rather out of place to me, but I'm not very good with commas. pinging Gog the Mild as the great arbiter of comma usage. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Okay, it depends on the meaning of the sentence. Is the army marching south to cover the movement of the transports, or are the navy's ironclad warships covering the movement of the transports? If the first, it needs the comma. If the latter, it would suggest making it slightly clearer, something like "..accompanied by the navy's ironclad warships to cover the movement of the transports." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Grammatically it looks fine to me and seems to convey the meaning you want it to. However, I agree with Harrias that "with" is a bit futsy. Their suggestion seems good. Possibly tweaked to end '... its transports' in order to tie the transports to the army? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The naval forces also had the advantage in size of cannon.." Is there any detail on this?
  • Clarified
• "..while the other three focused on Fort Cobun." Maybe add "remained" before "focused"?
  • Done
• "However, Fort Cobun fought on." Not keen on this very short sentence. Maybe blend it into the end of the subsequent sentence: "The four Union vessels that had silenced Fort Wade moved upriver to face the remaining Confederate fort, which fought on."
  • Rephrased the sentence out of existence; that's probably a relic of the worse-written 2020 version
• "warhips" Typo.
  • Ugh. Fixed
• "Port lost one man in the affair.." Should this be "Porter"?
  • Corrected
• Out of interest, Fort Wade was presumably named after its commander, Colonel William F. Wade. Do we know whether Fort Cobun was commanded by a Colonel (or otherwise) Cobun?
  • I haven't seen any references to a Cobun being involved in the battle, and cannot figure out where the name is coming from. Bearss, Shea & Winschel, Ballard, Miller, and even Wright's archaeological report don't say anything, and general sourcing isn't bringing it up. Not even the source I usually turn to in sorting out obscure Mississippi basin place names has anything. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said at the top, a really good read, thanks. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: - I've rephrased the one outstanding issue (the comma one), so hopefully I've been able to resolved everything. Hog Farm _Talk 00:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: really good work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D

The Vicksburg campaign is such an interesting and under-remembered part of the US Civil War, so it's great to see high quality articles on it. I have the following comments:

• The first para of the lead doesn't really establish the significance of crossing the Mississippi
  • I've fleshed out the first paragraph of the lead a bit to better establish this
• The sentence starting with 'Early in the American Civil War' would benefit from being split into two sentences
  • Done
• "Grand Gulf, Mississippi, which was located along the Mississippi River" - I've suggest giving its location relative to Vicksburg
  • I've stated it was to the south of Vicksburg, can hunt in the sources for a distance in miles if desired.
• "By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition in an amphibious operation that would not be exceeded in size in American military history until the Normandy landings" - this seems unlikely given the large size of the Operation Torch landings in 1942 Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Miller p. 365 has It was the largest amphibious landing in American history until D-Day, June 6, 1944 (without an obviously-placed footnote for that specific claim) Kennedy p. 158 has the much weaker In one of the America's largest amphibious operations prior to World War II, the 24,000 men [...] Bearss p. 346 calls it the greatest amphibious operation in American history up to that time but doesn't make any claims about World War II. It looks like Housecarl merged the claim over from the Vicksburg campaign article, where it is apparently pulled from this NPS page with no byline. Given that the two most thorough-going historians I've checked on this - Ballard and Bearss - don't make such a claim. Gonna apply the Sagan standard here and remove the claim as I don't think a NPS piece with no footnotes or byline or an unfootnoted claim in Miller are enough to support that claim. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• "File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf". What is the source of the information shown in this image?
  • No clue where Hal Jespersen got his info from, but it correlates very well to a map in Miller, with the only differences being Miller's map doesn't show Walker's attack, the date for Milliken's Bend, give the crossing dates of the Mississippi River, and has Grand Gulf evacuated on May 2 instead of May 3. The latter points are sourced well enough in the article and I can find a map in Shea & Winschel or somewhere that covers the Milliken's Bend ancillary movements if you'd like. Thoughts? Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think adding Miller as the main source with a note that Shea and Winschel are relied on for the Milliken's Bend stuff should do it.

@Gog the Mild: - turns out that Shea & Winschel don't have the map I thought they did have. Have checked 7 books and poked around online and can't find a good map of Walker's approach to Milliken's Bend. Because the file is a PDF, I can't just crop that part out. Would it be acceptable for me to provide a page range for a chunk of text describing Walker's general approach to Milliken's Bend? Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I have (belatedly) gotten around to adding this info to the file page. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The cites need to be in full, just like any other citation. I have amended them for you, but you may wish to check them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Alt text?
  • Gog the Mild - Added for the infobox image, but I have no idea how to possibly describe either of those complex maps in an alt text-friendly way. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See what you think.

• The first map creates a sandwich with the infobox.
  • Have moved images around, which resolves the issue, at least on my screen)
• "File:Grand Gulf Battlefield Mississippi.jpg". Any further information on the source for this? "National Park Service" is a little broad for anyone wishing to verify it.
  • I have no clue. I cannot find the file anywhere, searching for elements of the file's text description (which read like they're pulled from the NPS document this thing came from) brings up nothing. I've removed the file - it's not super useful due to drastic changes in the river course, and without a real source (and the image appearing to have been made by overlaying a topographic map in Microsoft Paint), I don't think the pros outweight the cons with it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Fort Phantom Hill

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort Phantom Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At long last, my second submission for A-Class of the US Army's many posts in the vast state of Texas. In a time and place with a lot of bad jobs and offices, Fort Phantom Hill was maybe the worst. Isolated, barren, and abundant in nothing but boredom, it was quickly abandoned, unfortunately setting a tone for Jones County, Texas. This is another National Register property, too, and a rather unique one, too. A dozen chimneys and tree stone buildings in the middle of nowhere, on a ghost hill. Hope you all enjoy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Central America under Mexican rule

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Central America under Mexican rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article covers a one and a half year period from 1821 to 1823 when the First Mexican Empire (somewhat) controlled most of the nations of modern-Central America. It outlines the struggle between the Mexican government and monarchists who wanted to annex Central America against republicans and nationalists who wanted to remain independent, eventually resulting in Central America regaining its independence in 1823. This article was built entirely from scratch as little to nothing of its content existed on Wikipedia prior to July 2022, has passed a Good Article nomination in November 2022, and recently underwent an extensive copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors this month; I believe that this article meets all 5 criteria for promotion to A-class. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 20:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Concluding article in the series on British logistics in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945, taking the story down to the conclusion of the war in Europe. (Its American counterpart is still in the works.) For some reason the campaigns of 1945 has not been covered in the literature or the Wikipedia nearly as well as those of 1944. Once again though, I have uncovered some striking images and maps and high quality sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This is a fascinating topic for an article, and is in great shape. I agree that there's an odd neglect of the western Allied invasion of Germany in the literature - it was one of the most successful, and most important, campaigns of the war but is seemingly of little interest to historians. I have the following comments:

• Either the first sentence of the lead or the article is too narrow, given that logistics for the RAF units involved in the campaign were also significant.

  Y Added a few words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• The background section should be broadened to note that the 21st Army Group was a multinational formation - the First Canadian Army should be noted, along with the presence of other smaller national contingents, though I think that most of them were used as part of the sieges in France in this period. As the article notes, all were dependent on British logistical support.

  Y Already mentioned, but I've expanded it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• The background section should also note the logistical story for the 21st AG up to this point in the war - e.g. that it enjoyed good logistical support from the invasion of Normandy (which was needed and formed an explicit part of British Army doctrine which emphasised firepower and mobility to limit casualties), and various problems that affected it over the autumn and winter were largely ironed out.

  Y Added a couple of paragraphs covering this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• The 'Organisation' section could note the contribution made by civilian workers in Belgium and France

  Y Added a bit about this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• The 'Operation Veritable' section is quite long, and would benefit from being split into subsections

  Y Added a couple of subheadings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto the 'Operation Plunder' section

  Y Ditto. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'd suggest explaining what's meant by 'grounding' in the context in which it is used

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• "British PWX were flown directly to the UK" - this seems to have been the case for all liberated Commonwealth POWs (see Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom#Prisoner of war repatriation)

  Y Yes. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'd suggest weaving in a link to Surrendered Enemy Personnel somewhere in the material on German prisoners. The topic is somewhat controversial due to allegations the prisoners were mistreated after the war (largely by the French and Americans - the British seem to have treated their POWs relatively well).

  During the war. Apparently 2.6 per cent of German prisoners held by the French died, compared with 0.1 per cent by the Americans, and 0.03 per cent by the British (and 35.8 per cent of those held by the Soviet Union). The whole point about Surrendered Enemy Personnel was that (contrary to what our article says) they were not POWs and were not treated as such. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  The second last para of the 'Beyond the Rhine' section notes this, and I'd suggest linking somewhere in here. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Y Added a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• While the post-war period is out of scope, it might be worth noting briefly the huge logistical problems the 21st Army Group faced as it transitioned to becoming an army of occupation - the German economy and transport system was destroyed and the population was facing mass starvation. One of the reasons rationing became even more strict in the UK after the war was the need to feed Germans in the British occupation zone. The occupation army also continued to receive a high standard of logistical support after the war.

  It is not just a matter of it being outside article scope; it is also outside the scope of my sources. I will have to use different ones to write a paragraph at the end. Hawkeye7

  The relevant volume of the British official history series has some good material on this, and is online at Archive.org [1]. As I said, it's somewhat out of scope. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Will do. I have a copy on the shelf here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Support My comments above are now addressed. The other comments are for consideration ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• "Although it contained personnel nations". Is there a typo here?

  Looks like some text was left out. Changed to "personnel from many nations". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• "This required major operations". If these were largely military, as opposed to, say, mine clearing, construction, rubble and boobytrap clearing etc, then perhaps 'required major military operations'?

  I don't use words like "operations" casually. Re-worded slightly, and piped to operational level of war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• There are several duplinks.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• "along with two DUKW companies that were converted to using 3-ton trucks." I don't understand what is meant here.

  Changed to "re-equipped with" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• What are "railtails"?

  The opposite of a railhead. I thought the reader would easily figure this out, but it is uncommon, so replaced with a different wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Montgomery sought to defeat Germany". Seems a little grandiose. With just the 21st Army Group?

  Okay, the Russians did most of the heavy lifting. Re-worked the section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In turn this demanded a high degree of organisation and professionalism required to utilise the available machines and firepower to best effect". This doesn't quite work grammatically. Consider removing "required".

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A high class article. Just the minor nit picks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Vami

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of active duty United States four-star officers

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Neovu79 (talk)

List of active duty United States four-star officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am re-submitting this list article for AL-Class status. Neovu79 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - I feel like we should probably do something so that we don't have this ACR and the old one on the same page, but I'm too tired and busy to figure that out right now. Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the precedent for articles with multiple ACRs? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: See step 2 of the instructions above. I have archived the old review and created the new one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment by CPA

Hi Neovu79, I don't think this list is ready for an ARC. There are still a lot of sentences that don't have citations. At the current rate, this would be a C-class and would be definitely opposed by other reviewers. Maybe add these citations and then we can have a better look into the list. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

CPA-5, this article is already listed as a BL-Class from the previous nomination several years ago. Many of the concerns from the previous assessment have been addressed. I'm confused on why every sentence would need a citation. That would seem to be more WP:OVERCITE at this point. Thanks for your input. Neovu79 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Harrias

I concur with CPA-5; this is a fair way off A-class. Some of my main issues:

• The lead is far too short for the length of the article.
• The A-class criteria requires that "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources", but there are lots of uncited claims throughout the article.
• A lot of the information given about the bottom seems to be beyond the scope of the article, and borders on trivia.

