Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
- Instructions
- Requesting a review
To request the first A-Class review of an article:
- 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).
- 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. - Add
A-Class=current
to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after theclass=
orlist=
field). - 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.
- List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}}
at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.- 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". )
- 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).
- Restrictions
- An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
- 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.
- An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.
- 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
Reviewingby 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 reviewingby Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments
Reviewingby 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 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
edit | 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
[edit]- Please add new requests below this line
« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
SPARS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class on behalf of Pendright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
SPARS is about the Women who served in the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve during WW II. Created by the U.S Congress, it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secret LORAN project was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARS and believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]- GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)
- The details in the Notes section require references
- Mullin (1992) is not used
- fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"
- Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
- I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.
- fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
- I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
- I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
- Fixed.
- Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
- Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
- Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.
- Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg, File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg, File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg, File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg, File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg - USAF images - PD in the United States - okay
- File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg - DOD image - PD in the United States - okay
- File:F-22 RFI.jpg - USAF image - a source would be nice
- File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg, File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg, File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg, File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png, File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg - no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay
- File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png - Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay
All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Schierbecker
[edit]Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.
- Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
- US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
- The distinction between WP:GENREF and "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
- Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
- Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. not
the Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.
) - delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
- Advise adding brief in-text description of the Packard Commission (e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
- "SR-71-like" needs an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH
- Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120
Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?- Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val.
They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure,
awkward. consider rephrasing.The seven bids were submitted in July 1986.
Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank.
confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design,
meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure
Try: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".- Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090P
Scrutiny from whom?
Schierbecker (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
- Standardized on "U.S."
- As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
- I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
- For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
- The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
- The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
- I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
- System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
- Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.
- Steve7c8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)
Tim Hughes (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 6,564 This article is about a decorated Australian Aboriginal soldier of the Second World War who went on to achieve success in the soldier-settlement scheme after the war and was appointed MBE for his inaugural chairmanship of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Not a lot of corporals with their own articles, but Hughes has his own entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hawkeye7
[edit]Great article. Very little to say. Very impressive.
- No spelling errors detected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
[edit]- File:Tim Hughes MBE MM.jpg, File:Land clearing team at Keppock.jpg, - copyright expired - okay
- File:Tim Hughes MBE MM grave plaque.jpg - 3D artwork - Wikipedian generated CC 4.0 - okay
- File:Tim Hughes Stadium, Repat Health Precinct.jpg - Wikipedian generated CC 4.0 - okay
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Source review - pass
[edit]- Sources are reliable and reputable
- No issues with formatting.
- Spot checks: 3, 8, 32, 33 - okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:
- Perhaps change the "Aborginal" in the first sentence of the lead to "Aboriginal Australian"? I know that the former mostly always implies the latter but a clarification would still help.
- I've restored Australian Aboriginal, which is the article title. Aboriginal was removed by an editor on the basis of MOS:ETHNICITY, but that doesn't apply here, as his Aboriginality is central to his notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "at the fifth grade": won't "till the fifth grade," be better?
- It now says until he completed the fifth grade. Will that do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "suffered with": "suffered from"?
- Good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can we introduce in 1 or 2 words who Lowitja was in the lead and body, per NOFORCELINK?
- Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "made a modest success of farming": "had modest success at farming"?
- tweaked this, hopefully better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon you would like to take this article to FAC. In that case, you should move around the lead a little so its length is 4 paragraphs instead of the current 3.
- Another editor has done this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why have we linked to South Australia in the body but not in the lead?
- No idea, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- What was the reason for the first hospital stay in the Middle East?
- circumcision. I didn't think it was necessary to include that detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "was recovered": "had recovered"?
- yes, that was odd. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Wingfield?
- "made a reasonable success of his farm": "had reasonable success at ..."?
- Wouldn't the Tim Hughes stadium picture be better placed in the Post war section than in the footnotes?
- Can't due to sandwiching. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since we are using the 1993 edition for Wilmot, consider using ISBN 13 instead of 10, as done for all the other sources?
- Consider adding images of the Battles of Tobruk, the Salient, Milne Bay and Buna Gona? For people who don't have many photograhps, I have seen photos od the events they were involved in being used on here.
- OK, added a couple, surprisingly few of the 2/10th unfortunately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A good read overall Matarisvan (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Matarisvan. See what you think of my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Nick-D
[edit]I'd like to offer the following comments on this fine article:
- I'd suggest linking 2/10th Battalion in the lead
- the older sister of Lowitja O'Donoghue - I'd suggest noting who Lowitja O'Donoghue is
- Given that First Nations Australians were officially banned from joining the military in 1939, can anything be said about how Hughes was able to enlist and remain enlisted? Many other First Nations men who enlisted at this time were discharged not long afterwards.
- He snuck in before the restrictive orders were issued, there were several from SA who managed it. Almost all of those who enlisted in 1940 were discharged, things relaxed later in the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can anything be said about Hughes experiences in the Army? Various sources note that when/once First Nations people were able to make it into the military they generally experienced far less discrimination than in civilian life.
- Haven't been able to find anything about his experience of it specifically, but the fact that he was decorated and promoted to section commander over white soldiers gives a fair indication any racism wasn't too egregious and he was accepted on his merits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- " In 1956 he requested and received exemption from the Aborigines Act, although he deeply resented what was referred to as a "dog licence" and expressed criticism about the way Aboriginal people were treated. " - I'd suggest explaining the background here
- Just locating a good source for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- " Hughes was only permitted expenses of 18 pounds a week" - was this standard for soldier-settlers, or did it apply to the First Nations ones only? Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sources don't say. It would be interesting to know though. I'll see if I can find a source before I bring it to FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Note to PM @Peacemaker67: Ping me if this article needs another general review. Pendright (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Ernest J. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral, Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.
- Remove the double link to the Atlantic Fleet in the lead?
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since we have so much material in the body, consider expanding the lead to 4 paragraphs?
- Any suggestions as to what other things could be mentioned? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, articles with more than 3,500 words need 3 to 4 paragraph long leads. As such, I will rescind my ask for a 4 para lead. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "served in the cruiser": "on" instead of "in" would be better?
Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- "flagship or Rear Admiral": "of"?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Remove the second link to cruiser in the body?
Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Remove the second link to destroyer below the Mayo staff pic?
Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do we know what exactly King disliked about Wilson?
Different personalities. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rework the Swanson part of the sentence to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Something like "Claude A. Swanson, the new Secretary of the Navy" instead?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- "as indeed did occur": sounds a little off, "as indeed occured" may be better?
Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to G7e torpedo?
- Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You will have to get rid of the disputed neutrality tag on the War in the Atlantic section.
