Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2015/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John Hoskins (officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): BusterD (talk)

John Hoskins (officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the page contains an accurate, complete and concise profile of a biographical figure almost unknown to the English-speaking public. The subject's story is inherently compelling. Article contains some of my best work, research and writing, and while more detail may be found, what appears is quite a good framework upon which to build further. Reviewed for B-class and DYK by User:Hawkeye7 yesterday. That editor was highly complimentary of my effort and encouraged me to improve and promote the work further. Another editor who originally looked over my work, User:Zanhe, a frequent DYK reviewer, also very strongly encouraged me to put this forward for further review. I've applied for GA review simultaneously. BTW, I've been editing for over ten years, and this is the first candidate I've ever put forward for A-class review. I hope that when I get more experienced in this process, I'll be able to improve other work to A-class and FA-class. Finally, I want to learn how to review better. Someone of my tenure should feel more comfortable doing reviews of others' work. Even a failing A-class review in this case will help me learn to be a better reviewer. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, Buster, and welcome to Milhist ACR. Overall, I think this looks quite good. I made a few minor edits and have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • article title: I'm not sure about the disambig of "officer", perhaps "naval officer" would be better? I wouldn't advise changing immediately, though, best to wait and see what other people think (I could well be wrong!)
    • [MOS seems to prefer a one word disambiguator, possibly (aviator) or (admiral); in any case, I'll wait until the DYK is posted before changing the name] BusterD (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015
  • I'd suggest putting his date of birth into the body of the article in the Early life section; Done
  • there is one dab link that should be repointed: "Pacific Fleet"; Done
  • " exit from the navy..." --> " exit from the Navy" (as it refers to a specific navy); Done
  • "Recovering in Naval Hospital Philadelphia..." (this seems like it is missing a word); Done
  • "Essex-class carrier USS Valley Forge..." (move the link for Essex-class to its earlier mention); Done
  • " North Korean army" --> " North Korean Army"; Done
  • watch out for irregular capitalisation: "Promoted Captain in 1944" --> "Promoted captain in 1944" per WP:MILTERMS (there are a couple of examples of this). I also think "Promoted to captain..." might sound better (but maybe this is a US English thing?) Done
  • "Valley Forge spent five days restocking and embarking a new air group..." (I suggest splitting this sentence as it seems to run on a bit); Done
  • watch out for date format consistency: the majority of the article uses one version (e.g. October 22, 1898) but the accessdates use a different version (e.g. 28 August 2015) Done
  • in the References section, "VICE ADMIRAL JOHN M. HOSKINS" --> per the guidance at MOS:ALLCAPS this should be reduced to title or sentence case (I'd go title case, but either is fine apparently) Done
  • the sentence starting "The reviewer especially praised..." seems a bit awkward due to the quotation. There might be a smoother way of inserting that. Done
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with the review and thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate your attention. Anything else I should be looking for (source wise) to advance this to FA level? BusterD (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, no worries. Not a lot leapt out at me when I took a second look; the only thing I'd note is that you could include details (in the body of the article) about when and where he and his wife, Sue, were married. Also, potentially the birth and death information on her in the infobox might be considered to be uncited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO...

  • At some point, though the article is not extremely long as of yet, a third intro paragraph may be needed, or slight expansion of existing into and splitting info three parts.--MONGO 23:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Early Life section, "Hoskins was born on October 22, 1898 to Thomas Jefferson..." perhaps make it clear that "Jefferson" was his father's middle name by adding Hoskins to his father's name and dropping it from his mother's name?--MONGO 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, lets expand on the significant issue of Hoskins getting flight training. I imagine that since this was in the infancy of naval aviation, this must have been a rare opportunity to be awarded...is there any more info about this issue? I've left notes in my edit summaries to help guide this along, and added a few cite needed and question templates which can be removed as you wish.--MONGO 23:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Classmates remember cadet Hoskins as being "the loudest and most obnoxious snorer", but was saluted by classmates in the Academy yearbook as a ladies' man, "He can convince any femme that she is the best friend he has in the world ... any chaperone that her presence is unnecessary".": These facts might not help us understand the man.
  • "his pragmatic and dogmatic approach": That's contradictory.
  • "His funeral was held ... Hoskins and his wife Sue (née Waters) had two sons and one daughter": If he was survived by them, it would be better to say that.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this is taking abut longer than I anticipated. I'm awaiting some books through inter library loan. Will start addressing these comments shortly. BusterD public (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day @BusterD: how are you getting along with addressing MONGO's comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Real life has been crushing me and the interlibrary loans I received didn't help much. I've found one extraordinary source, but it's difficult to obtain. This is a congressional biography created when Hoskins was put forth for Office of Declassification Policy director. The source is buried in congressional committee records. Let's withdraw this assessment request for now and come back to it when I have more time to assemble sources. Sorry, and thanks to all the folks who've gotten me this far. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Coast Guard City[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This need some significant work to be A-class. Some comments below:
  • Reference for the list of cities.
  • There are only seven sources. An A-class article is supposed to have broad croverage. More sources needed.
  • Footnotes in lead are unnecessary.
  • Footnotes go after the period.
  • DAB link to "The Day"
  • This could be helpful.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An A-class and GA review should not be run simotanuously. I suggest holding off this review until that's finished. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tomandjerry211; I've now fixed these issues:
  • references for list of cities added
  • sources increased from 7 to 12, or approximately 1 RS for each 35 words of text
  • removed footnotes from lede
  • copyedited positioning of footnotes
  • DABed link to "The Day"
LavaBaron (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I have to still keep it at an oppose for coverage and accuracy. MILHIST A-class standards are set close to FA standards. Good luck taking this article further, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, and welcome to Milhist A-Class Review. Thank you for your efforts with this article so far. I've had a quick look at the article and a couple of things stand out to me as potential issues at A-class. The main one, for me, is that the article is currently very short. This indicates that potentially there isn't depth of coverage/it isn't comprehensive. The ACR process aims to produce articles that are very close to Featured Articles in terms of quality. In this regard, the standard expected is quite high. As such, I'd recommend withdrawing this ACR and focusing on the GAN that you have also submitted for this (I note Tomandjerry's comment above in this regard, and concur with this). Once that is done, you will potentially have a better idea of where this article sits on the assessment scale. Additionally, if you would like ideas for expansion, perhaps the peer review process might help. I hope you won't be discouraged by these comments, though. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gendarmerie of Haiti[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk)