Two more 'nice to haves' that would be a requirement for Featured list status, but aren't part of the A-class criteria:

• The tables need coding to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, more detail is given in MOS:DTT.
• Consider adding alt text for the images.

I'm not going to do a detailed review, and I feel there is too much, and the issues go too deep for it to be necessary. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Al-Wathiq

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Al-Wathiq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is about one of the more obscure 9th-century Abbasid caliphs, chiefly due to his short reign, from 842 to 847. It was nevertheless a reign very active in the military, political, and religious areas. The article passed GA in 2021, and was expanded somewhat in October 2022. I am confident it is as comprehensive as it can be, and would like to submit it eventually to FA, so any suggestions for further improvement are always welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Vami

I thoroughly enjoyed your previous work, so I'll reserve a spot here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The lead feels rather anemic for a Commander of the Faithful.
  • Hmmm, you may be right, but the encyclopedia articles I found about him were not much lengthier. Do you feel there are particular aspects that should be expanded upon more?
• Would recommend use of "CE" in the lead rather than AD, in spite of the shared Abrahamic canon between Christianity and Islam.
  • That's my usual practice as well. Changed.
• #Early life should note that al-Mu'tasim was Caliph, and give al-Wathiq's name in full.
  • Done on the former, but the latter is already there: both his name and kunya are mentioned explicitly.
• [...] especially in Baghdad and the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Why isn't Mecca linked here?
  • Per MOS:OVERLINK, as it is linked previously (on the road to Mecca)
    • Oops, I missed that earlier link. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• These men had been personally loyal to al-Mu'tasim, but was not similarly bound to al-Wathiq; [...] were not similarly bound
  • Fixed.
• What is a qadi?
  • Added.
    • On the second instance? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Facepalm. Fixed, thanks. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• [...] resulting in clashes that left some dead (February/March 845). "some" is meaningless here.
  • Indeed. Rephrased.
• Accompanied by troops from the Shakiriyyah, Turkish, and the Magharibah guard regiments [...] Turkish what? And whom or what are these other bodies?
  • It should be 'the Shakiriyyah, Turkish, and Magharibah guard regiments', fixed now.
    • This still doesn't tell the uninitiated what the Shakiriyyah is. If it is a unit of Turkish and Magharibah troops, then I recommend using emdashes rather than commas for this explanation.
      • No, all of them are different guard regiments; the Shakiriyya [guard regiment], Turkish [guard regiment], and Magharibah [guard regiment]. I really don't know a better/clearer way of explaining that. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Maybe "Accompanied by troops from the Shakiriyyah and Magharibah—[guard regiments]—and additional Turkish guard regiments..."? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
          • No, unfortunately such a phrasing would be incorrect; there were three guard regiments: the Shakiriyyah, Magharibah, and 'Atrak' i.e. Turks. All three terms have ethnic or regional connotations, but the Turks are usually rendered in English as the term is familiar to us, whereas the others are not. Constantine ✍ 11:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• [...] and let the rest free. Recommend condensing to "and freed the rest."
  • Changed.
• [...] he also forced the Banu Hilal to submit on the same terms. What terms.
  • Same as the Sulaym. Clarified.
• #Suppression of rebels gets too far away from al-Wathiq himself in favor of the exploits of his vassals. The third paragraph especially is quite large and could do with reduction.
  • I know, but monarchs' articles, at a time when said monarchs exercised real power, have to cover the events of their reign. But you are right on the third para, have trimmed it down.
• [...] before he returned to Basra [...] Link Basra here.
  • Done.
• The Mus'abid [...] The who?
  • Removed, as despite the link it is apparently confusing an does not convey critical information.
• The sahib al-shurta, [...] The what?
  • Clarified.
• [...] thieve's loot [...] Should be "thieves'".
  • Fixed.
• [...] although al-Ya'qubi [...] Who?
  • Explained.
• [...] and sent Sallam al-Tarjman [...] Who?
  • Clarified.
• In 833 he gave birth to his elder son, [...] Uh.
  • Uh indeed. Fixed.

@Vami IV: thanks for taking the time and the corrections suggested. I have addressed them or otherwise replied above. Please have another look. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: sorry for the delay, was away for a few days. Have responded to the outstanding issued above. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 1st Armoured Division, not to be confused with the similarly named formation from the 1970s through to the 2010s, was formed in November 1937 as the Mobile Division. It was sent to France after the German offensive began, fought a couple of engagements before returning to the UK having lost practically all its tanks. After a period defending the UK, it was dispatched to North Africa where it fought in most of the major armoured battles from Gazala to the Second Battle of El Alamein. It was then on to Tunisia before a final campaign in Italy. After fighting through the Gothic Line, the division was broken-up to provide reinforcements for others. The division number was briefly reused (1946–47) in the post-war period when the 6th Armoured Division was renamed. The guild of copyedits have given the article the once over and it has just recently passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Congratulation on tackling this one. After the 7th Armoured Division, it was probably the most significant British division of the war. The article is very good. Some comments:

• Suggest moving fn 14 to the end of the previous sentence.

  Footnote moved EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• " equipped with 78 light cruisers, 45 heavy cruisers" What tanks were these exactly?

  Joslen provides the totals of what were supposed to be in the division but does not state what specific models were to be used. This was partially why I added a note on the end of that section to provide some documented examples of what a light and heavy was, in addition to such definitions (that seem to be fuzzy at best, depending on the source you look at) being requested previously. Crow notes the arrival of A9s and A13s (Cruiser MK III) in late 38 but does not state numbers or what role either would play compared to the light/heavy definition. Fletcher does highlight the A9 as a light cruiser, however. Newbold, for example, lumps his cruiser figures in a column labeled "Cruiser Tanks: A9, A10, and A13" (the latter being a mixture of the MK III and MK IV by that point?). Long winded way of saying, sorry I don't know at the moment :-) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Lieutenant-General Claude Auchinleck" should be "General Sir Claude Auchinleck"

  Updated on both points! Double checked the source and even the Gazette, not sure why I went with Lt-Gen over the higher rank but corrected now. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "to return it to strength" I wouldn't say this, as it was still under-strength. It replaced the 168th Brigade, which was disbanded. Similarly, I would drop "to bring them up to strength"

  Updated to reflect this point EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Kingdom of Italy". I really hate this. It is just Italy. The change of the form of government does not change the country.

  Fair point, and descriptive dropped EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Trieste, which was then within the Kingdom of Italy," No, it still is. It became part of Italy after World War I, and has been part ever since.

  I think I had confused the city and the territory (portions of which went to Yugoslavia). I double checked the source and they don't mention anything to suggest the division being in part that was transferred, so have updated per your point. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "maintained its insignia of a mailed fist" This may not be clear to the reader. Suggest something like "Maintained the 6th Armoured Division's insignia of a mailed fist"

  Updated per your recommendation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Typos: "begn", "Inglish",

  Gah!!! Fixed! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure why Guy Lizard in in the See Also. And should Norman Force be mentioned in the body?

  It could probably be removed (potentially name dropped in the OOB article's see also section instead?). Its article mentions that the division's HQ was outfitted with them during the Battle of France (the wording choice implies they were the sole unit to be at the time) so seemed like an interesting additional article to look at but nothing something to be shoehorned into this article's text. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Missed Norman Force! I have added mention in the article text now. Ellis does not have much to say on the subject, but does verify the division being under is command (all forces previously under Tenth Army). Seems its sole purpose was to have British forces under a British command to direct the evacuation, so I have basically just highlighted this fact and made little change to what was already in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Bell (1997) is not used - remove or move to Further reading.

  Originally used to provide some background context, which was subsequently reworked and dropped. Removed, as noted, it is no longer in use. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Link War Office, Steven J. Zaloga

  Links added EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• "doctrine" is linked before it is used.

  Link moved EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not too fond of the map of the Gothic line. It is in error: somebody changed the US IV Corps to the IX Corps (which was in the Pacific).

  Nice catch! I have replaced the newer version of the map with the old one. I can kind of see how this occurred when comparing both versions. Not sure if it would be appropriate, but hopefully an editor could fix it at some point. I have also added a note on the common's description page to highlight the difference between the two versions. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to action all your points and have left comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Vami

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Zawed

This looks to be in pretty good order. Some nitpicks:

Background section

• They argued that light tanks better-replaced...: should the hyphen there? Perhaps "were a better replacement for"
• A rhinoceros, being the most-heavily-armoured animal, was chosen as the divisional insignia.: the cite for this doesn't support the "most-heavily-armoured animal", I would also suggest rephrasing it to be less definitive regarding being "the most-heavily-armoured". No doubt it is heavily armoured but not sure if it is the most so

  Once you are on the IWM page, make sure to click "show more" under physical description. It then provides a history section to provide context, the first line of that covers the above part.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm such a dumbass, sorry I missed that! Zawed (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• He argued the assigned infantry was not...: was should be were I think, as infantry is being used in a plural sense here?
• In April 1939, the division was renamed the 1st Armoured Division.[8]: suggest moving this sentence to midway in the following paragraph as it is a little out of place chronologically.
• Suggest linking Vickers Medium Mark II in the image of same (the previous image has the name of the tank linked)

Home service and Battle of France

• the 1st Heavy (formally the Tank Brigade)...: formally or formerly? I suspect the latter, particularly given the 1st is mentioned later in this paragraph
• As the Allied forces advanced to meet the German invasion,...: suggest deleting the "German" here, since the "main German attack" is mentioned later in the sentence
• cite 10 is used at the end of the sentence that starts The Division was then placed in reserve in Surrey but I don't see anything relevant at that webpage for what is contained in this sentence; perhaps another IWM webpage was intended?

• This comment RE cite 10 may not be relevant in light of the response above. Zawed (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Initial desert fighting

• By the end of that year's December, Operation Crusader...: seems oddly phrased to me, perhaps "By the end of the year, Operation Crusader..."