- I hope it can be removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- We say he got his first Navy DSC for the salvage of S-51 in the lead and body. But we do not mention what the other two DSCs were for in either the lead or body, only in the Citations section do we have those details.
Mentioned in connection with salvage of the S-4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What I have noticed is that Dates of Rank and Awards sections are ok at A class level but not at FA level. Especially since you already mention, in chronological order, his promotions in the lead sections. Zawed might be best able to resolve this.
- I have other articles that went through FAC with Dates of Rank sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was quite surprised to see you had used plain <ref> tags instead of sfns. I hope you will change to the latter before nominating for FAC?
- I would greatly prefer it. MOS:STYLERET:
If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) - I could not understand this. Will you be changing to the sfns or not? Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would oppose that, you should open a new section for this on the talk page. Matarisvan (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would greatly prefer it. MOS:STYLERET:
- Location of publication is needed for Barlow 1998, Buell 1998, Heinrichs 1998, Stoler 2003
- You could consider using the ISBN converter for converting ISBN numbers from 10 digits to 13 digits.
- WP:ISBN:
if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it
- WP:ISBN:
- Remove the double link to John B. Hattendorf in Hattendorf 2023?
- I think this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, perhaps we should get a second opinion? Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Year of publication needed for Hone & Utz.
- Link to , as done for other journals?
- Consider adding the category Recipients of the Order of Naval Merit (Brazil)?
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:
- Ref #30: Add Home of Heroes as the website?
- Add an archive link for ref #31? I can't access it, don't know if this holds for others as well. Also, consider running the Internet Archive bot through the page once.
Added archive link. It was working a few weeks ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Source #68: Add Warfare History Network as the website?
- Source #89: Can the 3 weird letters after Order 8984 be removed? They seem to be transcription errors.
No, it is a unicode/Latin-1251 conversion artefact. The moral is to never use ndashes and mdashes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to The Baltimore Sun, as done for other newspapers?
- Source #172: Clarify that the journal is the Proceedings of the Naval Institute?
Added link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why did King receive the Philippine Camapign Medal? Our texts do not mention his being involved in the Philippine-American Wars of the 1910s. We do mention his involvement in the Philippine Campaign in WWII. I think this is is a mixup?
- The Far East tour in the the cruiser USS Cincinnati. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Add King's name to the Notable recipients section on the Mexican Service Medal page?
Added King and Leahy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A class on the general text, image and source reviews below. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:Naval Aviator Badge.jpg: Can be replaced with File:Naval Aviator Badge.png, since the Commons page recommends that. Also PD-US is not appropriate here, PD-USGov-Military award is better.
- Replaced with the PNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the foreign awards images, have the respective governments released copyright over the badges? Are there tags like PD-USGov-Military award for all these countries? If not, you will have to remove them, I had similar issues at one of my FACs.
- I would think that ribbons fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. That is a matter for Commons. If they delete them, then they will disappear from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I think this issue will most certainly pop up at FAC. Anyways, I'm not qualified enough on image reviews so I will pass this review, any concerns on the foreign awards can be dealt with at FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- None of the images have alt texts. If it is ok with you then I would like to add the alts myself, though I don't think I could so for the images of the ranks and the awards as that would be too tiring.
- Sure. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
All other images have appropriate tags. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]- Archive URLs needed for:
Refs #24, #46, #66, #71-73, #92, #95, #100, #103, #121, #146, #171, #174-175, #180, #183-186, #188-192; Cline 1951, Hattendorf 2023, King 1909, King 1932, Sternhell & Thorndike 1946, Reimers 2018, Morton 1985, Kohnen 2018.
- For Miller, Jappert & Jackson 2023, could we add this link if it is the correct one along with the archive URL?
- Spot checks:
- 24, #34, #36, #72, #73, #92, #121, #143, #157, #184: all ok. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, just saw that you have implemented the changes suggested above. The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
wtfiv
[edit]I finally have a chance to get to this...
General question...I didn't see a template for Class A review on the article's talk page. Did I miss it?
- We don't normally transclude it. There is a link in the project box. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Early life and education
[edit]- No comments.
Surface ships
[edit]- The first sentence provides an interesting fact, but may mislead the reader. It starts with "Graduates who had been selected for the Marines", since King is the topic of this article and Marines are the topic of this sentence, it implies King is in the Marines. Can this be reworded, or even the reference to Marine's removed. As the point is that before being commissioned as an ensign, King had to serve two years. Perhaps King could be mentioned in that first sentence. This would also make the link to the second paragraph, which begins King was promoted more clear and continuous.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- King got to know his staff well Though a reader can take the energy to correct the perception, the pronominal anaphor implies that the staff is King's not Crowninshield. Can this be reworded?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider rewording Bouts of heavy drinking making King the subject to more explicitly signal the change of topic for the reader. For six sentences the topic has been the Cincinnati. It is now returning to King, but without warning, only when the 'him' arrives (which references to a subject seven sentences previously) does it signal the reader that the Cincinnati is not the topic. (It may require "King" in the following sentence to become He.)
Split paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the third paragraph seems off topic. The paragraph defines King's family and describes Mattie. The last line suddenly addresses King's temper. It sort of follows through an associative logic, as the paragraph is talking about family and the quote is from his daughter. Is there another way to integrate this into the article more appropriately? (If not, it's worth keeping. I think the point is too important to remove.)
Moved it down below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider reworking paragraph 5.
- The paragraph opens with an explanation of the lieutenant promotion process, the second sentence reads as a continuation of this until the word "his" appears at the end of the second sentence. Could King (or "he") be introduced earlier, ideally in the first sentence?
Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also consider deleting as an ensign from the first sentence as it is used already.
Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The information about the fate of those who failed the examination is interesting, but is it relevant since King will pass? I'd suggest deleting. The following sentence makes it clear that the promotion requires training and physical examinations.
Relevant. Today it is very unusual for officers to skip the rank of lieutenant (junior grade); the article explains why King did so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraphs 8 and 9, and perhaps The first paragraph of submarines
- Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?
Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Moving the breast-pocket material out of the paragraph would make King's becoming the head of the Naval Postgraduate School the lead topic of paragraph 9, which would be more relevant, career-wise.
- Though a knowledgeable reader might be able to infer that the Naval Postgraduate School was in Annapolis at the time due to the sentence about him buying a house. I think it is important to make it explicit, as well as making it explicit that it was still directly under the Naval Academy. This will help readers make sense of his request to return to sea in the first paragraph of Submarines.
Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest moving the first paragraph of Submarines into this section and merging it into King's becoming head of the Post Graduate institute. It would make the Annapolis episode (becoming head of NPS, getting a house, learning about a new superintendent) one continuous narrative. The sections about the USS Bridge could be included as these preceed King's relationship to submarines, which is the topic of the next section.
Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?
Submarines
[edit]- Paragraph 1
- (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.
Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider deleting therefore. Would it be possible to rework this a bit Leahy told him that nothing was available. King eventually accepted... It sounds like Leahy told King "no", but then King got a ship anyway. (I think I can infer what happened, but it is a bit confusing for a casual reader.)
Yes. Made more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider deleting careerist. Aren't ambitious officers already careerist? It also indirectly implies that King was careerist. I'm sure to some extent he was, but the character being constructed is far more ambitious than careerist as he has a reputation for a temper and being critical.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.
- Paragraph 2
- Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the section After a year may need to be more specific. Also, consider removing again as "another command" already implies the repitition.
Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The second sentence begins Once again, that's fine but points to the need to rework the relationship between Leahy's comments and King accepting command of the USS Bridge. If he was told again that nothing was available, he shouldn't have been able to get a command on the USS Bridge, even if it seemed a second-rate command. Perhaps the problem is the word "nothing"? Does "nothing" mean a surface warship? If the "nothing" in paragraph 1 can be clarified, it might help clear up the apparent contradiction.
Made it clear that we are talking about a destroyer division or flotilla. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider merging the two sentences about Leahy and submarines into one. Something like: "Leahy let King know that if he was interested in submarines, Leahy could offer him command of a submarine division."
Merged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify "Submarine Base" in the paragraph? The paragraph has mentioned the Submarine School in New London, but not the base. I'm assuming you mean the school and the base, but a casual reader may be confused to the reference to a base that had not been mentioned before.
Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the section After a year may need to be more specific. Also, consider removing again as "another command" already implies the repitition.
Aviation
[edit]- Paragraph 2
- I'm unsure of the significance of this sentence He was the only captain... At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?
Clarified that a captain is a very senior officer, and it was very rare (and unheard of today) to see one in flight school; most are ensigns or lieutenants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, normally, it would be young officers, but the situation described was unusual, so it was easy to assume that lots of more senior officers wanted to earn their wings at the time to enhance their chances at promotion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of the significance of this sentence He was the only captain... At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?
- Paragraph 3
- Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.
Moved to the first sentence. The real point here is that King really was an aviator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Observation): I'm not sure what can be done about it but the current first sentence has flew solo...flying..solo flying...solo flights.. It feels like a bit of repitition, though it has the advantage of reducing ambiguity.
Removed one instance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.
- Quote
- (Comment only) Though I'm not generally a fan of long quotes, this one is an exception. It is particularly apt for defining King's character, attitude and outlook.
- Paragraph 6
- Consider breaking up the sentence starting Following the death. There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.
Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider breaking up the sentence starting Following the death. There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.
- Paragraph 7
- Leahy has already been introduced, so the full name is not needed, though his new rank and role may still need to be defined.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Leahy has already been introduced, so the full name is not needed, though his new rank and role may still need to be defined.
- Paragraph 8
- The sentence King was summoned... initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)
Moved the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sentence King was summoned... initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)
- Paragraph 9
- The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.
Tweaked the wording. Anybody who wasn't in a crash wasn't flying enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the topic of the paragraph shouldn't the last sentence focus on the command? Something like "He became Commander... and was promoted to vice admiral...at the time..." as his desire for the Battle Force command is the focus of the paragraph"
Clarified that what happened was Leahy succeeding Standley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.
- Paragraph 10
- Consider breaking the second sentence into two.
More to come... Wtfiv (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
World War II, General Board
[edit]- Paragraph 1.
- I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan, p.15. All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This '68 Time article seems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.
- That is because the Naval General Board was abolished in 1951. It is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The paragraph is only two sentences long, would it make sense to merge it with paragraph 2, perhaps combining paragraph 1 and 2?
- Sounds good...though the Elephant's Graveyard article could use a citation showing that the term had been in general use before the Vietnam War...but that's not relevant to this article and this review. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan, p.15. All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This '68 Time article seems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.
- Paragraph 3
- posed a greater threat..., a fear that.... Could this be reworded, as a threat is not necessarily a fear. Here's a suggestion: "bigger bombs, posing a greater threat to the fleet, which would soon be confirmed in combat."
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet
[edit]- Paragraph 1
- On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?
Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?
- Paragraph 2
- The section starting at the sentence on page 2 seems unclear It goes from war plan in safe with war in Mexico, to war footing, to already at war with Germany seems to be telescoping something. At first read, it is sounds like he found a plan for war with Mexico, put the fleet on a war footing, then claimed it was for a war with Germany. (i.e., covering his tracks for a misorder.) My guess is something more like he found the fleet unprepared, which was demonstrated by his finding obsolete plans for a war with Mexico, decided to take swift action to get the fleet organized for the war with Germany, or rather the somewhat cool undeclared war. I'm guessing that the directive was part of this initiative? Could this paragraph be reworked so casual readers don't have to puzzle it out?
- Paragraph 3
- for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.
This is a World War II-era idiom. Roosevelt proclaimed an Unlimited National Emergency in May 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The second half of this paragraph has a different topic than the first half. Reader's will assume that Rather than... begins a topic continuing the point about being CINCLANT or giving up drinking. The second half seems like it should be its own paragraph, and would be better starting with the new topic (e.g., "On the eve of the ..., Germany withdrew its submarines rather than risk...") This new paragraph can then be merged with paragraph 4, which continues the discussion of Roosevelt's further steps. The first half of Paragraph 3 could be merged into the end of paragraph 2, as its only a one month difference between January and February.
Moved the text about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- A reader might reasonably guess that it the duration of the war. But a reader who was born well after WWII and with no knowledge of WWII idioms or the military would have to left guessing and uncertain of their guess. I still think it would be best to be definite about duration as the idiom is now 80 years old. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 I think I put the preceding comment in the wrong place. It was meant to address your point about "for the duration" being a World War II-era idiom The point being that although I understand that for the duration meant for the duration of the war, I'm thinking only vets, folk like me who are reasonably familiar with the American military experience in WWII, and MILHIST grognards can be certain of what "for the duration" means. I'm not sure readers would understand it in the context of the Unlimited National Emergency act, given that official War had not yet broken out for the US. For folk who were born in 1980 and later, knowing this term would be analogous to someone born in 1935 knowing something about the slang used in the Spanish-American war.
- I know this is a minor quibble, and I'll desist and respect your point if you feel it is fine as is. But I think my concern also helps to clarify one of the goals of my review style, which is trying to pose concerns from the view of somebody who knows very little of the topic. (Which is sometimes hard to do because of my own implicit background knowledge... I realize when I stop to puzzle something out based on what I know, that that's a red flag that I should share the concern.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Changed to "duration of the war". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.