Gendarmerie of Haiti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review for obvious reasons. But, specifically, note that it is only very slightly shorter than the A-class Serbian State Guard which had a roughly equal military role and status as a collaborationist gendarmerie. Plus, it is more lavishly illustrated than that article and has more sources. LavaBaron (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • for A-class, I think the lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs;
  • "Officers, NCOs, and enlisted personnel...": the abbreviation "NCO" should be formally introduced on first mention; I suggest possibly providing a link also;
  • in the Formation section, the link for the United States Marine Corps should be moved to its first mention;
  • "Lt. Patrick Kelly earning" --> it is probably better here just to spell out the rank in full. Same with the other instances...
  • link Second Caco War;
  • I think the formation section could be expanded a little to provide some more context to the unit's formation, i.e why was it formed and what was its initial role?
  • " Haitians who were paid between $10 to $25 per month..." was this a good wage at the time? It might be helpful to add a footnote, or some sort of explanation here;
  • the information about the unit's march being Dessalines pas vlé oné blancs appears to be unreferenced;
  • inconsistent presentation: usually you use a lower case isolated "gendarmerie", but in a couple of places you use upper case (e.g. "isolated Gendarmerie outposts")
  • remove the link here: "indicted by U.S. Navy" (for U.S. Navy, as it has already been linked);
  • the last two sentences of the final paragraph of the Later history section seem a bit awkward to me;
  • is this link a reliable source: [1]?
  • "File:Port-au-Prince Ecole des Gendarmes.jpg": are we sure that this was taken by a member of the US Navy? Is there a source that states this?
  • same as above for "File:Gendarmerie of Haiti.png"
  • same as above for "File:Haitian gendarmerie officers.jpg"
  • same as above for "File:Haiti 1924 rifle team.jpg"
Thanks, anonymous editor . I will begin making these changes and clarifications today. LavaBaron (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous Editor - I've made all these changes with the exception of explaining whether $10/month was a good wage in 1915 as I don't know and the sources don't provide context, unfortunately. As for Global Security's reliability, the RS noticeboard has had several discussions as to its reliability. The consensus in some is that it is RS, the consensus in others is that it is RS except to explain current events. In the last month it's been sourced by the Diplomat [2], Dayton Daily News [3], and San Diego Union-Tribune [4]. LavaBaron (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, apologies, I somehow forgot to sign in. Thank you for your changes. I have a couple more points below:
  • in the References, is the page range for Ball missing a closing number: "pp. 240–" ?
  • in the References, is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Heinl source? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching, AustralianRupert. I've fixed both of these. LavaBaron (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've reviewed your changes and I think, as Dudley points out below, that the lead could still be expanded a bit. I've added a red link for the term cacos, which might help with one of Dudley's questions also. It is ok for it to remain a red link (without impacting on the review), but if you have reference material available, I'd like to encourage you to maybe create a stub. I've added a web link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Cacos to the edit summary in the article, which might be beneficial. Another suggestion I have, is if you are concerned about tangential information impacting upon the flow of the article, you could potentially employ a notes system to provide minor clarifications. For example, see the Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier article, which is also currently at A-class review. That might potentially offer a compromise solution, which might allow you to address some of Dudley's concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • The best I can tell from the sources you have that I could access, the title of the of the page should be "Gendarmerie of Haiti". I made the page move.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your excellent copyediting, and overall improvement, Dank. LavaBaron (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The lead is still too short. It should be a fuller summary of the article.
  • "president Vilbrun Guillaume Sam" I think president should be capitalised.
  • A fuller explanation of the background would be helpful - perhaps a paragraph summarising the situation explained in the article of the US occupation.
  • What was the first Caco War and what was a banana war?
  • What was a caco?
  • How was the Haitian–American Convention arrived at and who approved it on behalf of Haiti?
  • "what was perceived as the demeaning methods of American military instruction" Such as?
  • What was the Garde d'Haïti and how was it different from the Genderamerie? It would also be helpful to cover the end of the American occupation.
  • This article gives a brief summary but in my view a fuller account of the Gendarmerie is needed for A-Class standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - with due respect, in my opinion your observations are of very poor quality. Please accept this in the spirit in which it was intended, as constructive feedback for future improvement and not as deduction of your obviously capable skills as an editor. In view of that, I have taken considerable time to provide a detailed critique as follows:
  • "What was the first Caco War?" - Click the wikilink. Beyond that, it's WP:UNDUE. After mentioning the Second World War, we don't veer off to explain to the reader what the First World War was in the A-classed article Serbian State Guard. The Haitian Gendarmerie didn't exist during the First Caco War, just like the Serbian State Guard didn't exist during the First World War. A-classed articles are focused, relevant, and topical examinations of a subject, not pot-pourris of random trivia and interesting historical tidbits.
  • How was the Haitian–American Convention arrived at and who approved it on behalf of Haiti? - The legal framework of the HAC has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the Gendarmerie of Haiti. The 30-page HAC contained 1-paragraph of relevance as an authorizing instrument to the Gendarmerie and that is covered in the article. An examination of the diplomatic history and the timeline of negotiations of the HAC is entirely beyond the scope of this article (what you're asking should, correctly, be covered in the article titled "Haitian-American Convention"). Adding it would make as much sense as describing the signing of the Magna Carta in the A-classed article King's Regiment (Liverpool). This is an article on a military unit; what you are asking is not a customary construction of such an article and we should not be in the business of attempting to adopt special framing for military unit articles from developing countries that contextualize them within the construction of the colonial epoch. They should be similar in form and layout to peer articles form developed nations.
  • What was a banana war? - There's a wikilink you could click. Beyond that, and once again, describing U.S. wars in Nicaraguara and the Dominican Republic in an article on a Haitian police force is entirely UNDUE. A-classed articles are focused, relevant, and topical examinations of a subject, not pot-pourris of random trivia and interesting historical tidbits.
  • It would also be helpful to cover the end of the American occupation. No, that wouldn't be very helpful at all. The American military occupation ended more than a decade after the Haitian Gendarmerie ceased to exist. Crowbarring that in would make a concise and topical article disjointed and rambling. Again, this is an article on the Haitian Gendarmerie, not the U.S. military occupation, the First Caco War, the history of the settlement of Hispaniola, popular Haitian cuisine, or the development of the rummaking indusry in Haiti. Any mention of the U.S. occupation should be in relation to how it impacts the subject of the article. "Covering" the end of the U.S. occupation in an article on a military unit that was disbanded ten years prior and had no contextual linkage to that end in any popular or scholarly RS would be totally un-encyclopedic. A-classed articles are focused, relevant, and topical examinations of a subject, not pot-pourris of random trivia and interesting historical tidbits.
Ultimately, it sounds like you're disappointed the wikilinked articles on a few topics mentioned are stubs or in very poor quality (so am I) and want to resolve it by inserting the entire history of the Haitian nation into this article. While I appreciate you taking the time to comment, unlike those of Dank and AustralianRupert, your feedback isn't very well conceived, I'm afraid. Your comments encumber a level of extraneous detail that, if they were to be acted upon, would seriously diminish my beautiful article by turning it into a clown car into which every inter-secting topic, no matter how tangentially related, is madly crammed. Your comments don't have any precedence in peer articles to this one (as noted above, in the case of the Serbian State Guard, and more) for good reason. I can't, I'm afraid, incorporate any of the changes you suggest, except to capitalize the word "president" - sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Dudley and LavaBaron, I believe that there is a compromise solution. Please see my comment above. Would that work for you both? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't work for me at all. A-classed articles should be focused, relevant, and topical examinations of a subject, not pot-pourris of random trivia and interesting historical tidbits. The correct way to resolve the sad state of WP articles on Haiti topics is by improving one article at a time, not by blowing out a single neat, thorough and well-written entry on a small Haitian military unit - that is equal in depth and quality in every way to A-classed Serbian State Guard - to incorporate virtually the entire modern history of the Haitian nation. No similar requirement exists for military unit articles from developed nations and the demand here is that this meet a different compositional standard that contextualizes it within a colonial historical frame (e.g. "describe the First Caco War, describe the political history of Haiti"). Thank you to both Dank and AustralianRupert for spending time on this, however, I'd rather withdraw it from further consideration than turn it into a clown car by jamming in every random factoid about Haiti that's possible to fit in. LavaBaron (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Rupert is asking for all that much. At a minimum, avoid using words that most readers won't know (such as "Banana Wars"), unless you at least give a clue to their meaning in the text (or a footnote would be fine), in addition to the link. This is the advice at WP:Checklist#clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dank - the A-classed article Serbian State Guard includes the following terms "most readers" are as unlikely to know as "banana wars:" non-ferrous metals, Government of National Salvation, Organisation Todt, etc. In each of these cases the terms are dealt with via Wikilink instead of voluminous footnotes. It is concerning that, on the exceptionally rare occasion an article about a non-European/North American military unit is penned, an extra barrel of unprecedented standards are encumbered upon it because the topic would otherwise, apparently, be exotic and beguiling to readers. The feedback offered by Dudley was not well-conceived in any sense of the word and it shocks it should be given countenance for sake of diplomacy. Thank you and Rupert again, in any case, for your time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS New Mexico (BB-40)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk)

USS New Mexico (BB-40) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it seems to meet all expectations for A-class. It is my first battleship article that seems to be able to make it up here. Launched in 1917 and commissioned soon after. She escorted the ship carrying Pres. Woodrow Wilson to France for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. She was involved as a test ship in the development of PID controllers, and was put on Atlantic neutrality patrol in 1940. She was scrambled to the Pacific in 1941 and accidentally rammed into a freighter off Nantucket Lightship. She participated in many bombardments of islands in the Pacific and was put on Operation Magic Carpet duty. After a disagreement between officials, she was scrapped in Newark, New Jersey in 1947–1948 It passed a GA back in July and had a recent DYK. I hope this passes. Thanks for your comments, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a start at copy editing, but I think it probably needs a bit more work before it is up to A-class standards and I think it is beyond my skill level (sorry). Do you have a copy editor that you could ask to take a run through the article? @Dank: Not sure if you are keen, but if you are, would you mind potentially having a look at this article?
  • with regards to the access dates for your web citations, I suggest adjusting the date format so it is consistent with the rest of the article Done
  • From a MOS perspective "File:USS New Mexico BB-40 1921.jpg" would probably be better if it faced into the article.  Done
  • I've swapped the infobox image with this one now, which I think solves the problem. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest deleting the "Battle of Newark Bay" header as it seems redundant to the Post war header Done
  • in the Awards section, were these awards actually presented to the ship, or to personnel who served on her? I suggest potentially adding a sentence to clarify this. Done
  • Your change looks good, I wonder about whether a note should be added though, explaining the process. How can a ship be awarded a medal? Not a warstopper for me, if the information is a bit too esoteric, but I think it might add to the readers' understanding. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, AR, but no, I'm not taking copyediting requests until I get some things off my plate. - Dank (push to talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries, Dan, thanks for getting back to me. Hope you are well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point about the destruction of the eight Shinyo suicide boats probably could be explained in a bit more detail as it seems significant. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose From a quick look at the article, I found a significant number of factual errors in the section on 1945:

