Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMilitary history Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Additional information:
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.


Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.

Coordinator tasks[edit]

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
A-Class review
  • For each ongoing A-Class review:
    1. Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
    2. If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, follow the procedure below for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
  • At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews:
    1. Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. Methods are to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table or to use the Pages Created tool to isolate GA nomination pages created by a specific user. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions.
    3. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
    4. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
  • Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table.
  • Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe)
  • Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.

Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.

Member affairs

How to...[edit]

Boilerplate and templates[edit]

Open tasks[edit]

Topics for future discussion[edit]

  • Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
  • Article improvement drives
  • Notability guideline for battles
  • Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
  • Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
  • How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
  • Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
  • Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
  • Improving/maintaining popular pages
  • Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
  • Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
  • Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
  • Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
  • Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
  • Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)

Missing academy articles[edit]

Open award nominations[edit]

Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:

ACRs for closure[edit]

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either promotion or non-promotion, by any uninvolved coordinator. The closing coordinator should check the review page carefully to ensure that there are three general supports and supports (or passes) for both the image and the source reviews, and that there are no outstanding points to be addressed. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail.

MILHIST CCI cases[edit]

The following open CCI cases contain MILHIST articles (some usernames are omitted from the case titles because they are real names):

  1. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye
  2. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819
  3. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
  4. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
  5. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
  6. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
  7. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
  8. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
  9. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
  10. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
  11. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bluecountrymutt
  12. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
  13. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833
  14. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230508


ACR to-do list for January 2024[edit]

I've done a slightly eccentric image review. The kind where I search out the originals so better copies can be used. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to now be the oldest one now pending. I will try to get to it before the end of the month if no one else reviews it earlier. Adding that I may put John Bullock Clark ahead of it since that one is now far along. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if stuff needs image reviews, ask me. I've worked with images long enough. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon and A-class status[edit]

Napoleon was promoted to GA in July 2008, and received A-class status a month later. In 2021 it was demoted from GA status, but still retains its A-class designation. When an article is demoted at GA, should it still be listed as A-class here? Does an A-class reeassessment have to be opened to discuss its designation? Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: As A-class criteria differs to that of GA-class criteria, a separate reassessment is needed. (@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I don't know if this is something we should be looking into? I remember discussions relating to this happening before but believe that the aforementioned requirement is still the status quo. Seems a little absurd to keep B (or worse) articles as A class when we generally consider A class to be higher than GA, despite the differing requirements). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't automatically demote an A-class article that's lost its GA status but I think such a situation is a prima facie reason to look at conducting a formal review of the article's A-class status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we should watch for similar GA (and FA?) demotions in future and automatically list them for A class review? Maybe a bot could do it for us? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found eight other examples of delisted GA articles that are currently still A class: Johann Mickl, Jean de Carrouges, Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), Hans Philipp, Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), Keith Miller, Arab–Byzantine wars, Home Army. Only Waldmann and Philipp have survived A class reassessment after a GA delist. Schierbecker (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The rules at FAC and GA are that demoted articles revert to their project status. We had an issue with FAs and GAs being demoted on ideological and political grounds unrelated to article quality. So the project determined that demoted articles retain their A-class rating pending an A-class reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The project has a section in articles for review about FA reviews and GA reviews. The question may be if no one from the project is participating or closely following the reviews, does anyone know the outcome so that there can be a follow-up? One reason given for demoting articles recently is that they are too long. I think this should not be a hard and fast rule (15,000 words or some number of bytes or something like that), at least for demotions other than FA. I suppose there is a concern that long FA articles won't be read in entirety. I am not sure if that is always merited. From only the quickest glance, Andrew Jackson is an article up for review that appears to have ideological objections, as Hawkeye noted. Perhaps other objections are thrown in to make a case. I did not take more than a glance at the already long review. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mickl (commander of a German-Croatian division that operated in Yugoslavia) is still listed as A-Class, I wrote it ten years ago, and I certainly have learned a lot since then. My view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but along the lines Hawkeye mentioned, most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a list made a couple years ago of older A-Class promotions to check for those that may have deteriorated or been under poor standards. A few from that have been delisted. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 that was mostly about whether a GA can be stricken based on WP:TOOBIG. I strongly believe that an article is as long or short as it needs to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related. Did anyone else notice that the new banner shell is reverting some FA-class Milhist articles to A class? Thirteen examples listed here. Schierbecker (talk)