- Paragraph 4
- Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.
- It was King who wanted the newer ship with the better communications. Sources don't say, but I suspect that Roosevelt might have preferred the battleship, as Churchill was coming in HMS Duke of York. Clarified. The arrangements for transporting Roosevelt were always tricky, due to his disability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.
- Paragraph 5
- consider changing "had issued" to "issued".
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- At first reading, the sentence about the sinking of USS Reuben James seems unrelated to the proceeding sentences. Consider tying the sinking of USS Ruben James to the end of the Neutrality acts. I'd suggest removing "until November" and adding something like "When the USS Reuben James became the first...to be sunk..., Congress repealed the acts on 17 November."
Re-arranged text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- consider changing "had issued" to "issued".
Wtfiv (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet
[edit]- Paragraph 1
- I'm not sure this needs to be changed, but as obvious as it might seem to someone who studies these things, would a casual reader who might just be looking at CINCUS as just another large anachronym get the pun on CINCUS (sink us)? Would it be worth spelling this out?
- Consider moving the "Legend has it..." a bit earlier in the paragraph. It is relate to King's assignment (Or is it King's response to the assignment of himself, Ingersoll and Nimitz...placement of the "Legend" quip, will sort that out. Ending with the CINCUS renaming would then work a bit more smoothly.
Moved about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3
- This paragraph sets up King's staff, but I found myself having a bit of time tracking it. I'd like to suggest a bit of amplification and clarification.
- Horne is mentioned as part of King's staff, but the previous paragraph left Horne with Stark. How'd Horne get into King's staff?
- Because King became CNO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once Horne's place in the staff is established, I'd suggest putting the sentence "Edwards, Cooke, and Horne right after the addition of the last of this list: the sentence ending "...succeeded by Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke." That would sum up the trio defined in the previous sentences (and Edwards in the previous paragraph). The sentence about Low could come afterwards as he's not part of the trio, then maybe a sentence about junior officers filling the other roles and coming in and out.
Moved sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Horne is mentioned as part of King's staff, but the previous paragraph left Horne with Stark. How'd Horne get into King's staff?
- Sentences two and four both begin with "He". The anaphoric reference to both would go to Willson. Readers can sort them out, but to reduce the cognitive load and make Edward's more salient as you set up the trio summary, I'd suggest replacing the second "He was succeeded by Edwards" with the dependent clause "and replaced with Edwards". This wording has the advantage of more directly reflecting King's intention, if it was, rather than sounding like he took Edwards by default of seniority.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider expanding "duration" to "duration of the war".
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider "When Turner was assigned to..." vs. "went".
- I think "went" is fine. He could not be assigned to it; it was not a ship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider "which King renamed USS Dauntless", it was King it renamed it right? (If it was renamed by someone else, its fine as it is.) And such an act reflects his character. the following sentence could then replace "King" with "he", as the anaphor works.
Had to check this, but yes, it was King. He asked his staff for suggestions and chose "Dauntless". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This paragraph sets up King's staff, but I found myself having a bit of time tracking it. I'd like to suggest a bit of amplification and clarification.
- Paragraph 4
- Consider rewording the section about Executive Order 9096. If Roosevelt combined them on 12 March 1942; but King assumed both on 26 March. What happened between March 13 and 25? Stark was CNO, but couldn't take over COMINCH without pushing out King. My own assumption is the March 12 was signed but not the date it was effective. But the gap leads an attentive reader to possibilities that are red herrings for the narrative: Was Stark setting up the situation for King? Did Stark want the position, but lost a power play to King, which forced Stark's demotion? The solution for this that comes to my mind is to deleted mention of 12 March. Then the transition seems more seamless and obviates the need to explain the narrative gap between March 13 to 25.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider removing the clause "the only overlap..." It is implied in the remainder of the sentence.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider rewording the section about Executive Order 9096. If Roosevelt combined them on 12 March 1942; but King assumed both on 26 March. What happened between March 13 and 25? Stark was CNO, but couldn't take over COMINCH without pushing out King. My own assumption is the March 12 was signed but not the date it was effective. But the gap leads an attentive reader to possibilities that are red herrings for the narrative: Was Stark setting up the situation for King? Did Stark want the position, but lost a power play to King, which forced Stark's demotion? The solution for this that comes to my mind is to deleted mention of 12 March. Then the transition seems more seamless and obviates the need to explain the narrative gap between March 13 to 25.
- Paragraph 5
- Up to this point, King has not been mentioned as part of the American chiefs of staff, though a reader slightly knowledgeable in American command structure may be able to figure it out. To help the reader, I'd suggest something like "When the American chiefs of staff, including King,..." this would help clarify and would also foreground King earlier in the paragraph as the topic.
Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Up to this point, King has not been mentioned as part of the American chiefs of staff, though a reader slightly knowledgeable in American command structure may be able to figure it out. To help the reader, I'd suggest something like "When the American chiefs of staff, including King,..." this would help clarify and would also foreground King earlier in the paragraph as the topic.
- Paragraph 6
- This paragraph was a bit unclear at first because we already told that King succeeded Stark in paragraph 5. But then Stark is back in paragraph 6 as part of the Joint Chief's of staff. (A less-than-through reader might assume that Stark served on the chief of staffs in his role as COMNAVEUR) I think this can be solved by moving paragraph 5 before paragraph 4. That would fit better in the narrative timeline and reduce the issue of Stark reappearing.
Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the narrative ambiguity is resolved, I'd suggest rewording the first sentence to "When Stark became ...., the JJS was reduced to three members. [optionally listing them for readers again-King, Leahy, and Marshall- as there would be an intervening paragraph on the separate topic of COMINCH/CNO and Stark.]
Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The second sentence is a bit unclear. Why is Turner and Ingersoll relevant? They are not part of the JCS. If it is kept, it would need clarification. It sounds like a bigger and more complex political issue that spreads through the lower chains of command and beyond this article. My own feeling is the sentence side tracks the paragraph's focus on King. My suggestion is to deleting it. That would keep King consistently in the middle of the narrative.
Deleted mention of Ingersoll and Turner. I just wanted to make clear that King's was the Navy's position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider deleting "still" from "still pressed", as this is the first mention of the idea of liason and spokesperson.
Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also suggest deleting "on principle". Given that King shaves with a blowtorch, more than principle may have been involved in his debate with Marshall. The point would still be made.
Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider deleting "only" from "only 8", 8 isn't much different than 9. I think readers will see the diminishment in the list of 32, 8, 9, 1.