  • "She fought under a sky of Japanese suicide planes" - obvious exaggeration Done
  • "She fired the pre-invasion shelling of Lingayen Gulf" - the bombardment force was large, but the current wording suggests that only New Mexico was involved Done
  • "The designated commander of the British Pacific Fleet (Bruce Fraser) narrowly escaped death while on her bridge" - Fraser was the actual commander of the fleet  Done
  • "Her heavy guns opened up on Okinawa on 26 March. Her guns were not silent until 17 April" - the ship obviously didn't fire her guns continuously for almost a month as this loose wording implies  Done
  • I'm also a bit concerned about the sourcing: there's a heavy reliance on DANFS, which needs to be used with great care given its a US Navy source whose authors often omitted embarrassing topics, and "USS New Mexico (BB-40): The Queen's Story in the Words of Her Men" is from an obscure publisher which doesn't seem to even have a website - are you sure that it's a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note that the level of detail provided on the ship's history is considerably less than other A-class articles on American battleships - there are lots of sources which can be tapped on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a copyeditor, I rarely oppose ... either I dig in and help fix problems, or I don't. I might be wrong, but per Nick, I get the sense that I can't fix the problems here ... and copyediting would probably make things worse rather than better, because it's the things that don't sound quite right that provide clues concerning what might need to be fixed. So, largely per Nick, I'm opposing for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Mark D Worthen PsyD

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done everything I can think of to improve the article; I requested feedback/suggestions/edits from other editors, but received only one suggestion; I have asked experts in the field for feedback, and I have incorporated their feedback into the article; I think the article is at least close to A-class, and I hope this process will yield feedback and suggestions such that it can become A-class. Please see What is needed to make this an A-class article? on the article's Talk page for specifics. Thank you! Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, Mark, and welcome to Milhist ACR. Without wanting to discourage you, I wonder if you have considered putting this up for a Good Article nomination? Milhist A-class review is geared primarily towards preparing an article for Featured Article review, and as such can be quite intense. This article might be better served going through GA first, although, that is certainly not a requirement for A-class. That said, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • headings: the capitalization should be sentence case for headings that aren't proper nouns, e.g. "Brief History of U.S. Veterans Disability Benefits" --> "Brief history of U.S. veterans disability benefits", etc.
  • references: there appear to be some paragraphs that aren't completely cited. For A-class you need at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. For example, the paragraph in the "Selecting a Veterans Service Officer" section;
  • scope: while I think it is a great resource for veterans (and I am very appreciative that someone has taken the time to produce it -- I have been diagnosed with PTSD from military service myself and I know many others like me), the article IMO goes beyond what I would expect from an encyclopedia and heads into the purview of what seems like "how to guide". For example, this: "For example, if you conduct an "Accreditation Search" on the VA website[39] and search for a "VSO Representative," the search results will list both County Veterans Service Officers and VSO Representatives." I believe that the relevant policy link is: WP:NOTHOWTO;
  • tone: some of the language used seems like editorialisation, which Wikipedia articles should avoid. For instance, from the article: "And there are other specifications in this set of regulations... that one would never anticipate..."
  • I also think the annotations beside the links in the External links section may be problematic in this regard. For instance, "Not the most user-friendly online application process in the world, but it won't be a problem for younger vets and others with a fair amount of Internet savvy" and "The best and most comprehensive description..." (an opinion).
  • Anyway, please do not let these comments discourage you. I really appreciate you taking the time to work on the topic and you have a lot of great content. I hope that others will get involved in this review, so that you can get a broad range of opinion to help make your article better. Good luck and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much AustralianRupert! I appreciate you taking the time to offer your very helpful suggestions. I will make the changes you recommend (they all make sense to me), and then consider resubmitting as a Good Article nomination, as you suggested. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Barbarossa[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!)

Operation Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I want to see it reach FA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments -- I don't know if I'll be able to post a full review here but on a quick glance:

  • No dablinks according to the toolbox checker (no action req'd).
  • I see several harv errors; you can install this script to view them.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It usually means inconsistencies in your referencing -- install the script and find out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I did a few of these for you. There are still a few left, though. The script can be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • The lede is confusing. It jumps around from topic to topic in single paras, repeats itself, and doesn't seem to follow any plan in terms of being chronological or explanatory. Suggestion: basic intro describing entire concept, para on reasons/background/planning, para on forces and initial success, para on the problems in the winter/bogging down, concluding statement as it is.
I moved things around. Did it get better? EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Barbarossa ever "end"? I know the term covers "the invasion", but isn't it correct to say that it ended in the winter with the counterattacks? If so, this would be useful in the lede.
It wasn't specifically called off, but it did end, because the operation was abandoned. The offensive was defeated before most of the goals outlined in Directive 21 could be achieved. And effort towards most of those goals were suspended indefinitely. It's akin to the outcome of Operation Brunswick, which was never specifically called off, but clearly ended with the German defeat at Stalingrad. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map immediately following the lede purports to show the Nazi's anti-slavic policies, including Norway and Sweden, but not Finland. I'm certainly no expert on this, but I don't think they gave a hoot about Scandanavia - is it even mentioned in Mein Kamf? The text beside it certainly doesn't mention it, nor does the invasion plans section.
I noticed the map didn't include any of the Axis nations and co-belligerents. Also, Hitler's ultimate enemy were the Slavs. The map was modelled after this ONE. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German invasion plans" jumps around chronologically, and I think would be improved if it was laid out that way. Currently it goes summer, december, unrelated essay (should be in previous section?), autumn.
  • "German military planners" should be in the planning section?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the Soviet High" should be separate para?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The importance of the delay" should be separate para?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "153 divisions for Barbarossa, which included 138 divisions" I'm not completely sure I understand the distinction here, a little extra text would be helpful.
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "German preparations" section also seems to be in need of a moving-about to make it read more linearly, especially the entire bit on the delay, which seems should be at the bottom.
  • Perhaps mention where Luftflotte 3 was? Or not.
It was in France and the Low Countries, because Britain was still a significant target up till late 1941. Not sure if that deserves a mention. No? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, doesn't deserve mention. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But during Stalin's Great Purge", I'm not sure this is a "but", as the para before it doesn't really lead into this one.
  • Am I incorrect in believing that the Purge was instigated, to some degree, by Germany?
"Instigated" wouldn't be the correct characterization. Stalin was extremely paranoid, and the accusations layered on the incarcerated officers were often related to spying for Nazi Germany. Most of the evidence brought against these officers are now known to have been concocted by Stalin's cronies, but others are still debated. Because in some cases, the Germans took advantage of the situation and leaked falsified evidence that only helped seal the fate of the officers, e.g. Mikail Tukachevsky. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soviet preparations" generally has the same problem as the other sections, as it jumps around from date to date. Some of it seems best put into earlier sections entirely. Generally, any text that doesn't involved actual preparations probably shouldn't be in this section.
  • "most of which were still seriously understrength, but it was undetected by German intelligence" confusing statement, and probably should be elsewhere.
Hopefully alleviated the difficult read by splitting the unwieldy sentence in two. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at "Invasion" for now. From what I have seen so far though, this article needs a lot of copyediting. Mostly the issue is simply re-organization to make it read more linearly, but it does seem that it would not suffer from the removal of perhaps 15 to 20% of the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:V isn't met

  • Given the discussion on the article's talk page, it's disappointing that the article still repeatedly references TV documentaries. Given the vast and high quality literature on this topic, there's no need to use such low quality sources.
  • Moreover, the many references to the documentaries aren't even very useful - they simply point to the entire episode, instead of the point at which the claim appears.
  • Some of the references to book page ranges are also overly broad. For instance, Glantz 2012, p. 290-303 and Thomas 2012, pp. 12–14. are each cited seven times, and there are other instances of this. It's unlikely that these page ranges are needed on each and every occasion.
  • What makes http://ww2stats.com/ a reliable source? There seems to be no information on who created and maintained the site, and its content appears to be primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - @WP:MILHIST coordinators: this looks to me to be a candidate for a quickfail. There is a huge amount of high quality academic material on this subject. TV doco's and a non-RS website just don't meet the standard of citations needed at Milhist ACR. I agree with Nick's comment regarding some sources not being verifiable. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Nick above. --Molestash (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've actioned the quickfail suggestion above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