@Hawkeye7: Is this not the issue you brought up several days ago? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. I thought it had been corrected and a bot run to repair the broken template. Is it still occurring? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Qwerfjkl says, Schierbecker, thank you for bringing my attention to this. I've fixed it now. There was a flaw in my logic for detecting opted-out wikiprojects. I will revert and rerun the bot on the milhist pages with issues. Schierbecker (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid duplication let's continue the discussion here, not at my talk page. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Hi, thanks for fixing that! Greatly appreciated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the FAs. Let me know if there are any other pages that need fixing. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cewbot made the same error on William T. Anderson, Ulysses S. Grant and Fatimid conquest of Egypt on January 2. I just fixed them. Is that what Pickersgill-Cunliffe was talking about earlier? Schierbecker (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker, I've only looked at the first one but it wasn't caused by Cewbot. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Cewbot only caused the error on Talk:Fatimid conquest of Egypt. Sorry, going error blind. Schierbecker (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496[edit]


We see that you have our Vultee Valiant listed at Florida Keys Int'l Airport (information pulled from FAA). Just updating that this aircraft is not only airworthy but has the original crankshaft start mechanism. It is owned by Island Warbirds ( located at Florida Keys Flight Academy in Marathon, FL

1942 BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496


Island Warbirds Islandwarbirds (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to add a citation and not add any promotional or advertising material to the article. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: no edits were made to the article after these posts up to the date of this comment. It appears it will be left to a project member to amend the article, with citation, as may be needed. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on assessment of "too many primary primary sources" template[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Does a too many primary sources template prevent an assessment of B class, or even C class, if sufficient citations are provided. In the case of the article that has raised the question for me the primary sources are mainly US Army publications, which are verifiable and adequately credible sources for the topic Sapper Leader Course. Does that make a difference if the answer generally is that the assessment must be no higher than start or C? Thanks.
I may be offline for more time than I have been recently if setting up a new computer and a few other tasks that I need to work on take more time than expected or if a family member, who unfortunately has just tested positive for covid, gives me another infection. I have been online most days. This is as info if I have a sudden longer period of absence. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "too many primary sources" template does not prevent an assessment of B class. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES: articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The covid infection in our household is worsening. Paxlovid has been prescribed and started. Donner60 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping everyone makes a swift recovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All testing negative now. I now have some catching up to do. I'll be changing my user box to show I have survived two covid infections. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACR backlog[edit]

We've got 7 ACRs still open from 2023:

This one is ready to be closed. Zawed (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be moving soon and will be time-limited but will see what all I can review. An organized effort to keep ACR running may be necessary because this has been backlogged for most of the past year or so. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCheck report for February[edit]