First El Alamein

• No issues identified

Italian campaign

• A more-successful attack...: don't think the hyphen should be used here

Postwar

• No issues identified

See also

• To me, the Guy Lizard link seems quite tangential to include here

That's all from me at this stage. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and comments, I will attempt to get to them in the next day or so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Soviet cruiser Vasily Chapayev

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

Soviet cruiser Vasily Chapayev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the second nomination of a Kresta II-class cruiser for A-Class review and follows on from the work on Admiral Isachenkov (and work by others more capable than me on Marshal Voroshilov). I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the criteria for A-Class. simongraham (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D

I have the following comments:

• "1985 found the vessel undertaking anti-submarine exercises against US Navy submarines demonstrating the Soviet capability of joint operations between aircraft, ships and submarines" - this is a bit breathless, and over-complex for the lead
  • I have removed the sentence and added a more general comment.
• Is there any commentary on whether using these ships to destroy NATO attack subs to clear the way for Yankee class Soviet subs was a good idea? It seems daft.
  • There is no information in Soviet sources so it is hard to tell. As the confrontation never happened in war, there is no evidence either way.
• Did the Ka-25 helicopter have any anti-sub sensors of its own, or was it reliant on the ship to locate targets and direct attacks (which is what the current text implies)
  • Added explicit mention that the helicopter could carry sensors added to the section on sensors.
• Why did the crew refuse to sail in 1976, and what happened to them?
  • Clarified. There is no mention of a reason in the sources, or whether the crew were punished.
• "to build friendly relationships between the host countries and the Soviet Union." - seems an over-statement ('to contribute to' perhaps?)
  • Changed.
• "1985 was a year of exercises" - the subsequent text doesn't really support this, as it describes what look like the same types of activities the ship undertook each year
  • Removed.
• Is anything known of the ship's history between 1986 and 1991? There's nothing at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing that I can find in the sources.
  • @Simongraham: Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: Thank you for these comments. I believe that I have addressed them, but please do come back to me if you have anything else. simongraham (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Pendright

Expect to start soon - Pendright (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the following comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead:

• In 1982, Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and in 1984 [it] participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine near the Kamchatka Peninsula.

• Suggest the above change

I have amended the sentence, and changed it to avoid the repeated phrase.

• Briefly, give readers the why of it -> was the sub reported in territorial waters, International waters, was this search just routine, or what?

There is no data in the source.

<>Does "There is no data in the source" suggest that the sentence should stand as is? Pendright (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am wary of putting in anything that is addition to reputable sources. Can you point me to anything else that may help please? simongraham (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Simongraham: - Pendright (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As you should be, however, your source seems surprisingly limited on details on an event that is described as major. Under the circumstances, it seems like the best that can be done now is to make the sentence a bit clearer and more accurate - if you can live with the suggested changes then we'll mmove on.

Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and two years later, the vessel participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine [that was suspected of being] near the Kamchatka Peninsula [in the Russian Far East].

• The comma after later is unnecessary
• Add "that was suspected of being" -> The body indicates thart the sub was not identified as a US sub until four days later.
• Add "in the Russian Far East" -> Gives readers an idea of the Peninsula's location without having to click the link. Pendright (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• In 1985, the ship took part in a simulated joint operations attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor and, during the following year, the first joint exercises between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.

• in "the" simulated joint "operations"

This was one example, so I feel that the indefinite article is more appropriate.

<>In British Engish, according to my research, the definite article "the" is used in front of a noun when we believe the reader knows exactly what we are referring to. In any event, it's your call. Pendright (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

• Link simulated Military simulation and unlink joint operations

Added the link, although the article seems to have a broader understanding of simulation including chess.

• joint operations with whom?

Other parts of the Soviet armed forces. An alternative name for these are combined operations.

• Suggest the sentence end after Pearl Harbor, and then begin a new sentence. Consider something like this for the second sentence: -> During the following year, the first joint exercises ocurred between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.

I have split the sentence and amended the wording.

General:

• Ship articles ordinarily provide readers with a bit more informaton about the ship itself - such as its main battery and so on.

Added a bit about the main armament.

• Describing why the ship was built would be an appropriate lesd addition.

Added a mention of the purpose and expansion of the role.

Add "Background section":

• The Cold War is pivotol to the context of the article's storyline, -> Show readers the connection.
  • I have added a sentence.

Design and development:

• Vasily Chapayev was the ninth ship of the class of ten Project 1134A Berkut A (NATO reporting name: 'Kresta II'-class) cruisers, [that was or were] designed by Vasily Anikeyev.[1]

Suggest the above changes

Done

• The class were designated as large anti-submarine ships (Russian: Большой Противолодочный Корабль, BPK) in accordance with their primary mission of countering NATO ballistic missile submarines, particularly the US Navy fleet of Polaris-equipped submarines.

NATO is an alliance of sovereign countries; NATO relies on the military forces of its member countries to carry out an operation or mission as it does not possess military forces of its own. -> This is pertinent information that should be shared directly with readers.

Clarified.

• However, before the ships began to be built, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy Admiral Sergey Gorshkov changed the role of the ships to that of destroying NATO attack submarines to allow Soviet Project 667A Navaga (NATO reporting name: 'Yankee'-class) ballistic missile submarines to reach the central Atlantic and Pacific, from where the latter could launch their comparatively short-ranged ballistic missiles against targets in the United States.[2][3]

• A rough count suggess this sentence contains about 70 words -> Comsider breaking it up

Split into two sentences.

• When it is, think about this addition -> "changed the role of the ships to that of [being capable of] destroying NATO attack submarines"

Done.

• The ship's complement was 343 officers and ratings.

suggest officers and "enlisted men" -> It's reader friedly ad it does not require a link

This is a good suggestion but I am not sure of the gender of the sailors.

• Vasily Chapayev was propelled by two TV-12-1 geared steam turbines each powered by four high-pressure boilers, with the forward engine room powering the port screw and the aft [one] the starboard [screw].

Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• [The ship's] T [t]otal power was 91,000 shaft horsepower (67,859 kW), giving a maximum speed of 34 knots (63 km/h; 39 mph).[6]

Suggest the above changes

Amended.

General:

Add the maximum fuel capacity and the type of fuel used?

Added with reference.

Armament:

• The Ka-25 helicopter embarked on the ship was also capable of aiding in the search and destruction of submarines, and as such [it] could carry depth charges and torpedoes.[9]

Suggest the above change

Amended.

• The vessel also had four AK-725 57 mm (2.2 in) dual-purpose guns situated in two twin mountings, one on either side aft of the funnel, to protect against surface and aerial threats.

Suggest the above change

Removed.

• Two quintuple PT-53-1134A mountings for 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes were also fitted aft of the funnel which could be used in both the anti-shipping and anti-submarine role.[13]

• Is it torpedos or torpedo tubes?

I believe the calibre relates to both.

<>Ships are fitted with torpedo tubes - not torpedos as such. Pendright (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have amended it, and the link in the infobox, to make that clear. simongraham (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Should role be roles?

Amended.

Sensors and electronics warfare:

• For fire-control purposes the vessel had Grom-M for the surface-to-air missiles, MR-103 Bars for the AK-725 and MR-123 Vympel for the AK-630.[4]

Add a comma after purposes

Added.

• The ship's electronic warfare equipment included the MRP-15-16 Zaliv and two sets each of the MRP-11-12 and MRP-13-14 direction-finding systems, as well as the MRP-150 Gurzuf A and MRP-152 Gurzuf B radar-jamming devices.[15]

The ship's electronic "anti-warfare" equipment Pendright (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand. The linked article is called electronic warfare.

General:

• Should the heading include [anti]-warfare?
  • There is no reference to this in the sources.

Construction and career:

• Ordered on 11 June 1970 from the Zhdanov Shipyard[,] Vasily Chapayev, [was] allocated the yard number 729, [the ship] was laid down on 22 November 1973 and launched on 28 November 1974.[16]

Suggest the above changes

I have amended and split the sentence.

• Vasily Chapayev [The cruiser] was named in honour of the Soviet Civil War commander Vasily Chapayev.

Suggest the above changes

Amended.

General:

• Chronologically, the construction part of this secion would seem better placed under the Design and ddevolpment section.

1970s:

• Captain 1st Rank A. A. Agadzhanov was transferred from Vladivostok to take command and [of[ the warship, and [it] departed Leningrad in 1977 for the port that would be home for the rest of the ship's career.[18]

• Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• What month in 1977

The sources do not say.

• In June 1978,Vasily Chapayev joined a fleet of Soviet warships, including the Project 68bis (NATO reporting name: 'Sverdlov' class) cruiser Admiral Senyavin and the Project 58 (NATO reporting name: 'Kynda' class) cruiser Admiral Fokin, [to sail] in sailing to [for] Vietnam to promote peace

after the Sino-Vietnamese War.[20]

Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• The crew was honoured for their service, with 36 receiving government commendations.

Honored by whom?

The sources are not explicit. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.

• The vessel returned in March.[18]

Returned to its home port?

Clarified.

1980s and end of service:

• Vasily Chapayev started the next decade in Vladivostok.

Suggest the above change

I have removed the sentence as the port is clear from the previous paragraph.

• The vessel spent the year visiting countries in and around the [Indian] o[O]cean.

• Was it to Show the flag?

Added.

• Suggest the above change

Amended.

• The ship then travelled on to Ethiopia, where short preventative maintenance repairs were performed, and then subsequently [it] travelled to Maputo, Mozambique, and Socatra, Yemen, before returning to Vladivostok via Victoria and Vietnam.[18]

• Was this travel generally to show the flag?
• Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• On 28 September 1984, the ship left Vladivostok as part of a large fleet of Soviet vessels led by the Project 1143 Krechyet (NATO reporting name: 'Kiev' class) aircraft carrier Novorossiysk on a mission to search for a US Navy nuclear submarine [reported] off the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Suggest the above change

Amended.

• Two days later, on 30 September, a radioactive signature consistent with a submarine was detected[,] and on 2 October, the Soviet Project 877 Paltus (NATO reporting name: 'Kilo' class) class submarine B-404 identified a US submarine in the Kuril Strait.

• Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• Was the sub in International waters or Territorial waters? If it was in international waters it had as much right to be there as the Soviets - in either case this should be clarifid.

The sources do not say.

<>Should the sentence stand as it is? Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The submarine was subsequently tracked by air and sea until 5 October.

Can you describe what all these ships were dong for about seven days and the outcome?

The sources do not give a lot of detail.

<>Add the details available Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The ships then all returned to [their home] port[s].[22]

Suggest the above changes

Amended.

• After a short anti-submarine exercise in February, on 29 March 1985, Vasily Chapayev accompanied Nikolayev, Novorossiysk and a host of smaller vessels under the command of Vice-Admiral Rostislav Leonidovich Dymov to [for] the Pacific Ocean [to] undertake a major exercise to [for] test[ing] the joint operations capability of [within] the Soviet armed forces.

• "After a short anti-submarine exercise in February," -> Drop this clause since it has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence.
• suggest the above changes

I have amended these and removed the subclause.

• The fleet progressed to the coast of Hawaii, and [they or it] proceeded to run a simulated attack on Pearl Habor.

• Suggest the above change

Amended.

• The logistices and exsecution involed in this military war game would seem extensive, yet less than 20 words are devoted to what took place leading up to and durng the the simulated (Military simulation) attack. -> Suggest puting some meant on the bones here - it appears there is or sbould be plenty of potential to elaborate.

That seems a reasonable assumption. However, the sources do not go into that much detail, including whether Vasily Chapayev had a command role.

<>Give readers the details avilable Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The test proved the value of a co-ordinated attack by aircraft, ships and submarines using long-range cruise missiles.

• Was it the test or the "outcome" of the test?

Amended.

• Who made this pronouncement and on what basis?