- I think it reads better with it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This paragraph was a bit unclear at first because we already told that King succeeded Stark in paragraph 5. But then Stark is back in paragraph 6 as part of the Joint Chief's of staff. (A less-than-through reader might assume that Stark served on the chief of staffs in his role as COMNAVEUR) I think this can be solved by moving paragraph 5 before paragraph 4. That would fit better in the narrative timeline and reduce the issue of Stark reappearing.
- Paragraph 7
- Though interesting, I'm not sure how the Hart Episode relates to what happens to King in the paragraph. If it is meant to be an example of Roosevelt's micromanagement, I'd suggest starting the sentence off with "For example,"
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Similarly, I'm not sure where the Marshall clause fits in unless it is meant to be a contrast on how King was treated. If so, something like "Roosevelt gave Marshall broad authority, including reorganizing the War Department, but King's authority..." That'd also help make the Roosevelt-King relationship being described more explicit.
Changed as suggested. A reader familiar with Marshall's sweeping changes will find this interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider rewording the sentences beginning "Acting on a suggestion..." to something like this "King, acting on a suggestion..., ordered...on May 28. He was opposed by ... Most importantly, he was opposed..." This would help make King the agent and focus of the reaction, focusing on the constraints on King and making and less about the Knox's and the bureau chiefs' actual attitudes toward the restructure.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider rewording "allow" to "did allow" If you are agreeable to this "did" serves to emphasize that Roosevelt seemed to make a concession giving latitude now and then, but the following clause tamps down that it was more illusory.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Though interesting, I'm not sure how the Hart Episode relates to what happens to King in the paragraph. If it is meant to be an example of Roosevelt's micromanagement, I'd suggest starting the sentence off with "For example,"
Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 8
- Consider deleting The navy had always thought in terms of ships (I can see the contrast being set up with respect to personnel, but isn't it assumed that Navy's think in terms of ships?) and maybe consider "By mid-144, the Navy had more ships on order than personnel...".
- I prefer it the way it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider adding "for ship reductions" to "target".
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider deleting The navy had always thought in terms of ships (I can see the contrast being set up with respect to personnel, but isn't it assumed that Navy's think in terms of ships?) and maybe consider "By mid-144, the Navy had more ships on order than personnel...".
- Paragraph 9
- I feel like Chapter 9 could be stronger if it was reworked, and perhaps elements combined with Chapter 8, or rework both 8 and 9. I don't have specific suggestions, but I'll try to clarify what I'm seeing. It seems different parts are doing different work.
- Sentence 3 seems like a restatement or clarification of the existence of the looming personnel shortage stated at the beginning of para 8, but giving more detail and framing it within a prediction. It seems the relevant sections of paras 8 and 9 could be merged. Also, consider deleting the clause listing the number of Essex-class carriers and if the number of carriers is to be given, perhaps give it in the section that already mentions the Essex-class carriers.
- Sentences 1 and 2 seem like a wrap up the thought at the end of Paragraph 8: King is trying to work with the constraints of predicted personnel shortage by attempting ship cuts, but he is resisted, even though he is later shown to be right.
- The last three sentences seem to be a different, but closely related topic: Discussing how King tried to address the shortage by increasing available Naval personnel.
Moved things around a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like Chapter 9 could be stronger if it was reworked, and perhaps elements combined with Chapter 8, or rework both 8 and 9. I don't have specific suggestions, but I'll try to clarify what I'm seeing. It seems different parts are doing different work.
War in the Atlantic
[edit]- Paragraphs 1-4
- This section is a bit more difficult for me and I'm not sure how it can be addressed, or whether it should.
- I assume these paragraphs are intended to give background, but I felt they seemed to move away from the article's focus. The detail is certainly interesting. But King sinks from view after his first mention in paragraph 1 for three and a half paragraphs. For the time being, he is replaced by a new protagonist, Adolphus Andrews. King doesn't return until paragraph 5 regarding discussion about his 1940 recommendation for cutters.
- From my perspective, the article at this point has been focusing King and has been working at a narrative and strategic/grand strategic level, but it changes in these paragraphs. As mentioned, this wealth of finer-grain detail about the war couched in terms of Andrew's challenges, is interesting, but couldn't much of this go into the Battle of the Atlantic or Happy Times article? Would it be possible to outline the situation in broad strokes, and stay focused on King's challenges during this time? Wtfiv (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I have cut this section back to focus on King. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks...I think the one paragraph background fills readers in enough to now know what challenges King has to face.
- Paragraph 3
- The first sentence may need expanding, it seems to follow from the preceding paragraph but what was the purpose of copying the cutters? Were they to be as submarine chasers as per the following sentence or escorts. Inferring from the end of the paragraph, it seems they are intended as escorts. (The article on the class states they functioned more as chasers.) ((It sounds like the issue in this paragraph may be designing nimble escorts for the convoy, of which King's proposal to use Treasury-class ships is but one option.)
- Added "as anti-submarine escorts". The point is that the 327-foot Treasury-class coast guard cutter was considerably larger than a 110-foot sub chaser. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first sentence may need expanding, it seems to follow from the preceding paragraph but what was the purpose of copying the cutters? Were they to be as submarine chasers as per the following sentence or escorts. Inferring from the end of the paragraph, it seems they are intended as escorts. (The article on the class states they functioned more as chasers.) ((It sounds like the issue in this paragraph may be designing nimble escorts for the convoy, of which King's proposal to use Treasury-class ships is but one option.)
- Hawkeye7 I think the addition of the first sentence, which now mentions anti-submarine escorts, removes the need for "anti-submarine escorts in the second sentence (e.g., Treasury class). I feel like the context is now clear. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The end of the paragraph mentions destroyer escorts were finally put into production, but its not clear that they are the Treasury-class ones that King wanted, assuming it was destroyer escorts he was advocating for. It sounds like seven were built. If the issue is cutters vs. escorts, it might need a bit of clarification.
- The cut-down warship (cut down from what?) sounds like it was functioning in both roles. How does it relate to the Treasury-class ships mentioned in the first paragraph.
- The destroyer escort was a cut-down version of a destroyer. Clarified this. They were 290 to 306 feet long. So very similar to the cutter, but based on the British Hunt-class destroyer escort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The cut-down warship (cut down from what?) sounds like it was functioning in both roles. How does it relate to the Treasury-class ships mentioned in the first paragraph.
- Paragraph 4: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
- I feel paragraph 4's context would be more clear if Paragraph 3 was more explicit. It's becoming clear that King is looking for solutions to the Paukenschlag. Paragraph 3 is about seeking a solution through finding the adequate ship to produce, Chapter 4 is about seeking a solution through convoying. I started getting a sense of this with the opening of paragraph 4. Though it follows logically, I think making this more clear through reworking paragraph 3 may make the context of both paragraphs clear.