USS New York (BB-34) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello all! I sincerely regret having sort of disappeared suddenly, and for my lame-duck stint as coord. Some unexpected life events happened in late 2013 that essentially eliminated my ability to edit with quantity or consistency. That said I wanted to push up the articles I had improved at the time but hadn't had the chance to put through FAC and ACR, starting with my contribution to the battleships project, here. —Ed!(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ed, nice work. I have a few observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [5]
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
  • I wonder if a couple of the images could be cropped to remove the borders. For instance, the two images in the Design and construction section;
  • inconsistent date: in the infobox "Commissioned: 15 April 1914", but in the body "commissioned on 15 May 1914"
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
    • Not sure how the rounding algorithm is affecting this or how to correct, but those are the same measurements. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo? " 1926-26"
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe most of my comments have been addressed. I will likely not be around much over the next couple of weeks to a month, so I will add my support now, so as to not hold the article up. Good luck taking it further and thank you for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I see some use of tonnes, as a US ship everything should be in English units, not metric.
  • Measurements should only be converted on first use.
    • So, remove all convert templates after the first use of each? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but only ones that have been converted once already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several ways to present ship stats for those that had multiple upgrades. Including the specs after every single upgrade greatly expands the infobox length and can be confusing to readers not generally familiar with ships. I believe that no more than two sets of stats should be presented in the infobox (as built and the most significant upgrade) and prefer to display them in separate infoboxes with the lower one only containing specs that changed since completion as can be seen at Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Everything else can be covered in the main body.
    • So would it be best to move stats into a second infobox? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, but only the changed stats. There's no requirement to do so if you prefer not to, but regardless you should only have two sets of stats in the infobox(es)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split out the engine horsepower and boilers into a new |ship power= line in the infobox.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not entirely. Boilers need to be added to the power line and the ihp figure needs to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
    • That's the number I've seen. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
  • The ISBN that you give for Macintyre goes to the index for the Naval Institute Proceedings, which is irrelevant. You need to provide the ISSN for the magazine, even though this is before ISSNs were invented.
    • Do you happen to know which magazine? —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naval Institute Proceedings, but remember that magazines use an ISSN, not an ISBN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
  • Don't capitalize radar.
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
  • She was fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, though these made maneuvering harder at low speeds and she rolled badly, and her gunfire accuracy was reduced in rough seas. This is awkward and might need to be split into two sentences.
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
  • After arriving in the United States, the ship was overhauled. The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns. Combine these two sentences.
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
  • Sorry these are all kind random, but I was scanning it and noting whatever caught my eye. I'll do a more thorough review in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't know that the stuff on the earlier New York (or at least the fate of the ship) is all that relevant to this article.
    • Stuck that there because the Navy history makes such a big deal of the number of ship to bear the name. Thought it might be worth a mention to avoid confusion with other ships. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link caliber to caliber (artillery) (or add a footnote explaining the difference, as most readers will mistake 45-caliber for .45 caliber
  • On the excess conversion issue Sturm mentioned above - the armor paragraph is a good example of where these should be trimmed.
  • The squadrons of the Grand Fleet began escorting convoys to Norway due to German raids with cruisers and destroyers in late 1917, which culminated in an abortive sortie by the High Seas Fleet in April 1918 - the Grand Fleet also put to sea, but too late to catch the Germans - I seem to recall from Massie (Castles of Steel) that the American BBs were involved in the convoy escort duty - I'd add a bit on this (basically as in HMS Emperor of India), since this did mark a significant change in how the fleet was being used.
    • Do you have a ref? I've been having a hard time finding anything on this. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll check Massie tomorrow and see if my memory is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obsolescent" is probably a better word than "obsolete" in the second para of the interwar section
  • What type of ship is Leary?
  • Check for missing hyphens - for instance, the link to the St. Louis class cruisers should be rendered with the hyphen.
  • It would be worthwhile to add a bit of context to the neutrality patrol para - sure, many readers will know this is during WWII, but there are probably a fair number who will not.
  • Probably better to link directly to Invasion_of_Iceland#United_States_occupation_force
  • I'd not link Imperial Japan in the sentence about the attack on Pearl Harbor - especially since the way it's worded seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I expected it to link to the Imperial Japanese Navy article, for instance.
  • "attacked Safi harbor, supporting landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division in the harbor" - "harbor" twice in one sentence seems a little repetitive - I might change it to "landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division there." - you might even omit everything after Division, since it should be obvious from context.
  • "a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds." - this should be "sixty 14-inch" per the 4th bullet in WP:NUMNOTES
  • "breaking down at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way" - "on the way" twice in one sentence is repetitive.
  • Any more details available on the effects of the Able and Baker tests? See Japanese battleship Nagato, German cruiser Prinz Eugen, or USS Nevada (BB-36) for the level of detail I'd like to see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "...and provided artillery support for...", would "naval gunfire support" be a more appropriate term? (suggestion only)
    • The language here seems a little redundant: "Armor on New York consisted of belt armor..." (armor consisted of armor), perhaps reword (suggestion only)
    • I did a copy edit, tweaked a ref template, and made some MOS changes, pls see here [6].
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • all ACR toolchecks ok
  • only U.S. ship to have sunk one suggest adding "in World War I"
  • sixteen 5"/51-caliber guns? I thought MOS required "5-inch"?
  • the reduction to 16 5-inch guns seems to be repeated. Suggest moving the sentence beginning After arriving in the United States... down to the interwar period section and removing the repetition
  • suggest three additional 3-inch (76 mm) AA guns were added, bringing the total to five.
  • suggest limiting the infobox to her specs "as built", which seems to be the standard practice
  • suggest adding ship types when you introduce ship names, Arizona, Pennsylvania etc
  • and Queen Elizabeth, New York sailed please have a look at this sentence, it doesn't read well
  • suggest New York saw her first major action during
  • Attached to the Southern Attack Group tasked with attacking "attack/attacking" seems repetitive
  • defended the transports?
  • just watch the convert templates, 14-inch is variously converted to 360 mm and 356 mm, same with 5-inch
  • Further attempts at attacking the landing force with shore batteries were destroyed is clunky, suggest Further shore batteries were destroyed
  • New York remained on station off the coast?
  • some grouped citations are not in numerical order (36,35) for example
  • at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way "along the way" is repetitive
  • they arrived at Iwo Jima on 16 February
  • She stopped by Leyte on 14 June
    • I had a go at fixing a few of these, although I wasn't able to get everything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

List of Presidents of the National Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nominating this for Alist. As you can see I tried to take it to "Good" class but was shut down because it's a list, despite it having significant text. These are the wagers of war during the French Revolutionary Wars (1790s) and it's an important list to have. I've stubbed out all the bios, so there is at least something on each man. Hope it meets with approval. As always, glad to add more, if I can find it. auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I don't know a lot about lists, but WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be a summary of what's on the page.
  • " By a vote of the National Convention to execute Maximilien Robespierre, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, and several other leading members of the revolutionary government. ": No verb.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Dank, I expanded the lead a bit. I also fixed that sentence. auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Panthéon_autel_Convention_nationale_1.JPG: since France does not have freedom of panorama, we need a licensing tag for the work pictured as well as for the photo itself. Same with File:Armand_Gensonné_IMG_2447.JPG
  • File:AN_française_1792.png: should include a data source in the image description
  • All images tagged with the life+70 years tag also need a tag reflecting the copyright status of the original work in the US
  • File:Jérôme_Pétion_de_Villeneuve.jpg needs a source, as do File:Pierre_Vergniaud.jpg, File:Marc-Guillaume_Alexis_Vadier_(1736-1828),_French_revolutionary_(small).jpg, File:Tallien.gif
  • File:Billaud.jpg: who is the author?
  • File:Sadi_Carnot.jpg: per this, this is not an NIH work