The sources are not clear. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.

• Between 15 and 17 October 1986, the ship was involved in the first joint exercise between the Soviet Union and the Korean People's Navy, simulating an amphibious attack on Rason.

How about a few details?

There is not much more in the sources. There is some information about the political fall-out, and particularly the effect it had on US relations with North Korea but nothing more on the ship's participation.

<>Add what is available Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The crew was subsequently named amongst the most capable in the Soviet Navy at anti-submarine warfare.[23]

By whom

Added.

Overall:

• The NATO reporting name link shows readers that it is a system of code names used by NATO to idemtify military warships, aircraft, or subnarines used by the Soviet Union and others. It utilizies one or two-syllable names instead of proper names. However, the article is not about NATO, it's about a Soviet ship built to counter a class of submarines under the command of NATO. -> So in what way or manner is the use of code names relevfant to this article?

My reasoning is based on the way that many of the sources prefer the NATO code names to the Soviet designation and, as therefore the readers may know these better, I suggest it is worth including them. For example, in the 1974 edition of Jane's, only NATO code names are given for the class, radar, helicopter etc.

<>I'm unmoved by your argument, but I bow to your wishes. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• A few third party comments about the ship from Friedman, Janes, or others would help give a bit of balance to the article, which it now lacks.

The editions of Conway's or Jane's I have give no comments on the vessel's service beyond bare facts and dates. Please can you direct me to the books that you mean.

<>I was fishing for bare facts - like, was the ship equal to ships of other nations, did certain features of it stand out against other ships internationally and so on. -> If your sources contain no such info, then scratch the comment. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Simongraham: This is it for now! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pendright: Thank you for such an in-depth review. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Some of your responses need further discussion and I've maked them with this <>. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:VasiliyChapaev1983a.jpg - source link is dead
• File:Kresta-II class cruiser profile 1986.png - ditto

That's all. Assuming the sources can be corrected, both images appear to be licensed correctly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Parsecboy. simongraham (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Epsom riot

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk)

Epsom riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Epsom riot was an interesting point in history when the frustrations of many soldiers who just wanted to return home after the First World War exploded into violence and left a policeman dead. There were several riots in the UK from Canadians, Australians and Americans who wanted to return, and several in France with Brits wanting to get home and the logistics of moving that many men were not as smooth as they should have been. This went through a rewrite in early 2021, and a run at FAC is envisaged, unless reviewers advise otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Nice to see you here, Schro! Copyedited so let me know any issues, especially BritEng-related. Looks very good prose/structure/detail-wise, I'm just going to take a break now before checking sources and images (unless someone beats me to them) before supporting or opposing (most likely the former)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Ian, None of your copyedits were a problem at all - although you may want to take another spin over it, given the changes made by another editor in the interim! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Tks Gav. I read over the lead again and made one tweak. I've also checked edits since I last went through it and I think it still reads well. The only thing (which I noticed the first time I read it and feel more strongly about now) is that the statement one policeman later described the camp as being "run on very lackadaisical lines" seems unnecessary -- the quote isn't very pithy in itself and the gist of it has been explained/paraphrased in the preceding clause. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Cheers Ian. Now trimmed out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Cool, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian, that’s very good of you. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Mertbiol

Hi @SchroCat: This is a very interesting article and, being fairly local to Epsom, I do have some knowledge of the riot and the events surrounding it. I have given the text a thorough copyedit. There were quite a few very long sentences (and also some very short sentences) which I have reworded. There are a few instances where I felt that the text was unclear and I have left {{clarify}} tags to indicate where this is the case. A few more points:

• The article uses the name "Woodcote camp", but the sources that I have access to call it "Woodcote Park camp".

• Both versions are used - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Google search for "Woodcote camp" brings up 261 hits; a search for "Woodcote Park camp" brings up 5010 hits. I think it's obvious which is the more common.Mertbiol (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Google isn't reliable. Google Books, which I used, is more indicative; Google Scholar has only one additional reference. As neither of the names are the formal name for the place, either will suffice. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel that there should be some mention of the commemorative plaque installed by the borough council in the 1990s.

• I looked at the time for a reliable source to cover this, but came up short. I will look again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the EEHE website would be a reliable source, but if you are sceptical of local history websites, then there's this CBC article. Mertbiol (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• A local history website is definitely not reliable, but I have found an alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is worth mentioning the history of Woodcote Park camp after the riot. It would appear that the last Canadian left Epsom in July 1919, although the land was not returned to the R.A.C. until 1923.

• It's a little tangential, but I'll add a line in shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• This has now been added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• There is a copyright licensing issue with the photo of police officers guarding the police station.

• Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit too much of a copyedit for my liking - and it includes changing punctuation style and comma usage that doesn't need to be changed (and was better in the original). I will put back some of the original work, but try and be sympathetic to your edits too. I'll deal with the above comments shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SchroCat: Please have a look at these parts of your text:

• These two sentences are together in the same paragraph. The first is 56 words long and the second is 47 words long. You might find them easy to understand, because you are familiar. However, someone reading them for the first time is liable to get lost:

Many British veterans returning to Epsom and its environs were annoyed by relationships between local women and the camp's residents, and members of the East Surrey Regiment "begrudged what they perceived to be the disproportionate praise heaped on the Canadian Corps for its capture of Vimy Ridge in 1917", according to the military historian Nikolas Gardner. In early and mid-1919 tensions between the inhabitants of the town and the camp's inmates, including what Gardner describes as "a growing Canadian disregard for the authority of the local police", often manifested itself in violence towards the police if they arrested one of the Canadian soldiers.

• You cannot use "either" for one choice out of three options:

The cause of the fight is unclear, but there are three possible versions: either a Canadian private and his wife were assaulted by local men; or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians; or the private, his wife and a sergeant were assaulted by local men.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Re the second sentence, Fowler allows usage of more than two options. In any case, it’s not right to just delete one of the three explanations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat: The third explanation is very similar to the third - I was trying to simplify to make it more readable. In any event, regardless of what Fowler says, the convention used by the overwhelming majority of British English speakers is for either to be used with only two options. Mertbiol (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll take Fowler’s word. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the third is similar to the third’, but there are three different explanations provided. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

One full stop should sort the first para. Your changes altered the meaning at the beginning of the paragraph, which was problematic. SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

ps. There’s no need to ping, thanks: I have this watchlisted. SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• The copyright for Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg states "This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license." Please confirm the licensing of the image and transfer it to Wikimedia commons.

• Licence confirmed and altered: image transferred to Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Main entrance of Woodcote Park.jpg has appropriate PD tags.
• The Rifleman pub, Epsom - Geograph 2983709.jpg has appropriate CC tags.
• Epsom-station-1919.jpg seems to lack an appropriate US PD tag. It is also listed as a candidate to transfer to Wikimedia commons.

• Licence confirmed and altered: image transferred to Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sergeant Green' funeral, Epsom 1919.jpg has an appropriate US PD tag. If the Nottingham Journal is a US publication, this is sufficient.

• Licence confirmed and altered. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thomas Green Epsom Cemetery.jpg has an appropriate CC tag.

Please ping me if you would like me to review again. simongraham (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks simongraham. If you could check these now, they should be OK. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: Excellent work. The tags all look good. It seems that the article is not picking up the Wikimedia versions, but I do not believe that is a requirement for A-class so happy to pass. simongraham (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks for that - it's much appreciated. As I used the 'transfer' feature to get the images over to Commons, there should be a bot that does the clean up on the duplicate images, so that should be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• What makes Enver, 2011 an RS?
• If you have to abbreviate South Yorkshire, could you standardise the full stop or not after S.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. I’ve done the second point; I need to do some digging and checking on the first, but will be back shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I think that as a Police Federation source - with access to their records - he is probably OK for this, I've removed him, more under a surfeit of caution than anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was an open question. The link was dead and the archived version told me nothing. But as is, fine. I'm not even going to ask why S has a dot after it and Yorks doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s fine - he’s probably not the strongest source, and the info is adequately supported by the other references, so it’s no problem. I’ve swapped out S Yorks for South Yorkshire, so that should deal with any issues on shortened versions or full stops. Thanks for the review - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll try to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 20:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In the early months of 1919 the numbers at the camp fluctuated between two and four thousand men (including patients and staff); by mid-June there were between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants" - so is part of this number soldiers awaiting repatriation or is still a hospital camp at this time?
  • I've tweaked this a little - still a hospital, according to Gardner - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• " Between November 1918 and June 1919 Canadian troops rioted in British camps thirteen times" - does this figure include or exclude the Epsom riot? If it includes it, then recommend indicating that, as the current reading would suggest thirteen riots before Epsom
  • Clarified - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• "through the stations unbarred windows." - should this be "station's"?
  • Doh! Yes. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Do the sources indicate what Parson was doing while all the rioting was going on, since he was there and not in the building?
  • Unfortunately no. I suspect not much, given that any order he gave was unlikely to have been followed with discipline so far gone. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is note [e] particularly relevant to this article? I probably wouldn't have included it, but it's not going to be a sticking point for me
  • No - just an interesting connection, but you're right and I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Colonel Frederick Guest, the officer commanding Woodcote Hospital" - is Guest a British or Canadian officer?
  • I've added his regiment, which should clarify - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is McAllan or McAllen the correct spelling? Both are used
  • Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is Verex or Yerex the correct name? Both are used
  • Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• " and closed the same day with an open verdict" - I think there needs to be some sort of link or gloss for what an open verdict is, as "open verdict" appears to be primarily a thing in the UK (as an American, I had to look it up, and found very little American usage of the term)
  • OK - linked to open verdict - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The seven men identified at the inquest appeared at the Surrey Assizes on 22 July" - didn't the inquest only identify six (McAllen/McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie, Yerex/Verex, and Todd)?
  • No - it was seven: I missed one of the names off the inquest list. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks Hog Farm. Hopefully all should be addressed in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Supporting - the open verdict link had ended up in the section head, so I moved it down to the spot in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for that. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Tiberius III

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Tiberius III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman/Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the criteria. Previously failed an A-Class, but this was mostly due to my inaction, rather than the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Constantine

Will have a look over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• Can we add the regnal number footnote in the lede as well? And add who Tiberius II was?

  Done.

• I think we can drop three obscure, niche, mid-19th-century sources as evidence that his name has been misspelled in the past. This is irrelevant for a modern reader.

  Have removed, was added by another editor in October.

• Please use {{transl|grc|}} for transliterated Greek terms.

  Done.

• Tiberius was part of an army led by John the Patrician sent by Byzantine Emperor Leontius for the lede, I would omit 'led by John the Patrician', especially since he is redlinked, but also to shorten it to the essentials. Then killed John can simply become 'killed their commander'.

  Done

• former Emperor needs to be decapitalized.

  Done

• Link Slavs to Early Slavs and Bulgars to the First Bulgarian Empire?

  Done

• several month one to six months or so is not really 'several', rather 'a few' ;)

  Done

• The inscription reads dn tiberius pe av. Why is that interesting? The average reader won't even know what these terms mean... Unless you provide the complete inscription, e.g. 'Our Lord Tiberius, Perpetual Augustus', I'd recommend omitting it.