- Paragraph 5: No comments
- Paragraph 6
- Long-range maritime patrolling is another solution that was explored and use. Could a sentence at the beginning setting up this context be added? Knowledgable readers may know this, but I think readers need to know that long-range air patrols were part of the solution. It feels like it should follow after Paragraphs 4 convoy system, outlining King's role in the troika of solutions: better ships, better convoys, and long-range planes. Then it would follow more smoothly. But in terms of narrative timeline, it makes sense where it is.
Added a bridging sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks...this whole section reads much more smoothly, in my opinion. Wtfiv (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 7: No comments
War in Europe
[edit]- Paragraph 1: No comments
- Paragraph 2: No comments
- Paragraph 3
- This expresses an important point, but its not given a context that makes it clear it fits here. Would this go better when discussing the Pacific War? (Unless you want to make the point that King that too many resources were going to Europe. If that's the case, I think it be clearer if it was stated more strongly.
- (Later note): I just started looking at the War in the Pacific section. It looks like para 4 in War in the Pacific also addresses the priority problem...From my perspective, a paragraph on how King handled that issue may be worthwhile, probably in the appropriate place of the War in the Pacific section as its my understanding that his emphasis on this point is responsible for the United States being able to sustain both fronts, and the two prongs of the Pacific war as successfully as it did. Wtfiv (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- This expresses an important point, but its not given a context that makes it clear it fits here. Would this go better when discussing the Pacific War? (Unless you want to make the point that King that too many resources were going to Europe. If that's the case, I think it be clearer if it was stated more strongly.
- Paragraph 4: no comments on the paragraph itself, but:
- This seems to follow directly from Paragraph 2, which suggests that Paragraph 2 might be stronger in a different location. There is mention of King's diverting landing ships to the Pacific War, but this doesn't need paragraph 2 to be understood. (Though if you wanted to amplify on King's dissatisfaction with Pacific War resources here, and how his belief influenced his reallocation of resources, but I feel this would have to be tackled directly in Para 2. As mentioned, I think it may be easiest to move Paragraph 2 the Pacific War section, assuming there is a section there discussing how he worked to divert resources to it.)
- Paragraph 5: No comments
Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
With the recent changes, this section comes together for me as a self-contained whole. Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
War in the Pacific
[edit]- Paragraph 1: No comments
- Paragraph 2: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
- The second sentence points back to to King's trying to get resources for the Pacific war. Can the earlier material on the issue of getting resources for the Pacific War and its challenge be combined with this? Maybe it needs a stand alone paragraph. (But then, maybe not.)
- Paragraph 3: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
- There's no coverage of the Marianas campaign. A paragraph on this is important because this is where King strikes out to clearly begin his Central Pacific Drive (up to that point, the Marshall islands campaign could be seen as supporting the Southwest Pacific campaign.) The impact of this campaign (e.g., putting Japan in bombing range) is something done through King's initiative (with the help of Arnold, who it looks like he enlisted.)
- Similarly, if there is more to wrap up about King's guidance of the war in 1944-1945, that may need a short paragraph. (At least up to the cancellation of Operation Causeway and its fallout. I'm unsure of Iwo Jima and Okinawa need mention.) Anyway, I think closure would require continuing the narrative until the decisions were no longer King's,. (This wasn't as needed in the War in Europe section, as after Overlord, the land war is the focus and King is clearly background.)
- I will add a couple more paragraphs on these campaigns on the weekend. (Why is there no article on Operation Longtom?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good! I think these paragraphs you are putting together are pretty important. I'll be looking forward to it.
- No article on Operation Longtom? It sounds like you have another article in the making! (It seems like a challenge that is up your alley!) It'd be a good one that could pique readers' imagination: what things would've been like today if Causeway and Longtom had been executed? What would China's developmental trajectory have been? It'd be a very different, perhaps unrecognizable world!
- One comment on the end of this section as it stands: Though it took a bit of dancing, I think King's daughter's quote found an ideal home. I felt the juxtaposition of the two quotes at the end of a section accomplished a rare trifecta in editing: It clearly states its point (King's passionate commitment to the Pacific War), it illustrates its protaganist's character (a passionate temper), and most rare in Wikipedia, its done with humor. (A humor done well enough that when I first saw it, I laughed despite already having seen both quotes separately before.) Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a couple of paragraphs about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a couple of paragraphs about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 4
- The paragraph starts a new topic that is different than the unfolding narrative of the Pacific War campaigns in the previous three paragraphs. To make the transition clear, consider opening the paragraph on torpedoes with a topic sentence on the problem. Something like "King also worked to improve American torpedoes"
- Paragraphs 5–8 feel like a different topic than King's managing the strategic aspects of the Pacific War and dealing with torpedo problems. As the article mentions, its more political and in and way, more personal to King. It's less about the Pacific War and more about King's view of the world. Do you think a subheading under Pacific War or perhaps its own section would make the transition more clear? Beyond that, I think the paragraphs form a coherent whole amongst themselves.
Split it off into a separate section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, separating this really helps. Wtfiv (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Retirement and death
[edit]- Paragraph 1: No comments
- Paragraph 2: "writing to Truman via Forrestal" On the surface, it sounds like King was asking Forrestal to forward a note to Truman for him, but why would Forrestal who was opposed to the idea? I think I can puzzle this out: King wrote an open letter to Forrestal but copied Truman? Can this be rewritten so it would be clear to a reader?
- The source says: "King forced Forrestal's hand by writing to Truman via Forrestal, asking the secretary within the letter to hand it to the president... Forrestal delivered the letter, and Truman agreed to the appointment" [of Nimitz instead of Edwards]. Buell quotes the letter, which ended with "I am asking the Secretary of the navy to hand you this letter." He writes: "Forrestal received the letter grudgingly. He had no choice other than to forward it to Truman." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- If that's what the source says then my impression the first read is right despite it being counterintuitive! Thanks. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraphs 3–4: No comments
I think that's all for now. Wtfiv (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. From my perspective it has a good balance that non-experts can appreciate, but includes lots of detail to keep the more knowledgeable readers engaged. Thank you for your time and patience with my review. Wtfiv (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Miyoshi Nagayoshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
One of the most underrated Japanese politician and warlord during Sengoku period. There are many modern historians reassessments about him now to points out his importance for his role during the end of Muromachi period Ahendra (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Ahendra, my comments. Please excuse my lack of usage of diacritics:
- Translate Shuri-dayu and Chikuzen no Kami?
- Mention the date of Nagayoshi's birth in the body as done in the infobox?
- Was he the governor of the Iga ikki, Iga province or Iga city in Mie prefecture?