Oppose just because of the number of images to fix - will be happy to strike once that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day Ruth, just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source list should probably be sorted alphabetically by the author’s surname
  • Slightly inconsistent presentation: “2nd edition” v. “5th ed.”
  • Is this a webpage: “Smitha, Frank E. Macrohistory: Fear, Overreaction and War (1792–93). 2009–2015 version. Accessed 21 April 2015”? If so, can you please provide the url?
  • Inconsistent presentation (percent or %: “7.5 percent or as much as 11.9%”
  • sans-culottes probably should be linked earlier
  • The duplicate link checker tool reports several examples of possible overlink: First French Republic, Montagnards, National Convention, Committee of Public Safey, Jacobin Club, Louis XVI

withdraw this please Rupert, Nikkimaria pointed out that I don' have consistent image tags, and I don't have time to fix this. Will you, or someone who is authorized, withdraw this from A-class list? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. REDIRECT Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M15 Half-Track
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M2 light tank[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M2 light tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has historical significance and was one of the milestones in American tank development. The article has passed a GA Review (by Parsecboy). The article (in my mind) meets most A-class standards. The article has several comprehensive supports, a lead that summarized the article, and images have license tags or fair use rationales. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: thanks for your hard work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • some of the specifications in the infobox seem inconsistent with what is in the body of the article. For instance: "14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) long" v. "Length: 4.43 m (14.5 ft)". Please check that everything mentioned in the infobox matches the body
  • equally there is inconsistency between the body of the article and the infobox in terms of what number is presented first (e.g. ft/in or m)
  • the composition of the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body (e.g. commander, loader, driver, co-driver)
  • the number of rounds carried is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  • there is a "not in citation given" tag that should be rectified
  • Finished while you were commenting.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead says "one .50 M2 Browning machine gun", but the Specifications section says "two .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning heavy machine guns"
  • "FM 23-80 37-mm Gun Tank M5" appears as a short citation, but there is no corresponding long reference in the References section
  • All are addressed except the FM one, since I do not even know what it means.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That FM one is my fault. Result of a quick fix on the description of how the mount worked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An update, have found some statements in the article which are not supported by the citations as given. There was also some cases of near direct quoting from source and/or too close paraphrasing of source. Suggest assessment put on hold until these issues are addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "There is evidence that indicates those 36 M2A4s were shipped off from North Africa..."
Can this be elaborated on? The implication of the sentence is that either of the two regiments were equipped with the M2 in North Africa, which I can almost say with certainty is not the case. If I am not mistaken the of all history has a table that breaks down the tank type and the M2 is not listed.
The two regiments mentioned in that sentence were the regiments that used it in Burma, not North Africa.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before the regiments were dispatched to Burma, they were not - as far as i am aware - equipped with the M2, rather they were equipped with the M3. Following their redeployment, practically every source mentions them still equipped as such and it seems they were literally thrown into the fighting with little time to acclimatize etc. The two sources used, which state there is evidence for their employment within the two regiments, do they state when the regiments were possibly given the tanks/trained on them etc? How they came about using them despite shipping to Burma with their equipment?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for when the two regiments were in Burma, one of the chaps on the project has a copy of the OH for India and Burma and may find something else, however every account I have read states the two regiments were equipped with M3s ranging from General Slim, regimental accounts, a boast of historians, and the published books by the chaps at the British tank museum. I am not saying remove it, but what's there needs to be better worded IMO as there is a lot of contradicting information out there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is going to sound harsh, but... When I first read the article in its previous state I could barely make sense of it. The lead was completely confusing, the history section was both repetitive and contradictory, and the article sections were disorganized. I can't believe this passed a GA cycle. In any event, I've been trying to beat it into shape by re-organizing the lead and the body sections, and trying my best at the history. However, the article still retains many contradictory statements, especially about armament, and the specs need to be re-done as a table. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I'm hoping it meets requirements, subject is a key figure in the early victories of the French, and an excellent example of the excesses of Revolutionary "justice" in 1793–1794. auntieruth (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Consequently, French commanders walked a fine line between the security of the frontier and clamor for victories which would protect the regime in Paris on the one hand, and the desperate condition of the army on the other.": The writing could be clearer.
  • "Maréchal de Camp (General of Brigade) fr:Jean Nestor de Chancel": If he's notable by the standards of en.wp (and I assume a General of Brigade will be), then link to an article in en.wp.
  • there is no en wiki article. I'll get to it eventually.
  • "who commanded an 40 battalions": ?
  • "The Cambridge Intelligencer (October 5, 1793) published his epitaph by anonymous.": ?
  • The text doesn't clarify what An Epitaph for Custine is meant to convey.
  • "fall", "autumn": consistency. Also, WP:SEASON may be relevant in some cases.
  • "subsequently": search for this in this and other articles and replace it with "soon", "later", "later on", or "consequently", depending on the meaning.
  • " signed a petition for her release": whose release?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I am just starting to read, here my remarks: MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Adam Philippe de Custine began his ..." I believe the full name should only be mentioned once in the article
  • The main body of the article begins with his military career. I think it would be better to start with his birth so the fact that he was born on 4 February 1740 in Metz is cited.
  • "Custine learned to admire their modern military organization". Can you give examples of what modern military organization is?
  • I could, of course, but the source did not say, so I didn't.
  • Check your dashing and date ranges, there are a few wrong ones, example 1756–1789; 1791–1793 should be 1756–89; 1791–93 and 1756-–63 should be 1756–63
  • regarding your sources, if no isbn number is available, I think it would help to add the oclc number. I looked up one reference as an example

Additional remarks from ruth

  • I've been told I included too much of an article paper in this article, so I've removed some of it. Sorry for inconvenience. auntieruth (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Regamey,_Frédéric_-_Custine_en_Alsac,_1793,_Conseil_de_guerre_dans_les_lignes_de_Wissembourg.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removal? Is someone going to take this down? I don't know how to do it. Turns out too much of it is also in an article I hope to publish, and so....auntieruth (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Overlord[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

Operation Overlord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I hope it meets A-class criteria. It is a very popular article with a long history. It passed a GA last year and has been improved since. I really hope it passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've only made two edits to this article. It would have been best if you'd discussed starting an ACR with the regulars on its talk page. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BTW, the successful outcome of a nomination is automatic credit for the nominator towards an A-Class Medal. That just wouldn't be appropriate in this case, so we would have to modify the workings of Milhistbot. I suggest you withdraw the nomination and discuss with the major contributors on talk. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Outright, I want to withdraw, and discuss on talkpage later. Thanks for your responses, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LIM-49 Nike Zeus[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nike Zeus was the first in a string of efforts by the US Army to develop an ABM system. Arguments against its deployment continue to this day as the main arguments against follow-on projects as well, Its failure to convince the DoD to deploy it would be mirrored by the subsequent failures of Nike-X, Safeguard, Sentinel, etc. Plus there's a bunch of great images of rockets going WHOOOSH! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn at editor's request.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

First Battle of Passchendaele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class as I believe it is sufficiently close, even-though there is a lack of German sources on the subject. Feedback would be very much appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Disclaimer: my great uncle Jack Williams served with the 38th Battalion and was one of the men who reached Passchendaele, but did not return.
  • Link 3rd Australian and the New Zealand divisions when they first appear
  • Link Bean. And Chris Pugsly.
  • "Field Marshal Douglas haig" should be "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig" wot? (And link Field Marshal to Field marshal (United Kingdom))
  • done
  • The final plan for the attack of 12 October, was decided on the evening of 9 October. Delete the comma
  • The division had the nominal support of one-hundred and forty-four 18-pounder field guns and forty-eight 4.5 inch howitzers. Change to digits: 144
  • Done
  • A decline had set in among German troops in Flanders I have no idea what this means
  • Amended to make it clear that it is a paraphrase the paraphrase of Rupprecht diary view in Sheldon.Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected the article to note that this was the costliest battle of the war for New Zealand. There has been a couple of books produced over there in recent years, Glyn Harper's Massacre at Passchendaele : the New Zealand story (2000) and Andrew Macdonald's Passchendaele: The Anatomy of a Tragedy (2013).
  • See Casualties and Commemoration section, talk page and the price of the books
    • found a little more in 1917: Tactics...Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1941 the Australian Official Historian Charles Bean, attributed the delay to inefficiency by Lieutenant-General Alexander Godley, the II Anzac Corps commander and his staff, as did Pugsley in 1997. Actually, Bean wrote this is in 1933, not 1941. I'm getting annoyed with the 1941 stuff. The War Memorial decided to digitize the 1941 edition. But all the page numbers are the same as the earlier editions, except for the Roman numerals ones in the preface, which contain errata. It should be listed as 1933. not 1941. What did Bean say?

    At the moment when this order was given [on 10 October], little was known of the true experiences and results of the recent fight. But, before the coming attack was launched, there was time to ascertain what had happened, and this duty rested in particular on General Godley and the staff of I1 Anzac. Obviously, there was every reason for caution: the advance As the divisions were changed, II Anzac Headquarters was the lowest staff to participate in the two operations projected for the II Anzac divisions was now not 1,500, but from 2,000 to 2,500 yards. The interval between the attacks the time available for bombardment and other preparation of all sorts-was not six or eight days, but three. Presumably the reason for this was the supposed weakening of the enemy’s morale.

    and:

    If Generals Monash and Godley had had experience on the Somme, it is unlikely that they would have agreed to this arrangement. Had Godley really known the conditions of October 9th-the thinness of the barrage, the complete absence of smoke screen, the ineffectiveness of the bombardment, the exhaustion of the troops, how could he have hoped for success with deeper objectives than any since July 31st, shorter preparation, and with the infantry asked to advance at a pace unattempted in the dry weather of September?