  Done

Early life

• Given that the origin of his name has been used to speculate as to his origins, I would move the footnote into the main body, explain as much (esp. in respect to Vasiliev's claim) and expand a bit on the issue.

  Done

  Have done a slight copyedit there. Can you also add separate references for the Germanic origin? Also, the Germanic origin of the name is the traditional version, right? I would clarify this, and add that the dissenting views are from more recent scholars (hence may indeed represent the current common view). Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Added first reference, hunting one down for the traditional bit, which I'm sure is right. So far only Peter Crawford is willing to say such, and I'm sure he fails HQRS, down the line if not immediately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Finally tracked down a source (Brandes) Willing to say as much.

• Byzantist is slightly archaic, better 'Byzantinist'

  Done

• Refs #9 and #10 are from the same work. Unless it is conjecture, Kaegi bases his statement on sources, please mention them.

  Fixed referencing; it seems to be conjecture on his part as no sources are cited. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Background

• Per WP:SS, I'd say the entire first section, and probably the second one as well, can be omitted entirely as it concerns events that are not necessary to comprehend the subject. Justinian's exile can be mentioned later when he becomes relevant. E.g. 'In 696, the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, the primary rival of the Byzantine Empire, renewed their attack upon the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. In the next year, they managed to capture its capital, Carthage. The Byzantine emperor Leontius...' It works fine as an introduction, and does not need the entire back story of Leontius, Justinian II, and the Muslim civil war, with a host of names and dates that are not directly relevant here.

  Done.

• with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions) close repetition of 'faction'. Perhaps simply 'with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)'?

  Done.

• Add timeframe for Michael the Syrian

  Done.

• Don't know about the quote. E.g. Cyprus is not mentioned before, 'Roman lands' would need explanation, etc. I'd recommend simply working into the article, i.e. that Tiberius justified his coup by drawing parallels to Leontius' own deposition of the previous emperor, Justinian II, on account of the latter's responsibility for the disasters in the war against the Umayyads. This way you'd also introduce Justinian II to the reader.

  Done.

Rule

• Link 'crowned' to coronation of the Byzantine emperor, Syria to Bilad al-Sham, sea walls of Constantinople to the relevant section in the walls article.

  Done

• Gloss/explain 'patrikios'

  Done

• crossing into the mountain passes 'crossing the mountain passes'

  Done

• which had been underpopulated since much of the populace was moved to the region of Cyzicus under Justinian close repetition of 'populace'/'populated'. And please consistently use 'Justinian II' for the deposed emperor.

  Done

• moved to Propontis no reason to introduce a new, different term. Stick with Cyzicus.

  Done

• as well as strengthened Would begin a new sentence here.

  Done

• separating the Theme of Sicily not entirely certain, and not the common view AFAIK. Cf. Sicily (theme).

  What would you recommend doing here? Adding a footnote that Treadgold maintains it, or removing it entirely? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  No reason to remove, but we need to qualify the statement. I would simply mention that some scholars (or just Treadold?) consider that this separation happened under his watch. Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done.

• patrician to 'patrikios'

  Done

• according to Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor start a new sentence, and give timeframe for Theophanes. I am on the fence about dropping this part entirely, as a) it is likely invented and b) it concerns Philippicus more than Tiberius.

  Removed.

• Somewhat pedantic, but I wouldn't call Tervel a 'king', rather a 'ruler', or his proper title of khan?

  Done

• Later, Justinian Strike 'later' as unnecessary.

  Done.

Family

• Link either 'Ephesus' or the whole 'bishop of Ephesus' to Metropolis of Ephesus

  Done

• Decapitalize Historian

  Done

See also

• Why is '7th century in Lebanon § 690s' relevant?

  Removed.

Sources

• Add locations to the books missing them.

  done

• Vasiliev certainly was not published in 1980. Please verify and correct the date.

@Iazyges: That's it for a first pass. Constantine ✍ 14:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Will see about finishing this off when I get back on Sunday. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Have done or responded to all, apologies for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, most of the comments have been addressed. Have done some small copyedits, and another read-through now. Some additional comments follow (and see also above for a couple outstanding issues), but I think it is close to passing now.

• I think that Gotho-Greek refers specifically to Gothograecia, so should be linked to that.

  Done.

• Pipe Roman Carthage to simply 'Carthage'.

  Done.

• Bacharach appears to be no longer used in the article.

  Removed.

• Can we find a better map (with sources) than File:Central and Eastern Europe around 700 AD.jpg?

  There's a number of good 717 maps, but for whatever reason this one seems to be the best 700ish map; do you think I should make the leap for the sake of quality? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Went ahead and inserted a 717 map. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's it :) Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Should be all; I have added some bits I came across the article as I searched for the origin cite, not a huge amount but a few sentences. Thank you for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: excellent job, I am very happy to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support from Vami

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Why does Tiberius III's birth name need to be given twice in the lead?

  Fixed.

• [...] focused on seizing the city of Carthage and managed to capture it in 697. Recommend condensing.

  Done.

• After several months of siege, [...] "of siege" unnecessary.

  Done.

• [...] however, this surrender did not prevent his troops from plundering the city. What surrender.

  Done.

• Heraclius invaded the Umayyads [...] How does one invade a person or group of people? It would be better to name places.

  Changed to "Umayyad Caliphate"

• It would suffice to refer to Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik as just al-Malik after his introduction.

  Done.

• [...] exiting at the northern edge of the wall near the Palace of Blachernae, and quickly seizing the building. Recommend past-tense.

  Done.

• [...] this Theodosius may be the same person as later Emperor Theodosius III [...] Condense this.
• @Vami IV: Done all, thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA

Will do after Vami's review has been made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• @CPA-5: Believe this is now ready for review. Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• "than that he was droungarios" to "than that he was a droungarios"

  Done.

• "led an army of Slavs and Bulgars" This is a MOS:EGG 'cause people would think they mean the people Bulgars instead of the empire.

  Done.

• "between August 705 and February 706" Maybe the infobox needs to a note describing this?

  Changed to "between August 705 and February 706"

• "His body was initially thrown into the sea" Maybe replace sea with the Black Sea might be helpful for the reader?

  It's not certain it was the black sea, is the problem. It might have been the sea of Marmara, for instance.

• "church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?

  This seems unknown to history, so far as I have found. Would appreciate any insight you have.

• "he was a droungarios (a commander of about a thousand men)" Maybe add this in a note?

  Do you mean transfer this to a footnote? That hardly seems useful for such a short gloss.

• "and declared Apsimar emperor" to "and declared Apsimar as emperor"?

Done

• "which forced John to retreat to Crete" to "which forced John to retreat to the island of Crete"

• Done.

• "allied himself with the Greens" This looks like an EGG?

  Not really; the section that the link opened speaks of chariot racing factions, of which the Greens were one. There is no better page for them, unfortunately.

• "the city and depose Leontius;[5][11][12][13]" Maybe remove one citation?

  Done.

• There are four "However"s maybe remove some?

  Done.

• "of the Anatolian themes.[19][20][21][22]" Remove one citation?

  Done.

• "al-Malik from reconquering Armenia.[23][20][13]" Re-order the refs here.

  Done.

• "In 693 Justinian II escaped from Cherson" Link Chreson especially now that people associate it with the city beingcaptured by the Russians not that long ago. It might confuse the reader if you meant another Cherson.

  Done.

• "sought the support of the Bulgar" MOS:EGG here.

  Done.

• Add the reigns for Tervel and Busir.

  Done.

• "to the Kynegion and beheaded.[5][6][25][29]" Remove one citation.

  Done.

• "Their bodies were initially thrown into the sea" Replace sea with the Black Sea.

  Not done per above.

• "in a church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?

  See above.

• Why is instead of Apsimar his Latin name is been used in the "Names" in the infobox?

  Because that was his name as Emperor of the Romans, not Apsimar.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Happy with the article now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes I am just changed it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Only two images:

• File:Tiberius III solidus-2 (cropped).jpg Antique coin - OTRS - okay
• File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.svg Wikipedian mapwork - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources are all of high quality.
• Formatting is nice and generally consistent. Anomalies:
  • Brandes, Wolfram (2003). Page numbers? (pp. 716-725) For other journals, you have supplied a location and publisher (although I wouldn't bother).
  • Bryer, Anthony; Herrin, Judith (1977). Publisher missing (Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham). ISBN missing (978-0-7044-0226-3)
  • Garland, Lynda (2017). Location missing.
  • Lilie, Ralph-Johannes; Ludwig, Claudia; Pratsch, Thomas; Zielke, Beate (2013). ISBN missing (978-3-11-016668-2)
  • Sumner, Graham V. (1976). Issue missing (3) Pages missing (pp. 287-294) No publisher, but location is misleading as it is the Cambridge in Massachusetts. Suggest adding the state. Only journal where you supply an OCLC (I wouldn't bother, although I normally supply an ISSN )
  • Treadgold, Warren (1995): Compare with Treadgold, Warren (1997); that one has the publisher correct and the state where Stanford is. (Also: these are the only two references where the later one is listed before the earlier one.)
  • Vasilev, Alexander (1980). Publisher missing (University of Wisconsin Press). Should probably supply the state as well as the city. Page number is not required. And it is the only book with an ISBN that also has an OCLC.
• Spot checks:
  • 6, 8, 12, 32 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Iazyges ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M8 Armored Gun System

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

M8 Armored Gun System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An interesting topic (to me): A light tank that changed hands between defense contractors three times over four decades, and which the U.S. Army dumped no less than four times. The Army's light tank strategy has been vaporous since its decision to divest the M551 Sheridan in the late '70s. One challenge in writing this was distinguishing the AGS from the numerous conflicting light tank programs of the late '80s onward. There were many overlapping initiatives that muddied the waters with different requirements (Tracked or wheeled? Airdrop capable for the 82nd Airborne? Pure fleet of MBTs only?). Sources are mostly news reporting from Inside the Army, some R. P. Hunnicutt and Steven J. Zaloga, and some Army theses for good measure. Contemporaneous news reporting before 1992 was difficult to come by. Schierbecker (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

nb4

• I have no idea whether Perry ever decided to support canceling the AGS, allowing the Army to re-appropriate FY1996 funds for the AGS. I have looked everywhere for a source.
• I have not been able to find specs of the Mobile Gun System and Mobile Protected Firepower variants. It is possible that some details may be found in later editions of Janes. The latest edition I have access to is Jane's Land Warfare Platforms Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2017–2018. Schierbecker (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

I regret that this article has sat here for so long.

• Lead: the fact that the tank is sometimes called the Buford should be in the body.

  ? Now cited in the lead, but still not in the body. Needs to be repeated in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Then there is no need for fn 3 in the header. But it should have a page number.

  ? Now fn 6. But still no page number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Was it named after John Buford?

  Y Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• You need to define the abbreviations ACR, AGS, LAPES, TACOM on first use

  Defined now, but LAPES is used before it has been defined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "A joint Army–Marine Corps program was explored." You mean mooted?