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

  • 1999 Tempe military base shooting Removed military history project assessment with this edit summary: "removed military history project assessment and restored start class assessment; this is not in the scope of the military history project and should not have been assessed by the bot; it is about a crime that happened to have taken place on a military base; if it deserves a different assessment, another project such as crime and criminal biography must assess it." Donner60 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Further note, after being question about this, I noted that the one cited different example had different content more relevant to this project and that a B assessment, apparently by the crime project, remains on the talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) I have asked for comments about my removal of this type of article (this one in particular) on the coordinator talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon-class frigate (1795) B class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antoni Koper B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aqaba Fortress B class. Donner60 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armed struggle against the Brazilian military dictatorship B class. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Gordali (1852) Downgraded to C with this edit summary, "reduced to C, some groups are introduced without full identification, some terms unexplained, progression difficult to follow, no detail on end; relies mostly on one source, non-English; large part of battle is an elided long excerpt from a reference which is not clear; fails b2 and probably b1 and b4, but leaving at C rather than start." I have already added several rather long comments on just a few articles; sorry about the wordy comments but I already view a number of lower class articles that I think need explanations and in some cases further thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Kasahrada B class. Noting that some alternate accounts are mentioned shedding some doubt on certain facts. Maybe this is all that can be found. Appears to be a valid event, suitably referenced so I can accept the bot assessment. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Lohgarh B class. Corrected the link to the Lohgarh which was the location of the battle. Last section could use a little clarification but seems good enough to stay at B. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Mulhouse (1674) B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Namacurra B class. Rather brief but a small battle in terms of numbers; perhaps there is not much more to be written about it. Donner60 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Turubah (1813) Reduced assessment to start due to clarification needed tag, some expansion apparently needed to clarify and failed verification tag. Donner60 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Victumulae Downgraded to start. Lacking at least one citation. Poorly written: run-on and unclear sentences, b4. Donner60 (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) Similar comment as I added to War for Brest (1182–1183) a short time ago. The editor has been working on Wikipedia since December 17 and was blocked indefinitely by Cullen328 on February 22 for "Disruptive editing: Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism." This article is also poorly written, much of it not even dealing with a military event. There is a note that the date of the expedition is actually unknown. A similiar article about a Boleslaw II has a template including unreliable sources. They are not in English so can't be checked. I haven't decided yet how far to reduce the rating and whether this should be considerably pruned. The article about Boleslaw II was not written by this editor and has a phrase that lends some reason to think this was an actual event. So I am amending this comment to rule out my proposing this for deletion. In short, however, it is a very poor article. If anyone wishes to complete this assessment earlier, please go ahead. Donner60 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Comment amended. Donner60 (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) A user who appears to contest several PRODs daily has contested this deletion, so it will need to be considered further. Donner60 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Demoted to start class. Donner60 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bombing of Gaza A real mess this one. Although it is cited, when I checked I found cites that did not support the text. Hawkeye7

(discuss) 06:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) :Reassess as start class with this edit summary: "reassess bot assessment for military history project and in banner shelll as start, fails b1 due to sources failing verification and otherwise suspect, fails b2 for incomplete coverage." Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACR for Crusading movement ready for closure[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I have completed a third review for this article and the points raised have been addressed. The previous two reviews and responses were so thorough that I had only a few comments. Nonetheless, since no other third reviewer commented in whole or in significant part, I think it is proper for a completely uninvolved coordinator to close this one. Donner60 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Scope: (1) crimes on military bases; (2) terrorist attacks on military bases[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I recently removed the project banner from an article that was about a mass shooting by a soldier at a military base (1999 Tempe military base shooting). It was not a foreign base and had no military event or operation connected with it. I considered this simply as a crime that happened to have been committed on an air base. I ask that whether there are contrary views or precedents about this being within the scope of the project.
I have just assessed an article as within the scope of the project with the note that I would give further thought and inquiry as to whether this too should only be within the crime and, in this case, the terrorism projects Mianwali air base attack. I think this is a closer call but possibly different enough for a different result. The event was an attack by nine jihadist militants against a Pakistani military base. Three aircraft were damaged and the article states that "The Pakistani Armed Forces repelled the attack, killing all nine attackers during the security operation." Are the additional facts enough to bring this within the scope of the project or is this still simply a large crime committed by terrorists? I will appreciate your help in defining the scope of the project in such situations. Donner60 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lean towards including it since we broadly define anything related to the military to be within our scope, so it passes that criteria in spades. You're also talking about soldiers attacking other soldiers (in the former case), which broadly fits the definition of a battle. As for the airbase attack, that's an attack on a military installation which by western definition would come under the "war on terror", so it could be reasonbly included. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black River Bridge[edit]

Fully reviewed. Promoted to A class. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New academy page[edit]

I have documented our procedure for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to A-class reviews, any thoughts on creating a separate heading on the review page for them? I think it would be useful to split the re-assessments out from the actual reviews. Just a new level two header either above or below the extant "Current reviews" slot. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I've split out the reassessments, but don't know whether this will upset the bot? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be okay. Unlike FACBot, it does not sort the entries chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this is something the bot could do, but it might be useful if the bot could automatically identify a-class articles that have lost FA or GA and list them in a particular section for reassessment. As it is now articles will be falling through the cracks, as we rely on editors noticing an article has lost its status and manually putting it up for review. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The could be done by the bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCheck report for March[edit]

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I have approved all the quarterly awards except my own. Note that with the promotion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort McKavett State Historic Site at A-Class, Vami IV has been posthumously nominated for an A-class medal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]