  • Bean makes the point that it wasn't just guns being out of action:

    The Germans noted that effective counter-battery fire in the intervals between attacks had almost ceased. Actually, in spite of immense efforts by gunners and roadmakers between the 4th and 12th of October, it was found impossible for most batteries to reach by the gth, or even by the 12th, their intended positions. In I1 Anzac, for the artillery in the 3rd Division’s sector, a circuit road had been planned. the engineers to work on the northern half and the 3rd Pioneers on the southern. But the time was too short ; the plank supply almost entirely failed, and the track was impassable. Many batteries, including heavy ones, had to be stopped on the forward slope of Frezenberg ridge in positions in full view of the Germans.

  • Change down man and find your neutral space. I realised that the year should be 1933 months after the article was B classed and have been amending the references as I revisit articles. Notice also that the point is made in a note and refers only to the judgement made by Bean on Godley et al., rather than as an analysis of all the problems in preparing the 12th October attack.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work of the gunners and sappers deserves more attention I think.
  • The logistics of the operation don't get much of a mention either.
  • Any sources? Sadly the deficiencies of the article go further than stylistic infelicities and differences of opinion over details. Even Der Weltkrieg is sketchy on the battle, which I why I thought it was worthy of a B but no more. Others disagree, which has led to some welcome piecemeal improvements but also some retrograde changes. Still, mustn't grumble too much, at least some bugger's read it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of the bibliographic details for Bean, it is my understanding that the citation should refer to the specific version that was consulted. The details should include the edition (if not the first edition) and the year published is the year that the particular edition became available (see Help:Citation Style 1#Dates). It is acknowledged that there are (at least potentially) variations between editions as distinct from reprints. If the online version from the AWM was the source then I would suggest these would be the details, though there may be a better choice of fields/formatting.
  • Bean, Charles Edwin Woodrow (1941). Volume IV - The Australian Imperial Force in France, 1917. Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 (11 ed.). Sydney: Angus and Robertson Ltd.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the 1941 (11th edition) is a version of the first (1933) edition so I've altered them all to be 1933 for the year and 11th edition 1941 for the edition:

* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Bean|1933}} |title=The Australian Imperial Force in France, 1917|series=[[Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918]] |volume=IV |last=Bean |first=C. E. W. |authorlink=Charles Bean |year=1933 |publisher=Australian War Memorial |location=Canberra |edition=11th, 1941 |url=http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67890 |accessdate=23 March 2014 |isbn=0-702-21710-7}}Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the link Help:Citation Style 1#Dates. There are also other links I could find but the date/year is for the publication of the edition. You are not incorrect in saying that every edition is a version of earlier editions however, in citing references, every edition is treated as if it were a discrete work. See Citation#Concepts about supplying "detail to identify the item uniquely". See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one) then I should be citing IAW this. Consider the Chicargo Manual of Style. The first edition appeared in 1906 and it is now in its 16th edition. The main point is that the 1933 edition is the first edition and the 1941 edition is the 11th edition and they are not the same. To refer to the 1933 11th edition is incorrect. Also note that the 1941 edition was published by Angus and Robertson Ltd. Please check the title page of the web version. "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." (International Standard Book Number#Overview) However, ISBNs date from ca 1970 and lack of discrete ISBNs for earlier works is likely an anachronism. In short, if you were refering to the AWM online version, it would be my position that you should be citing the 1941, 11th edition. I hope this is sufficiently convincing. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the template have a year criterion and an edition criterion? Isn't 11th 1941 enough?Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer - it does. Practice is to give the year and, if not the first edition - the edition. It is possible to have more than one edition in a year. I won't swear to it but I am pretty certain I have seen that. 11th edn 1941 is enough or did I miss something? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who's right but having changed them once, I'll wait until everyone else has made their minds up before doing anything else.Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can understand your frustration but is anybody else quoting material. A lot of wiki stuff lacks clarity but Help:Citation Style 1#Dates is specific: "Year of publication edition being referenced." I suggest perhaps this should be adjudicated Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Citing sources - "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information." [My emphasis]. Mixing identifying details degrades the capacity to uniquely identify the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not frustrated, I'm waiting.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reprints of older publications see hereKeith-264 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually refered to this.
See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one)[in regard to Bean's Vol IV] then I should be citing IAW this (see http://www.worldcat.org/title/official-history-of-australia-in-the-war-of-1914-1918-vol4-the-australian-imperial-force-in-france-1917/oclc/59249704 My copy states it was reproduced from the 1943 version).
It is not at all inconsistent with what I have been saying. The example is for a 1959 reprint of the first edition of On the Origin of Species. Somewhere, I have a penguin version of the first edition, which would be different again. There were six English (printed in England) editions. See On the Origin of Species for the referencing of five of these. They clearly show the relationship between date and edition when giving a reference. Looking at the further reading (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html) There are two separate editions listed for the same year for the American editions. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually defending that 1941 was correct and, not wanting to be accused of not carrying my end of the stick, I have made corrections to the reference and the inconsistency caused by the a mismatch in the date. I have also proposed an edit to clarify this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Date/year, edition and location - clarification required Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Just adjust the 1941 in the text to 1933. (Who is robbing this coach?) Now, I have a another bit, which should be rewritten completely:

By a succession of attacks with objectives of diminishing distance, with increasing numbers of infantry, behind a bigger multi-layered creeping barrage and with standing barrages on the objective lines during consolidation, German counter-attacks would be confronted by a defence in depth, with infantry in communication with its artillery and with much more local support from the Royal Flying Corps, rather than the former practice of looking to exploit success by occupying vacant ground beyond the final objective.

  • First of all, this sentence is ridiculously long
    Secondly, the {{Main article: The British set-piece attack in late 1917}} belongs here and not in the next section
    Now we get the the crux of the problem, which is that it is wrong on many points:
    1. Step by step merely involved a series of bite and hold attacks. It did not involve "diminishing distance" or "increasing numbers of infantry" or "behind a bigger barrage". The distance was set by the range of the 18-pounders: less than 6,000 m. So if the guns are 2,000 m back, then you can advance up to about 3,000 m. In fact, the way they did it involved moving the guns forward on every other attack. The width of the attack was determined by the number of guns and the amount of ammunition available.
    2. The standing barrages were on the objective lines. That would be silly. They were about 100 m beyond it.
    3. German counter-attacks were not confronted by a defence in depth, but by the standing barrage and the consolidating infantry
    4. The infantry was not in communication with its artillery. In fact, they even dropped the use of signalling flares. Instead, the artillery fire was on a fixed schedule. The infantry had no way of calling the gunners and asking for changes like fire to be directed at a particular position, or the creeping barrage to be held up.
    5. While the RFC was involved in spotting, the main burden of locating the enemy batteries was with the sound rangers. It was the job of the heavy artillery to deal with the German guns
  • Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above is accurate. The distance was not set by the range of field artillery but the design of the German defensive system. The depth attacked was determined by the quantity of artillery - particularly the 650 extra guns moved into the front during September. The use of leap-frogging meant that each objective was consolidated by the troops which attacked it, creating a series of defended lines and localities intended to create a defence in depth. Every method available was used to communicate with the artillery - signal lamps, flares to show contact-patrol aircraft the position of the infantry (and rockets to signal direct to the artillery), pigeons, messenger dogs, runners, all observed by balloon observers, contact patrol aircraft, separate counter-attack patrol aircraft and reports from fighter pilots who had been ground-strafing. Sound ranging was less effective in Flanders because the the German guns were behind the slight rises in the ground. The air with sounds from the guns often moved westwards and upwards and didn't register. The British used every method they could find to locate German guns - captured records, prisoner interrogation, air reconnaissance, wireless interception and plotting the smoke screens the Germans used when firing, as well as flash spotting and sound ranging. I suggest you add citation needed where you want more links to the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Standing barrages fell 200-300 yards beyond the objective and sometimes swept back-and-forth.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes for clarification and added a few citations.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about the distance to the standing barrage, and about the establishment of a defence in depth, which had been British doctrine since the middle of the year; but this took time to set up. During a battle, the barrage held off the counterattacks. The only point I disagree with you on is the matter of the depth of the attack. The breadth of the attack was set by the number of guns (because you wanted so many per yard), but the depth was due to their range. A bite and hold attack simply could not go beyond the range of the guns.
Also, your wording ready to engage German guns which opened fire, with gas and high-explosive shell makes it unclear whether you are talking about British or German guns. (Did the British have mustard at Third Ypres? I can't remember.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 does not mention the British switch to defence in depth in mid-1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not after 31 July. Opportunities to take vacant ground had been missed at Arras and Messines because of the standing barrages so the plan had provision for an opportunistic advance to the red line with fresh troops (source of much confusion since, when it was treated as the final objective) decided on locally by divisional and corps commanders. The effectiveness of the German defence led to such arrangements being dropped for subsequent attacks, which was the reason for limiting the depth of the objectives. By advancing only into the relatively thinner defences close to the front line, the British would not present the German counter-attacks with exhausted and depleted infantry out of contact with the rear but consolidated defences with fresh local reserves. At each objective, the troops which reached it would dig in and fresh troops continue the advance to the next objective after a pause so that if the attack went well there would be an outpost line, a rear line and a support line in the captured area, beyond the existing British defences at and behind the original front line. Much of the defence would be in captured pillboxes and blockhouses, which took time to envelop and capture and the rest would be dispersed on reverse slopes so that (if it wasn't foggy etc) it could be seen from the rear by artillery observers.