  Y Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "$800 million plan" consider using the {{inflation}} template to get present-day dollar amounts

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Around the same time, the Army Chief of Staff issued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995."' Are you sure it was a promissory note?

  Y Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "In September 1989, the Armored Gun System" Finally defined, but we've been talking about it for a few paragraphs

  Y Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• " Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor of the 82nd Airborne Division" This unit has already been mentioned above. Unlink, and suggest moving the fact that it was part of the 82nd up to first mention

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1991, the Senate and House Armed Services Committee" Two of them, so add an "s" on the end of "committee"

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• What are "appropriators"?

  Unresolved, but meh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Arrived at Fort Knox, Kentucky in April 1995" Comma after "Kentucky"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• " The Army issued a stop work order to United Defense the following month.[44] The Army estimated killing the program would save the service $1 billion. The Army hoped to reallocate unspent FY1996 funds" Three sentences in a row starting with "The Army" Consider re-phrasing.

  Y Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "House appropriations national security committee " Is that a committee or a subcommittee?

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "the Army stood up an Immediate Ready Company" Are you sure "stood up" is the right phrase here?

  Y Okay then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• "The vehicles were intended to bolster the 82nd's 17th Cavalry Squadron" Should this be the 1st Squadron 17th Cavalry?

  Y Resolved. But link 17th Cavalry Regiment Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm still unsure what Congress' arguments in favour of retaining the system were.
• Link Vietnam War, National Guard, United States Marine Corps, United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Army Vice Chief of Staff, 105 mm gun, day/night thermal sight

  Y Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• What is the significance of the Vickers/FMC Mk 5 in the table? I would suggest eliminating this column

  Y Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Cut back on the "See also"
• Weed out the duplicated links

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• As best as I can tell, M8 "Buford" was coined by Tom Clancy in Armored Cav (1994). Mike Sparks (the guy who crusaded on Wiki talk pages to rename the M113 after General James M. Gavin) calls it the "Buford" in Air-Mech-Strike (2002) and also the "Ridgeway" on Combat Reform. I could include a footnote that notes that Clancy was the first, or among the first, to give it that name, but I'm not sure where I can put that information in the body because there is little verifiable information I could write. Schierbecker (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Re:Should this be the 1st Squadron 17th Cavalry? I admit to knowing almost nothing of formations of the U.S. Army. The source says they were destined for the "17th Cavalry Squadron of the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg." According to the source this proposed delivery was requested by the 81st Airborne. Schierbecker (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone over this myself. It's almost certain that the unit in question is 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, and I have changed the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Are you sure "stood up" is the right phrase here? I meant stood up as in "activate." wikt:stand up#English
• What is the significance of the Vickers/FMC Mk 5 in the table? I would suggest eliminating this column That refers to the Vickers/FMC Mark 5 battle tank listed in the variants section.
• Are you sure it was a promissory note? I used the author's (public domain) own words. I'm unsure if there is a better word.
• What are "appropriators"? Is this not a common term?
• I believe I've addressed everything else, User:Hawkeye7. Look forward to any other feedback you might have. Schierbecker (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am dealing with a work/personal life-related issue. My edits to this review may be sporadic over the next few weeks. Appreciate your patience. Schierbecker (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Hawkeye7, any update? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nearly all the original issues have been resolved. Two marked for action. Will support then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  The best solution I have found is to mention "Buford" in an image caption. How's that? Schierbecker (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Works for me. Moved to Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources are generally of good quality
• Bowman, Kendall & Saunder is not used.
• Boelke is a master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Like mine )
• Freedman is a War College Individual Study Project, not a thesis
• Why is Hunnicut 2015a? There is no other Hunnicut source
• Publisher and access dates required for fn 94 and 95
• Note that you should only include "This article incorporates text from this source" if it has been cut and pasted.
• Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• There are a couple other Hunnicutt's cited. Removed Boelke. Added cites to Bowman, Kendall & Saunder. Everything else you mentioned is done. Schierbecker (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• One unreferenced bit in fn 6.

• "Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army" source is out of alphabetic order.

• As an aside, you don't need to mark a source as "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." unless you have actually copied/pasted the text from that source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:M8-AGS-Aberdeen (cropped).gif, File:Armored Gun System level 1 armor 1994.jpg, File:Armored Gun System level 2 armor c. 1994.png, File:Armored Gun System Platform Performance Demonstration.jpg, File:Armored Gun System level 3 armor.jpg, File:M8 AGS level III armor.jpg, File:LOSAT launch from Armored Gun System.png- US Army images - consider switching licence to {{PD-USGov-Army}} - okay
• File:XM-8 AGS fires its 105mm cannon in a California test.png, File:One of six preproduction versions of the XM-8 AGS.png, File:AGS Autoloader.tif - US Army images - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Added File:Close Combat Vehicle Light National Museum of Military Vehicles.jpg, File:Inside the CCVL.webm, File:CCVLMagnetTest.webm, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light rear.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light gun mantlet.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light roadwheel.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light pepperpot muzzle.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light smoke grenade launcher.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light laser rangefinder.jpg. Schierbecker (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review (take two) - pass

• File:Close Combat Vehicle Light National Museum of Military Vehicles.jpg,File:Close Combat Vehicle Light rear.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light gun mantlet.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light roadwheel.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light pepperpot muzzle.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light smoke grenade launcher.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light laser rangefinder.jpgtagged with OTRS ticket; Y
• File:U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection Mobile Protected Firepower.webm - US Army PD image Y
• File:Inside the CCVL.webm and File:CCVLMagnetTest.webm, videos released under CC BY-SA 4.0 Y

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

HF

Not familiar with this topic at all, but will give this a read-through this coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's a shame we can't tie the vehicle down to being named for John Buford. Buford was one of my childhood heroes.
• "In the 1980s, the United States Army began looking for a more capable replacement for the Sheridan. During this time, a string of Army projects to update or replace the Sheridan were begun, but all ended without the Army committing to buy." - citation needed
• Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS
• "By then, the AGS program had gathered steam due to the successful deployment of Sheridans in Panama and the Gulf War" - why would successful deployment of the Sheridans led to the plan to replace them gathering steam?
• check the infobox data against the table. For instance, the infobox says that height was 7 ft 10 inches (94 inches), but the big data table says 100-101 inches
• "who privately expressed his irritation to Perry about having learned " - fully introduce Perry here, not in the next paragraph

Ready for the design section, will pick up from there soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• The weight figures in the infobox don't match with those in the protection section? Level I: up to 39,800 (body) vs 38,800 (IB) Level II: 44,270 (body) vs 44,000 (IB)
• "Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed?
• "The Close Combat Vehicle Light at the National Museum of Military Vehicles in 2020. Photos courtesy: Amazing Ace." - inline external links like here are a no-no

Will revisit this once these are responded to. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed? No, they do not. However the M1128 Mobile Gun System had a problem with blast overpressures developing between the hull and pepperpot muzzle brake. This was solved by adding a metal baffle around the muzzle break. Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS It does not get much more confusing than this. They are terms for the same concept, not a specific program of record. The infantry school preferred the term "Assault Gun" while the armor school preferred "Armored Gun."Schierbecker (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to clarify that the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System are the same thing; most readers won't know necessarily know that. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a footnote about the Assault/Armored Gun System, and also about the "Buford" name. Schierbecker (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping me when you're ready for me to look back over this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Schierbecker, is this ready for Hog Farm yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Gog the Mild, give me until Sunday or so. Just started a new job. Things are a bit crazy atm. Thanks! Schierbecker (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Schierbecker ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Done with edits, User:Gog the Mild/User:Hog Farm. Schierbecker (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been quite busy myself lately, but hope to get back to this over the next three or four days. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding varying weight claims: Hunnicutt gave combat weight for level 1, while Miller gave all-up weight, which I suppose is different. Hunnicutt gave roll-on/roll-off weight for level 2, while Foss gave all-up weight. Fixed this by giving a range. Schierbecker (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Leaning support. I just don't know enough about this subject matter to be able to judge it too closely. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CPA

• Link both Congress, the Department of Defense and Mobile Gun System in the lead.
• "light tank in Vietnam and" Maybe add war here?
• "armed with a 25 mm caliber gun" This is a compound adjective so the unit should be written fully and a convert is needed.
• "problematic 152 mm caliber gun/launcher" Convert?
• "mounted a 105 mm cannon to a Sheridan" Same as above compound adjective and a convert is needed.
• "120 mm cannons" Convert?
• There are four howevers maybe reduce some?
• "Senate appropriators declined the Army's" Link Sanate.
• "only a 25 mm caliber cannon" Compound adjective here.
• "Army Acquisition Executive Stephen K. Conver became" Is there a link for Conver?
• "production of six test units.[54][49]" Re-order the refs.
• "was valued at $800 million" Is there a recent estimate of how much this would be?
• "utilizing a 330 hp (250 kW) diesel engine" Compound adjective here.
• "with a 552 hp (412 kW) diesel engine" Same as above.
• "firing a 105 mm gun mounted" Same as above.
• "C-130 at an altitude of 1300 feet" --> "C-130 at an altitude of 1,300 feet" And a convert is needed because I have no idea how much this is.
• "scheduled for March 1997.[54][3]" Re-order the refs.
• "for the $1 billion originally" Is there a recent estimate of how much this is?
• "Shinseki's concept.[88]United Defense LP (UDLP) proposed the AGS" A space is needed here.
• "United Defense's facility in Pennsylvania to Fort Bragg, North Carolina" Link both states.
• "for an upcoming deployment to Iraq" --> "for an upcoming deployment to the recent war in Iraq"
• "Canada, Germany, Malaysia and Singapore had" Link the last two countries 'cause they're not that well known.
• "vehicle armed with a 105 mm or 120 mm caliber" Compound adjective here.
• "A Mobile Protected Firepower testbed at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection at Fort Benning c. 2023" Add a circa template here.
• "Two eight-barrel smoke grenade" --> "Two 8-barrel smoke grenade"
• "550 hp (410 kW) at 2400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2400 rpm with DF2 diesel" --> "550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm with DF2 diesel"
• "This had 65% commonality with the eight-cylinder" Replace % with percent.
• "used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[116][3]" Re-order the refs here.
• "rounds per minute.[128][70]" Re-order the refs here.
• "eliminated to save weight.[126][118]" Same as above.
• "were a M240 7.62 mm caliber" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
• Both 39 and 40 in converts should be rounded in the info table.
• "It was armed with a 105 mm low recoil force gun" Compound adjective here.
• " was an XM291 120 mm electrothermal-chemical" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
• "but integrated the 120 mm gun" Compound adjective here.
• "A prototype EX35 gun is mounted in the FMC XM4 Armored Gun System (CCVL) turret basket c. 1984" A circa template is needed here.
• "An M8 AGS rolls off a C-130 for a platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999" Circa can be shortened and needs a circa template.
• "Pre-production unit in level 2 armor circa 1994" Same as above.
• "Pre-production unit circa 1994" Same as above.
• In the table of the AGS production schedule as of 1995 there's a "nils" and a "0" but why aren't the nils 0s?
• "CCVL c. 1992" Circa needs a circa template.
• The "Specifications" in the infobox is a bit of a mess can we have some white lines here to separate the different units?
• "M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.