- Does Hongan-ji here refer to the Hongan-ji shrine, Hongan-ji Nagoya Betsuin or Honganji-ha?
I will add more comments soon, this is a large article so it will take time to read through, I hope that is alright. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- hello.
- Shūri-dayū, (i believe its mistranslation from someone translation, it should be Shuri-no-daifu) is etymologically senior assistant minister of justice. a position from Archaic Japan Empire office. Chikuzen no Kami is literally "lord of Chikuzen" its kind like noble titles
- gonna do that
- Iga Province obviously, Iga ikki was not officially recognized by the central government.. in this case by Emperor and Shogunate
- Hongan-ji during Nagayoshi reign was more like umbrella term for entire Jōdo Shinshū followers here. as the split between west Hongan-ji (Higashi Hongan-ji) and east Hongan-ji (Nishi Hongan-ji) as the sect were more institutionalized were occured later in Edo period. other than that. i have not much knowledge about them, except of their rebellion activities during Onin war until Sengoku period Ahendra (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Relativity (talk)
Boot Monument (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
If you travel to Saratoga National Historic Park, you will probably come across this somewhat bizarre monument of a boot. Its honoree's name is never mentioned on it, and it would take some research to figure out that it's actually honoring Benedict Arnold. I am nominating this for A-class because I'd like to take this to FA and so I would need to see what further improvements need to be made to it to get it there. Thank you! Relativity ⚡️ 00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This is all way outside my area of expertise. I presume that Benedict Arnold was rehabilitated long ago. Article looks more like a GA than an FA. Some comments:
- Can be have a consistent date format? Three different ones are used. (Recommend using dmy and adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)
Done
- "Arnold's betrayal to the British" implies that someone betrayed him.
- Changed to "Arnold betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army"
- Do we know what Arnold's actual, rank was? (Same for Clinton, Gates and Lincoln)
- Yes, and
Done
- Yes, and
- Is there any reason why the town of West Point was worth twenty thousand quid?
- According to Nathaniel Philbrick's Valiant Ambition, the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?
- The short version would be fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- According to Nathaniel Philbrick's Valiant Ambition, the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?
- The lead says he "attempted to give crucial information about the fortification of West Point to the British" but the body says "offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point. Arnold met with British Major John André, who Arnold had solicited communication through, and André was later captured on his way back to New York with the plans for West Point being discovered"
- Good catch, reworded in the lead to "He later attempted to help the British capture the fortification of West Point but was discovered and fled to the British army."
- "solicited communication through" sounds awkward to me.
- Reworded to "Arnold met with British Major John André so he could pass on information on how to best attack West Point,". Let me know what you think.
- "College boys on a trip stole the toe and spur from the Boot Monument,[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer informed the battlefield official that the toe was stolen by "a graduate of a New York State educational institution."[23] The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Do we have dates for these events?
- Unfortunately no. All of the newspapers used as citations are from around the same time but there is no actual specified date when this happened.
- "The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is four feet tall." Source required for the height. And add a conversion for those of us living in the twenty-first century instead of the eighteenth.
- Added a conversion. And it does have a source already?
- I does now, so good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Added a conversion. And it does have a source already?
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review and your time! I addressed most of your concerns, although I have one question about your fourth point. Relativity ⚡️ 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review and your time! I addressed most of your concerns, although I have one question about your fourth point. Relativity ⚡️ 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Relativity, some comments:
- Provide a link or identifier for "The Shrine of the Memorial Museum"? If you received it via resource request, specify that in a hidden note?
- That source was there before I started extensively editing this article. I tried to find it, but couldn't. Since there's another source there, I've removed it.
- Here is a link for Leopold 1994: [1]. Consider adding?
- Link to Lawrence Journal-World, The Lewiston Daily Sun and Boca Raton News as done for the other newspapers? Also I guess Ration is a typo, should be Raton?
Done, and yes, that was a typo. I fixed that as well.
- Provide a link for Duffus 1930 and MacIvor 1954?
- For the MacIvor one, I found it off of the Wikipedia Library, and can't seem to find a way to add a link to it other than having a link go directly to the Wikipedia Library. Here's the permalink: [2]. I added an ISSN though for it. As for Duffus' source, I found the link, but there's an error page saying that there are technical difficulties with it showing up. I've added it for now, and I'll see if I can do anything else about that.
- Link to Social Forces, McFarland, The New England Quarterly, University Press of New England, NYU Press, Regnery Publishing, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Casemate Publishers? You've already linked to Random House so to be consistent you will have to link everywhere else. Otherwise you could consider removing the links for publishers altogether.
Done and added one for William Morrow and Company as well.
- Add a date for Brumwell? The website provides one.
Done
- What is your policy on linking to authors? I can understand if you do not wish to in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE. If you do wish to, however, consider linking to Alexis Coe, Gary Alan Fine, Donald W. Linebaugh, Richard M. Ketchum, James Kirby Martin, Dave Richard Palmer, Nathaniel Philbrick, Willard Sterne Randall?
Done Not a huge fan of the SEAOFBLUE, but I think that it's better this way.
- To be consistent, you will have to decide to include the locations of publication or not. For most sources you have them, but for some you don't.
Done
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan: Thanks so much for the review. I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above. Cheers Relativity ⚡️ 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I've addressed both reviews above. Relativity ⚡️ 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Relativity, you should consider changing the references from ref tags to sfn tags, because that will be required at FAC. Also you should add the Wikipedia Library link for MacIvor 1954 which you have. Matarisvan (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan: Both
Done Relativity ⚡️ 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan: Both
Gog the Mild
[edit]Saving a place. Could you ping me once the review above has ended. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: First off, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Just so you're aware, I am going to be unable to be active on Wikipedia for about two months, give or take a week or two, so if you add any comments starting tomorrow, it is very unlikely that I will be able to address them. My apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers Relativity ⚡️ 04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and I hope that the Scottish Highlands were nice! Relativity ⚡️ 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right.
If you are going to be off-Wiki for more than a couple of weeks it seems - donning my FAC coordinator hat - that this nomination is certain to be archived. It may be best to withdraw this nomination and renominate once you have the time to allocate to it.Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Thinking further, at ACR time is not that important. So I shall comment when I can and you respond when you can. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I might be able to come here occasionally to respond to any comments. Relativity ⚡️ 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking further, at ACR time is not that important. So I shall comment when I can and you respond when you can. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right.