I think what I've done is fail to make it clear that the defence in depth term I used, was referring to the tactical situation in the battle area, rather than the systematic defences all armies used on the Western Front. (I looked at the Wiki page on infantry tactics for a link but there isn't enough detail in it.) If there's a better term to use it can go. The emphasis after 31 July became the defeat of the German counter-attacks, which had forced the attackers back from captured ground considered the most important by the Germans. (The emphasis isn't great in the tertiary literature, which tends to follow an obsolete line that it was only Plumer who gave up "breakthrough attempts", in the three big successes culminating on 4 Oct. The Germans used a period from 4–12 Oct as the crisis of the campaign, which rather contradicts much British historiography.) The British got into Polygon Wood from 10 – 16 August and were thrown out again each time. British methods changed after 31 July but this is obscured by personalising it, when it was actually continuous and can be cited from the OH and some of the other sources like Simpson.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed "defence in depth" after thinking it over; made the counter battery sentence clearer.Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

preliminary comments by auntieruth I'm confused. First, where is the nominator in all of this discussion? The chatter here seems to involve Hawkeye, Cinderella and Keith. I know something about this battle (not a lot, but some), and I'm completely confused by the first three sections and the lead. For example, in the lead ..., based on incorrect information that during the Battle of Poelcappelle (9 October), the attacking troops had captured the first objective line. The front line near Passchendaele had hardly changed after German counter-attacks in the afternoon recaptured most of the lost ground, which meant that the final objective for the attack on 12 October was 2,000–2,500-yard (1,800–2,300 m) forward, instead of the 1,500 yards (1,400 m) expected Ummm....where should I start? Okay, so Poelcapelle was earlier. And it didn't go as far as it should have? Or So Incorrect intelligence from the Battle of Poelcappele (9 October) placed the objective at 2,000-2,500 yards forward, 1,500 yards more than the Paschendaele battle plan expected? If this is correct, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph anyway. The lead doesn't take me through, it takes me in a circle.

The First Battle of Passchendaele took place on 12 October 1917, in the Ypres Salient of the Western Front, west of Flemish village of Passchendaele. The attack was part of the x-month long Third Battle of Ypres in the First World War.

The main assault was conducted by the two Anzac corps in the Second Army against the German 4th Army, with a supporting attack by the Fifth Army between the northern boundary of the Second Army and the southern limit of the French First Army. The brigade-sized attacks of the XVIII Corps in the Fifth Army area moved the front line on either side of the Ypres-Staden railway north of Poelcappelle. The Germans defeated the attacks by XIV Corps and retained control of the high ground on Passchendaele Ridge opposite the I and II Anzac corps.

Several problems plagued the British attack. The previous Battle at Poelcappele had generated erroneous intelligence on the goal of the operation. German defenders had frustrated attempts on 9 October to establish a line deeper into the salient, which made the goal of (coords) 1500 yards further expected. Furthermore, inclement weather hampered movement and communication for both sides. British attacks were postponed until the weather improved and communications behind the front could be restored.

This was among the most costly single actions of the War. Two German divisions intended for Italy were diverted to Flanders, to replace "extraordinarily high" losses. The battle was a German defensive success but was costly for both sides. The ANZAC forces....

It would help to say what the goal was at Poelcappelle, rather than simply talk about yards of difference. Yes, I know that yards of difference made a difference, a huge one, but....auntieruth (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the amendment? Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HOw about my tweaks? Also, I'm still not sure where the nominator is in all of this? auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Lead and edits must have been less clear than I thought. ;O) I think Labbatt's out to lunch. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving jobs and from one country to another. I have become rather indisposed as of late.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone like to co-nominate this article? - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with this? Perhaps the nom should be withdrawn until Labattblueboy can return to handle it? auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only here because I put most of the material in the article and feel responsible for errors and omissions. I'd be happy to wait for Labatt to settle his arrangements.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Images[edit]

It's always worth checking to see if a higher resolution copy of the image is available. I haven't carefully checked every image, but I can tell you that, of your images, three are from the National Library of New Zealand.

Of these, the copy on Wikipedia is about 500x300px, but, if you sign up for a free login, you can get a really nice image of around 5000x3000 px. This is a much better image to use, and, with not that much work, these are probably featureable, getting your article on the main page - call it twice more, as the funeral image will probably focus on the more relevant articles.

I'll update those images for you this time, but I don't check every A-class review, so this is worth keeping in mind. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Utility of Force[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

The Utility of Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This isn't really my comfort zone, but it passed a GA review quite easily thanks to Hawkeye so I thought it might be worth getting a bit more feedback. I wonder how it would fare at FAC? I didn't have such lofty heights in mind when I wrote it—I was just amazed we didn't have an article and thought I'd put something together—but any comments would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Harry, sorry for the limited feedback but this one is probably beyond me. One quick suggestion, though, is to include more images to break up the text. This may not be possible, but is there an image of the author you could use, or anything else that is relevant? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a counter-insurgency theory perspective, the article's perfectly competent, and I'd support at ACR. My thoughts would be:
  • Images. I'd recommend an image from the Balkans (e.g. UNPROFOR) for the Background section; perhaps Clausewitz or Napoleon to illustrate industrial warfare; and an Iraq photograph for the war among the people section.
  • Critical reception. For FA, I'd consider advise restructuring it around the themes rather than the reviewers; for the average reader it matters less probably who said what ("X said Y about the book") and more what the themes were ("responses to the book have stressed A, B, C"). You could then include more material/reviews, while avoiding any repetition. Would be good to see what the British Army Review has said on it, and what comparable US and Chinese service publications may have commented. I'd also be looking at the "The Accidental Guerrilla" to see what Kilcullen's reflections on it was, in terms of how the volume has driven counter-insurgency thinking. There may be some further framework pieces in Marston and Malkasian "Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare" and similar volumes, or in the Small Wars Journal. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Concur with Hchc about the structure. In general, the Reception section is a bit dense
  • Lead is quite long relative to the length of the article
  • "devised a strategy for the multi-national UN force deployed to intervene effectively in the war, it having been deployed" - this sentence is rather awkwardly phrased, as is the last sentence in this section
  • Any more details on production? Has this been translated or republished? Who designed the cover?
  • Srebenica or Srebrenica?
  • Suggest providing a brief inline gloss for rhizomatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "war(s) amongst the people": use some synonyms for this, to vary the prose. Also, either use quote marks every time, or use them more sparingly.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Disclaimer: I met Smith briefly, and served under him (very indirectly) in Bosnia.[reply]

  • link major general at first mention
  • Niall Ferguson is overlinked
  • "again lacking defined objectives" this does not follow. What earlier air strikes involving Smith lacked defined objectives?
  • "commanders now operate inside the theatre" requires some explication
  • there is a tension between the use of "second half" and "final third" when describing the narrative, which needs to be resolved.
  • otherwise, I am very impressed with the article, I believe it captures Smith's work (which I have read) quite well, as well as the valid criticisms and observations of it made by others. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • External links check out (no action req'd).
    • Image use seems appropriate and has a fair use rationale (no action req'd).
    • Caption looks fine (no action req'd)
    • No duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • "...subdue but not necessarily end the conflict." Not sure about use of "subdue" here - seems like something one does to an opponent not to "conflict", perhaps consider rewording?
    • This is a little repetitive: "Reviewers also felt that Smith under-emphasised the extent to which "war amongst the people" has always existed. Nonetheless, reviewers praised..." specifically the second instance of "reviewers". Perhaps reword one?
    • This is also a little repetitive: "Smith then proceeds to discuss each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..." (discusses). Perhaps consider something like: "Smith then proceeds to cover each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..."
    • Prose seems a bit choppy here: "...he opines that the soldiers undertaking the counter-insurgency operations did not have the proper skills...", perhaps consider something like: "...he opines that soldiers undertaking counter-insurgency operations in that conflict did not have the proper skills..." or something like that.
    • "Roberts believed that Smith over-stated the transformation into the new paradigm of war by playing down the extent to which there have always been wars amongst the people...", should wars amongst the people here be in quotation marks for consistency with your other usage of this term?
    • ISSNs could probably be added to the references (available through WorldCat.org). Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault Rafale[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination here.