That's everything from me it was a lot but I think it's worth it. Nicely done. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel icky converting metric caliber units to imperial. Can we not? I don't know of any sources that describe a 105 mm gun as 4.13386" (4.13") or a 25 mm gun as a 0.984252. There are a few rare exceptions such as the .50 BMG, aka 12.7×99mm NATO.

The reason is that they are not measurements at all, but common names. There's also a practice of changing names but not the actual calibre of the weapon. I think that conversions should be avoided, because it can only mislead readers into thinking that it is an actual measurement, when most of the time it is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding compound adjectives. I believe "mm" doesn't need to be spelled out per MOS:HYPHEN.

re:"Is there a recent estimate of how much this is?" I think you are asking how much in total was spent on the program. No, I haven't come across that figure. Would love to know. Or do you just want me to adjust for inflation? I can do that. Schierbecker (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Erwin Böhme

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)

Erwin Böhme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Erwin Böhme was an early flying ace who won the Blue Max. A close friend of his mentor Oswald Boelcke, he inadvertently caused Boelke's death. Despite this tragedy, he became a 24-victory ace, and rose to become a squadron leader under the Red Baron before being killed in action.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

• There are multiple MOS:SANDWICH issues in the article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • While images are placed both left and right in text, no two images are opposite one another to cause sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

On my laptop I can see the image File:Holzminden_weserufer.jpg sandwiching tekst with the infobox. The second sandwich is between the File:Nieuport_12_(replica)_AN1543487.jpg's margin and File:Albatros_D.I.jpg which technally sandwich it. Another examples of images' margin is with File:Airco_DH.2.jpg and File:Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.8_in_flight.jpg and with File:A.W._F.K.8_(Cockpit_area).jpg and File:Captured_Albatros_DVa_at_Armentieres_1917.jpg. All of these examples should be adressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

On my desktop computer, no sandwiching appears, which tells me your smaller screen size is causing your sandwiching. I made changes based on that assumption.

I moved the photo of Holtzminden downwards, away from the info box. I also lowered the railroad tracks photo.

The photos of the Nieuport and the Albatros D.I are in different paragraphs, so I cannot see how they would sandwich. Likewise with the DH.2 photo and that of the FE.8.

I also lowered the photo of the Albatros D.Va.

When I shrink my screen to laptop size (about 13 inches), I find no sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks much better now. The sandwich issues are now removed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Will have a full review this weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources are high quality
• No page numbers for Werner (1930)? Did you do the translation?
  • No page numbers available. No, I was not the translator.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Spot checks no done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Erwin Böhme.jpg, File:Albatros D.I.jpg - claims author dies >70 years ago but no evidence - no US copyright - probably okay
• File:Airco DH.2.jpg - claim to be copyright holder (dubious) - consider adding PD-old-70-1923 template - probably okay
• File:Holzminden weserufer.jpg - Wikipedian photograph - okay
• File:Usambara Railway tracks.jpg, File:Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 - Duxford Airshow 2012.jpg- Flickr CC licence - okay
• File:Nieuport 12 (replica) AN1543487.jpg - GNU licence with OTRS - okay
• File:Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.8 in flight.jpg UK National Archives via Flickr - okay
• File:Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 Biplan Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 (33189872722).jpg - Canadian image via Flickr - okay
• File:D-PRU Royal Hohenzollern Order swords war-ribbon BAR.svg - Wikipedian image -okay
• File:A.W. F.K.8 (Cockpit area).jpg - IWM image - okay
• File:Captured Albatros DVa at Armentieres 1917.jpg - AWM image -okay

All probably okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

HF - weak support

I'll try to take a look at this. Ping me if I haven't started in three or four days. Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• "He constructed the Usambara Railway to export raw cedar timber to" --> He supervised construction of the Usambara Railway ... to make it clearer what exactly his role was here
  • Done.08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Specify in the body that the timber plantation was in Tanganyika as well.
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "Later in March, Böhme began his combat career in the west by engaging Farmans and a Nieuport from the French Service Aéronautique" - but hadn't he already submitted reports for aerial victories in 1915 with Kampstaffel 10, with the Kampstaffel centered on a city where the link goes to a place in France?
  • Indeed, he submitted three combat claims against the French; two of those were unconfirmed, thus no victory. The third is a strange and very rare case--a confirmed victory not on a pilot's victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "On 2 August 1916, Böhme scored his first accredited aerial victory, downing a Russian Nieuport 12 over Radzyse." - last we heard of his fighting, he was out west by Verdun. When did he get shipped out to the eastern front?
  • Kasta 10 was transferred from France to Russia in June 1916. Added as first para in Posted to Fighter Service.Georgejdorner (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• " a mature and worldly best friend" - "mature and worldly" may be a bit florid for an encyclopedia
  • Echoes of source material.
  • Consider, Boelcke's life experience was secondary school and the military. During Böhme's extra decade of life, he had earned an engineer's degree, vagabonded about Europe, worked in Africa, then came to the military.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "Böhme joined his new unit on 8 September 1916, after a month in transit." - where was this unit stationed?
  • Jasta 2 at Bertincourt.Georgejdorner (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess" - again, not sure that "hullabaloo" is a great encyclopedic word
  • Ruckus? Furor? Racket? Have you ever been in a squadron mess when highly stressed combat pilots are blowing off steam? I got stories....Georgejdorner (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "cut the tendon to his trigger finger." - trigger finger is linking to a medical condition. Is this intentional?
  • Not really. Deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "In 1921, Annamarie's purloined letter to Erwin Böhme was returned to her from England" - I'd gotten the impression that the article was referring to the letter Erwin had written to Annamarie and then pocketed before being shot down. I think the identity of the letter being referred to in different places could be cleared up a bit
  • Indeed, I had inadvertently reversed the names in the Legacy section. I untwisted that, made some other minor edits.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• "2nd Lt. KIA; 2nd Lt. Ronald Wood wounded in action/prisoner of war" - do we not know the identity of the KIA 2nd Lt.?
  • Oswald Nixon added.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Just one more thing. I'm getting hung up on the sentence Later in March, Böhme began his combat career in the west by engaging Farmans and a Nieuport from the French Service Aéronautique. It just seems odd to be stating that he began his combat career in the west when he'd already submitted three claims in the west. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I am also hung up on that series of events, and am researching it. The confirmed but unlisted victory is perhaps only the third example I've ever seen, and is quite a puzzler. Please allow me a bit more time to work on it.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten the bit about the Farmans and the Nieuport. I have also added a bit to the Victory list. To me, that seems to clarify the problem, but then I may be text-blind at this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this can be resolved by removing the phrase about beginning his combat career in the west, since the unaccredited victory would have already been the beginning of his combat career in the west. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thought I had already gotten that. Gone now.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're okay with this change, I think that resolves things for me. Hog Farm _Talk 19:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That works.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting for the benefits of the coordinators that my support is a weaker one, given Harrias' and Gog's concerns about tone below, which I would probably echo at FAC. There's a certain detached nature that's needed for a featured article that isn't present here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• "Although haunted by guilt, Böhme carried on". He was in the military. Did he have a choice?
  • Indeed he did. Refusal to fly. Combat fatigue. Insanity from guilt. Suicide (which he may have attempted).Georgejdorner (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and I can't find anything about this in the article.

"...the feeling he was responsible for killing his best friend would haunt him for the rest of his life."

I think you're stretching, but ok.

• Is the name of his sister known?
  • Not given in source.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Lead: "he became a champion swimmer, proficient ice skater, and expert skier". This does not seem to be fully reflected in the main article.
  • Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Er, how? And giving his time for an individual race in his youth which has nothing to do with his notability is undue detail IMO.

Winning the swimming race establishes him as a champion swimmer. On second thought, giving the winning time is a bit gratuitous.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• The lead states that his national service was of one year duration, the article does not.
  • Article states he served for the single year of 1899.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No in doesn't. It states "serving in a Garde-Jäger Regiment (Guards Infantry Regiment) in 1899". This could mean eg that he served for a single month in 1899.

And the Military Service Law of 1888, as amended in 1893, provided for two years' military service, with a lot of exemptions; one year seems a little odd. Similarly service usually started after the harvest and ended with the annual manoeuvres; serving Jan-Dec is possible, but again seems odd.

Every thing you state is reasonable and rational and not in the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so long as you are sure that you are reflecting the source. But, if the source clearly states that he served for 12 months you need to amend the article to make this unambiguous; if it doesn't, you need to amend the lead.

Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• "he moved to Switzerland for three years of mountaineering." Three years is not mentioned in the main article - which gives the impression he was mountaineering from 1899 to 2008.
  • Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "descended the Italian peninsula to Genoa". In what way did he descend the Italian peninsula, given that Genoa is north of it?
  • Only in a clueless Yankee's delusion, obviously.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• "Böhme suffered the loss of brother Rudolf, killed in action (KIA) in Russia." Delete (KIA).
  • Rewrote. This was pretty namby-pamby.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• "one claim for 2 August 1915 was reportedly confirmed". Reported by whom? Confirmed by whom?
  • No further details in source.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As written it seems a bit hand wavey. You seem to be saying that it was reported - by some unknown person or body - as "confirmed", but wasn't actually confirmed. [?] What does the source actually say?

"Flying with Kasta 10 on the Eastern Front it is reported he shot down three enemy planes in the East but only one was confirmed (2 August 1915), although it is not generally included in his list of victories." Above the Lines, p. 78.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How about something like 'he shot down three aircraft, one of which was confirmed though sources do not include it in his official victory list'?

Done. Scroll down five items for details.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And, in my experience, victory reporting/confirmation on the Russian Front was always hand-wavy.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• "flying a Fokker bearing combat scars". If the scars refer to the plane, perhaps something more encyclopedic?
  • 'Damage' for 'scars'.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "By May 1916, he had been commissioned". With what rank?
  • 'Leutnant', as added.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "On 20 May 1916, Böhme managed leave time". Suggest "managed" → 'was given' or similar.
  • 'Arranged' for 'managed'.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Avoid single sentence paragraphs.

Avoid single sentence paragraphs.

Supplied second sentence for filler.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• "On 2 August 1916, Böhme scored his first accredited aerial victory, downing a Russian Nieuport 12 over Radzyse. After an extended fight, Böhme killed Franco-Latvian ace Eduard Pulpe." If these two sentences refer to the same event, perhaps link them with a semi colon.
  • Rewritten and tightened. Removed material available in victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• "Even as Boelcke scored his final run of 21 aerial victories during September and October 1916, Böhme shot down four more British airplanes." I am struggling to work out what this is trying to communicate.
  • Clarified that Böhme was Boelcke's wingman.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Much better, although, sadly, "wingman" now runs into MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

Given that 'wingman' is in the common vocabulary, the link is not truly needed to understand the term. The link is informative on the subject. Would you opt for deleting it?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Wingman is, IMHO, absolutely not a specialist term. It is a piece of specialist jargon. Entirely appropriate for the article, but it need explaining. Off the top of my head and without sources 'Fighter pilots usually flew in pairs, with one leading attackswingman flying close behind and to one side to protect his leader from attacks from the rear.' (This sort of thing happens all the time - I have a set of stock explanations for the areas I habitually improve articles in. (Eg "stuck his colours"!))