- Oh, and I hope that the Scottish Highlands were nice! Relativity ⚡️ 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:The Boot Monument Uncovered (a3ffc30d-9e26-44a7-8d69-87b8b8957f3b).JPG - National Park Service image - PD - okay
- File:Arnold-boot.jpg - inadequately licensed - needs c:Template:PD-US-statue/proposal as well
- I think that I did that correctly... Relativity ⚡️ 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link George Edwin Bissell in the body of the article
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review - pass
[edit]Hi Relativity, my comments. #17, #24, #26, #40, #41: all ok. Seems like the source review is a pass, now you need just one more support for promotion to A class. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could post your comments at a PR I just opened up, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan: Thanks for the source review! I'll definitely check out the PR when I can, although I'm still out and about so it might take a week or so before I can add any comments. Relativity ⚡️ 06:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk)
Henry Biard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
HF
[edit]I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
- I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it! UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- just fyi, there is a copy in the National Library of Australia, and there is a possibility to order a digital copy for 19 australian dollars per 25 pages. Artem.G (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers - probably a bit rich for my blood (it's 288 pages, and doing the maths on that made my wallet hurt), but I do periodically keep an eye out in case one turns up second-hand online for a reasonable amount. Could give it another go at WP:RX too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- just fyi, there is a copy in the National Library of Australia, and there is a possibility to order a digital copy for 19 australian dollars per 25 pages. Artem.G (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it! UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- " On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
- I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- "He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
- Bertram gives it as "it is believed" -- I don't suppose you know anything about RNAS flight training? I failed to find much background information; I assume this was simply what usually happened? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
- Agreed and done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- "but suggested that airflow over the wings may have interfered with the aircraft's elevators and tailplanes, causing aileron flutter." - link aileron
- We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
- Pegram messed that one up a bit: it's engine weight, not total weight, and it was 170lb. Fixed from another source. Good spot -- I'd missed that, but it was a bit silly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is it known when he married?
- I'd assume it's in Wings, but I only managed to find indirect references to his being married: I couldn't even find the wife's name. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makes The Channel Islands and the Great War pass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
- It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography, Wings, which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assume could be easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 at WP:MILHIST - Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Zawed might be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:
- Starting off in "admin duties"
- Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
- Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
- Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
- A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
- PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
- Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
- A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.
- Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:
- Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Zawed might be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye7
[edit]- Typo: "propellor"
- Convert horsepower to Watts?
- "the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the"s?
- I fixed two CS1 warnings
- Any details about his marriages? (I found his divorce)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has the date of his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn't definitively say that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've got the service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
[edit]- Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
- The source page gives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
- "Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lazy oversight on the part of the Commons author. I've fixed it for them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi UndercoverClassicist, some comments:
- "a public school on Jersey": "in Jersey"? I believe "on" would be better if the subsequent text was "the island of Jersey".
- Changed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Central Flying School?
- Link to Guernsey in the body on first mention?
- Link to the Italian language Wiki for Aero Club d'Italia?
- Link to Air Ministry?
- "was organised by the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force, Italo Balbo": consider changing to "was organised by Italo Balbo, the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force"? The former phrasing could be seen as WP:SEAOFBLUE, only a comma is separating the links to Balbo and the IAF.
- Link to Jonathan Glancey in the body and biblio?
- "in common with": consider changing to "like"?
- Link to Float (nautical) on first use, instead of later on?
- Link to wingspan and strut?
- Link to Walter H. Longton?
- Link to Royal Aero Club?
- Link to bank (banked turn)?
- That's for land vehicles; the closest article we currently have is Aircraft flight dynamics, so linked there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to rate of climb?
- Is there a link available for Frimston 2006? If a future reviewer wishes to do a spot check, they will need it.
- I don't; can't remember where I got that one, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Jeffrey Quill, Eric Brown (pilot)?
- Both done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for these: very useful. All replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also @UndercoverClassicist, I found this link for Frimston 2006: [https://dokumen.tips/documents/aeroplane-magazine-apr-2006.html?page=24#google_vignette]. I added the volume, issue and series number, also the ISBN. However, the source is a little shady, you should decide if you want to include it or not. If not, you can always download the PDF, upload it to web.archive.org and link there. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for those details: agreed, that source is pretty much certainly straightforward copyright infringement, as the magazine is less than 20 years old and this is clearly not an authorised open-access release by the copyright holder. Downloading it and uploading it somewhere else would, therefore, also be copyright infringement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had somehow forgotten about that due to the age of the subject matter. But now at least you won't have any issues with the spot checks. Also, I will do the source review here as WPMH requires one, the image review is already done. Matarisvan (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for those details: agreed, that source is pretty much certainly straightforward copyright infringement, as the magazine is less than 20 years old and this is clearly not an authorised open-access release by the copyright holder. Downloading it and uploading it somewhere else would, therefore, also be copyright infringement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also @UndercoverClassicist, I found this link for Frimston 2006: [https://dokumen.tips/documents/aeroplane-magazine-apr-2006.html?page=24#google_vignette]. I added the volume, issue and series number, also the ISBN. However, the source is a little shady, you should decide if you want to include it or not. If not, you can always download the PDF, upload it to web.archive.org and link there. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Current reassessments
[edit]- Please add new requests below this line
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)
Sihanouk Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. As User:buidhe pointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if Mztourist is still on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am and can take a look at it, though logistics isn't really my thing. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Schierbecker, I might be able to rework this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old. Schierbecker (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think I can. I have been working on the GA reassessment of the Galatian War article, you could check that one out to see if I might be able to rework this one or not. Matarisvan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old. Schierbecker (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delist This has been open since March and there have been no edits to the article since May. As the problems with the article remain outstanding and no work is underway to fix them, it should be delisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Nick-D, I have been busy with some other GA and FA rewrites and thus sadly couldn't make the time to work on this article. I hope to start in 2-3 days and my most optimistic estimate is that I can get the article back to A class level within 10-15 days after starting work. I hope that is not too much time, this reassessment being open since March and no edits since May bother me too. Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)
Fort Corcoran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and Comment - I am not likely to be able to do more with the article than I did in the past few hours. It is not enough to avoid a delist. I have reduced the number of citation needed tags to three. My guess is that a source was used for the two comments about life at the fort for which there are no citations but it may be difficult to find it and thus determine whether it is reliable. I have removed the reference to the Historical Marker Database and replaced it with a citation to a JSTOR article which says the marker was placed by the Arlington Historical Society; I added at the "approximate" location. Although I think the Official Records are probably reliable enough for some of the routine facts for which they are cited, I think the use as a source for so many of the facts in the article is problematical and not appropriate for extensive use in an A class article. It is not reliable in the example(s) provided by HF. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: @Hog Farm and @Donner60, I've made some preliminary edits. I would like to try to restore this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? 20 days seem to be enough to me. I know this reassessment has been open for 3 months now but I might be able to get a rewrite done. Matarisvan (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Have at it. What's another few months? Sorry I can't help more with this project. Schierbecker (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)