Congratulations, you have rendered Webster's definition nearly word perfect. 'Wingman' is American usage. Still, my query stands: Would you delete the link?

I did? Brownie points for me then. No, you need the link for MOS:UL "An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked and are needed to aid understanding of the article." (Note "aid".) But you need an in line explanation for MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

I have just looked up wingman on the online Websters. The informal US usage is interesting; handy word.

• "On the evening of 27 October 1916, a warweary Boelcke fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess for the quiet of his own bedroom. Böhme joined him there. The two men talked deep into the night, until Boelcke's batman hinted at bedtime to end the conversation." This seems a deep level of trivia and not WP:SS. Suggest deleting the lot.
  • A short night's sleep by two friends, followed by six combat patrols, ending when one kills the other...not trivial.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Please reread the words I have actually quoted. Where do I object to you mentioning the 6 patrols or Boelcke's death? (And Böhme did not "kill" Boelcke.) Rereading the words I am actually querying I fail to see how "protagonist goes to his bedroom, talks with a friend, gets to bed late" is not trivia.

You fail to see that two combat pilots went short of sleep the night before they flew combat. Pilot fatigue may seem trivial to you, but I take a contrary opinion.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If the source explicitly states that fatigue was or may have been a factor then by all means use WP:SS to say something like 'On the night of 27/28 October 1916, Boelcke and Böhme got little sleep and the resultant fatigue may have been a factor in events the following day.'

So if fatigue is explicitly mentioned it's encyclopedic, and if it's implicit it's trivial? That's a Philadelphia lawyer's argument.

This sentence is not only not trivial, it's transitional between days.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not deleting this sentence.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your call. If you are claiming that Boelcke and Böhme were both culpable in the former's death by negligently not getting sufficient sleep and then flying while fatigued without explicit source support I won't be able to support it.

• "who crashed in Allied lines". What does "in Allied lines" mean?
  • Make that 'within'.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What does "within" mean? I understand "behind" or "between", but does "within" mean the plane actually landed in a trench? Or within the Allied frontline trench system? Or what?

No specifics given. Subbed one ambiguity for another in effort to please reviewer.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity in the current pharasing.

• "it began to fly end runs over the North Sea". What is an end run?
  • Per rugby, football, lacrosse, etc: To run around the end of the opposition's defense.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As a keen rugby fan and ex-player I can't recall ever hearing this applied to the sport. Which is besides the point. A reader should not need to know the specialist jargon of a sport (which they may barely have heard of) to make sense of an article.

Websters defines the term; Oxford does not. Looks like a clash between usages. At any rate, I am here to inform the reader rather than baffle the Brits. Changes made.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

An excellent attitude, it will hold you in good stead.

• Werner 1930 needs a publisher.
  • Indeed it does, but I have not found it.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

K.F. Koehler

Many thanks.

Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

More in a bit. Thank you for the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Done for now.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. Feel free to come back at me over any of my comments of suggestions you are not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Some responses above, plus:

• Avoid single sentence paragraphs.
  • Supplied second sentence for filler.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus, entirely optionally, if you fancy some "revenge", I have a brand new article (currently at User:Gog the Mild/Battle of Winwick) which will be going to GAN in the next day or two. (And then to FAC.) Would you like first refusal on reviewing it at GAN? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It is now at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Two issues left - wingman and fatigue. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No issues left. This article is written in American usage; wingman is so common in American usage that it's even a slang term for a social friend.
  • And we have to agree to disagree about the importance of the sentence you want deleted. I am not removing it.
  • I am sorry to seem contentious; I value your insights.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Hey Gog the Mild any update here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No. If pressed I will oppose on the basis of the two issues above. If both were satisfactorily addressed I would grit my teeth and support as just barely creeping over the A-class threshold and to encourage a first-timer; see Harris's comments and summary below as to where and how else it falls short. A lot of good work has been done here and there are the solid bones of a decent article. But the nominator is reluctant to make changes to improve it further so that it meets the A class criteria and the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Harrias

Right, let's take a look at this.

• Provide a conversion into miles for three-kilometer race.
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "However, upon landing in the midst of war breaking out, he reported to his old infantry regiment, despite turning 35 at month's end. Erwin Böhme promptly volunteered for aviation duty." I don't like the short sentence at the end, and think this would be better all rolled into one, longer sentence.
  • An occasional short sentence among longer ones makes for an easier read.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "..one claim for 2 August 1915 was reportedly confirmed.." Reported by who? If we have a source, it would be better attributed: eg. "..according to xyz the claim for 2 August 1915 was confirmed.."
  • Please read my discussion with Gog the Mild about this very item.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I have just done so, but I shouldn't need to have to read an assessment article to understand the nuances of the article. Give the context in the article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "Shortly thereafter, Oswald Boelcke dropped in to visit his brother, flying a Fokker bearing combat damage." I'm not sure what this adds to our understanding of Böhme, and would recommend removing it.
  • It is Böhme's first meeting with the man who will become his friend, mentor, and commanding officer.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Then present it that way in the article. Otherwise, it is just unnecessary fluff. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "leutnant" should be coded as German-language text.
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "Kampstaffel 10 shifted theaters in June 1916, transferring from France to Kovel, Russia. This posting would lead to his transfer to fighter aviation." Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, blend this in with the subsequent paragraph.
  • But I have avoided a single sentence paragraph by adding a second sentence. Both sentences pertain to the transfer. The next para pertains to his Russian service, not the squadron's transfer.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "After the brothers conferred.." I would favour "After conferring with his brother.."
  • It would be a mutual discussion, so I left it as is.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "hullabaloo" is informal language rather than encyclopaedic language, switch it for an alternative.
  • "Clamor" for "hullabaloo".Georgejdorner (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "On the evening of 27 October 1916, a war-weary Boelcke fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess for the quiet of his own bedroom. Böhme joined him there. The two men talked deep into the night, until Boelcke's batman hinted at bedtime to end the conversation." This paragraph seems unnecessary. The strength of the friendship between Böhme and Boelcke has been well established in the previous section, this is just unnecessary filler.
  • Will you please refer to my previous discussion with Gog on this subject?Georgejdorner (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I have read it. It hasn't changed my opinion. It is unnecessary filler. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "The collision appeared minor, but was mortal." Probably just personal preference, but I think "fatal" would work better than "mortal" here.
  • I do believe you are correct. Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "..he would not recall.." should probably be "..he could not recall.." unless the sources states it was an intentional refusal, rather than an inability.
  • Excellent point. Change made. Also, slight rewrite and condensation.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "Even though he could not recall his own accident.." To avoid repetition, try "Even though he did not remember his own accident.."
  • Changed in rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "As the leading ace of the war, he was a national hero, lionized by generals and nobility as well as the public. His death shocked both the German public and military." Honestly, these two sentences more or less say the same thing, and don't both need to be there.
  • Actually, they do not say the same thing. The first sentence does not mention public reaction; the second does not mention his being a national hero. Both sentences are appropriate and necessary.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • It is excessively hagiographic, and the repetition is awkward. If you don't want to remove one sentence, at least find a better way of rewriting it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "E.M. Roberts" Per the MOS, space the initials: E. M.
  • Fixed typo.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Does "Hart (2005), p. 355." directly support the claim that April was "the most momentous month of aerial combat of the war"?
  • No, it does not. I am researching the source of that claim, pending future change.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• What are "end runs"?
  • Another American usage I have discussed with Gog.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • If it isn't understandable to an international audience, it shouldn't be included. See MOS:COMMONALITY. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "..traveled back to Berlin to lobby for his squadron." What was he lobbying for? Better pay, conditions, or was he lobbying to keep his squadron? Too ambiguous as written.
  • To quote the source, which quote comes from elsewhere: "raise some of the Staffel's concerns directly at the source in Berlin." So, ambiguous from the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • In that case, rephrase to "..to lobby on behalf of his squadron." for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• No need for the Easter egg link to Werner Voss#Final patrol, the direct link to his biography is sufficient.
  • As his death is referred to, I linked to his death rather than his life.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have a few issues surrounding the 20th victory. In the quote, he says "in which our friend was sitting" but no explanation is given in the article: are we supposed to know who this is? The subsequent sentence "And so it was that the 20th aerial victory that qualified Böhme for the Pour le Merite was a surrender." comes across more as journalistic rather than a formal, academic tone as required by the MOS.
  • The given quote seems clear to me. An enemy pilot is sitting in his airplane, and is forced to surrender.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • It might be clear to you, but it isn't clear to me, the reader. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• "With the Battle of Cambrai raging.." Avoid the Noun plus -ing construction.
  • Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• "In 1921, Böhme's purloined final letter to Annamarie.." Remove "purloined"; it has already been explained what happened to it, the use of the word here is unnecessarily inflammatory.
  • I agree that 'purloined' is not quite right, but a reminder is needed that the letter went astray. Any suggestions?Georgejdorner (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• The table needs a table caption and row and column scopes to adhere to MOS:DTT.
  • I'll have to research this, and return to change it.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't understand the citations to "Werner (1930), p. translated excerpt.." Are they all on the same page? Where have these translated excerpts been seen?
  • Sorry. Should have said 'unpaginated'.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Overall this is a decent article, but it suffers throughout from being written more like a journalistic or informal biography than a formal encyclopaedia article. I have highlighted the most egregious examples above, but generally it could do with a thorough copy edit to adopt a more formal style as required by the MOS. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Could you please refer me to the MOS requirement for a formal style?Georgejdorner (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Isn't explicitly given, but plenty of references to formal writing throughout. Just search "formal" in the MOS search bar.
• Georgejdorner Small reminder here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Georgejdorner: Replied to a few. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Nominator doesn't look to be active at the moment. Clarifying that as things stand, I oppose this nomination as failing A2 and A4 of the A-class criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Republic F-84 Thunderjet

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Republic F-84 Thunderjet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A reassessment nomination. A 2006 a-class promotion that contains substantial uncited text; would likely be assessed as a start-class or c-class today. Original nominator has not edited since 2014. Hog Farm _Talk 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, no better than start or maybe (very generously) C class (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to try and provide some cites for the uncited bits - and to provide where possible more useful cites rather than citing the whole book - help would be helpful of course - does anyone have a link to the original A-class review?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: - It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've notified the MilHist and Aircraft projects. Hopefully this will bring more help.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments: Most of the sourcing issues on the main "Design and development" and "Operational history" sections should be fixable as long as enough effort is put in, although page numbers for "McLaren 19982 would be helpful - similarly, the "Variants" section should be fixable. The "Operators " section is a bit of a mess as it seems to be trying to cover all F-84s, not just the straight-wing Thunderjets that are the subject of the article - this should either be trimmed back to just cover Thunderjets or split off to cover all F-84s, leaving a summary and redirect design. The "Aircraft on display" section seems to be badly sourced (with both unsourced entries and entries with non-RS sourcing) - some thought is needed for this section.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)