The article has already gone through a failed ACR, during which I became inactive and so the issues raised were not addressed. I've tidied the article up the last few days. Any comment would be appreciated. Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Sp33dyphil, but you have to remove the "A-class=fail" when you renominate. (Change "fail" to "current".) If you don't do that, the Bot will figure that your nomination has been failed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for notifying me. Sp33dyphil (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, interesting article. I had a quick run through the article and did some copy editing and I have a few comments/suggestions:

  • is there a reference for this: "The four-nation project would eventually result in the Eurofighter Typhoon"?
  • The previous sentence mentions the Eurofighter project, which resulted in the Typhoon. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. Additionally, from a copy editor's perspective I'd suggest rewording it slightly to: "The four-nation project eventually resulted in the production of the Eurofighter Typhoon." AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a reference for this: "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."?
  • See below.
  • My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • additionally, the above sentence might flow better if it were reworded slightly. For instance, "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter" could be changed to "The French government later announced that it would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."
  • Sorry if it is not clear enough. I would've thought that the fact that the French Navy purchased the Rafale is because the government did not buy the F/A-18, and so I think that would be apparent in the article. Besides, I'm not aware of any such announcement. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then my suggestion is to change the sentence construction. "The French government did not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter." would be fine, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does "it" refer to in this sentence: "greatly increase the dist

ance at which the Rafale can engage aerial targets when it enters service"? Is 'it' refering to the missile or the Rafael?

  • the information on the bid to supply the UAE probably should be moved to the Failed bids section
  • please check the English variation you are using, I see a mixture of British and US English. For instance, "defense", "kilometers" and "maneuverability" (US) but also "defence" (British). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AustralianRupert: I've converted all instances of defence into defense except for mention of the Indian and Canadian defence ministries, which use British English I would have thought. Please tell me if you would like them changed as well. Appreciate your comments. Cheers Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, ok thanks for clarifying that you are using US English, I actually assumed the other way around but didn't want to tinker without clarifying. There are a lot of British English words remaining. For instance: favoured, optimised, programme, specialised, metres, signalling, reorganised, refueling, litres, modernised, digitisation, prioritises, manoeuvring, minimisation, minimise, colour. Please adjust these to US spelling for consistency. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why switching to US spellings? I can't clearly tell from the earliest versions of the article which spelling version was established first. But being a European topic, it should proably use British/Inter'l English spelling such as defence, except for quotes and proper names that use US spellings. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TBH, I've made the changes above because I thought (short-sightedly), given AustralianRupert's examples, that the majority of the spelling was in American English. Which is wrong because I write my articles using British English. I will revert my changes. Sorry for the confusion. Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference # 1 is just a bare url, which should probably be formatted the same as the other references with details such as the title, publisher, accessdate etc
  • watchout for overlink; the duplicate link checker tool highlights the following possibilities: Delta wing, Afterburner, Carrier-based aircraft, Avionics, Canard (aeronautics), Knot (unit), Data fusion, MICA, General Electric F404, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Thales Damocles, Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, SEPECAT Jaguar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of the citations appear to be inconsistent in their presentation. For instance "Eden et al" (and some of the others) uses the harvnb template, but "Buttler 2000" and others do not;
  • in the References does "Sedbon 1986" refer to the Jan 86 publication or, the Jul 86 publication?
  • Reference # 175 (Pockock): should the quote be placed into a note like the others? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've added my support now as my comments have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see this detailed article back at ACR. I have the following comments:

  • "Dassault describes the Rafale as an omnirole fighter" - does anyone else? I wouldn't put much weight on what the manufacturer calls the type ('multi-role' is the common term, and means the same thing)
  • See below.
  • "capable of simultaneously performing air supremacy, interdiction, reconnaissance, and airborne nuclear deterrent missions" - this might be technically feasible, but an aircraft armed with nuclear ground attack missiles is never going to be used for any purpose other than nuclear strike. More generally, the claim that the aircraft can "simultaneously" conduct these roles is a bit questionable - while ground-attack Rafales might be able to self-escort themselves to targets against modest opposition (a common feature of virtually all modern fighter bomber aircraft), they can't fight other high-end aircraft without first disposing of their ground attack weapons.
  • That's the language used by Dassault, and Flightglobal acknowledges it. Furthermore, the word polyvalent is used by the Interavia when describing the Rafale. It means the same thing as omnirole. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest sticking with the common term - this appears to be a PR term which Dassault is using to differentiate the aircraft from its competitors, but doesn't hold much water (F-16s, F-15s. Typhoons and Gripens are also very good at a range of roles). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, are you sure that France conducts nuclear-armed deterrent patrols? - I thought that the countries which did this ceased doing so after the Cold War.
  • I'm not sure if that has stopped. Reworded. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rafale is distinct from other European fighters of its era in that it is almost entirely built by one country" -doesn't this also apply to the Gripen? (leaving the Eurofighter as the only international project). I suppose that the Gripen uses an American-designed engine, and sensors from various countries though, which is a significant difference.
  • Yes, there's international collaboration on the Gripen. In fact Britain is reportedly likely to block a sale to Argentina due to its involvement in the Gripen programme.
  • The para starting with "During October–December 1978" seems out of order given that it describes events while this was an international project
  • While this is chronologically out of order, I think the setup is justified since "Origins" deals with the background and multilateral projects, whereas information from "Design phase and prototype" onwards deals with France's own development of the fighter. This gives the readers a more consistent recounting of events, as they only have to shift their mental time-frame once, instead of multiple times if a chronological setup was used since there were different conflicting developments throughout the period of 1978–1985. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how the budget cuts affected the Rafale development program exactly? - it's not stated at present.
  • The 1994 budget for the Rafale was cut by some US$340 million. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess what I was asking is how the cuts slowed development: did they lead to fewer prototypes (and hence slower testing), smaller design teams, etc? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added info. about reduced order size and rising costs. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size constraints were eased by the introduction of the Charles de Gaulle, France's first nuclear-powered carrier, which was considerably larger than previous carriers, the Foch and Clemenceau" - this is a bit unclear: surely the Rafale was always designed to primarily operate from CdG, and vice-versa given that the other two carriers were at the end of their service lives during the development of the Rafale
  • I'm unsure as well. Perhaps I should remove the last clause altogether since I cannot find additional sources. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first clause is my concern: Rafale was presumably never intended to operate from the old carriers (at least for long), and CdG was presumably always intended to operate aircraft of this type, if not the exact design. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any other information than what was written in Williams 2002.
  • Replaced the word eased with offset, as eased implied that the size constraints were unintended and were only solved with the CdG's larger size. Perhaps the aircraft was engineered that way because the carrier was larger. Offset is a more appropriate word in this case. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The service originally envisaged taking delivery of 250 Rafales, but this was initially revised downwards to 234 aircraft, made up of 95 "A" and 139 "B" models",[33][37] and later to 212 aircraft.[36] The Navy, meanwhile, had 60 Rafales on order, down from 86 due to budget cuts.[33][36] Of the 60, 25 would be M single-seaters and 35 two-seat Ns.[37] The two-seater has been cancelled" - when did these changes to the composition of the orders take place?
  • I couldn't find any mainstream sources. Besides, I think adding the years would complicate things further. Please respond if you object to my reply. Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2009 the French government ordered an additional 60 aircraft to take the total order for the French Air Force and Navy to 180.[39] As of 2014, a total of 180 Rafales have been ordered by France" - the second sentence here seems repetitive
  • The sentence starting with "F3 standard Rafales are capable" is rather lengthy and complex: I'd suggest splitting this into two or more sentences
  • "The Rafale is fitted with the Snecma M88 engine" - one or two of them?
  • "Dassault describe the engine as providing "exceptional controllability, especially during acceleration" - of course they think it's wonderful. What do independent commentators say?
  • "There has been considerable interest in improved M88 engines by potential export customers" - what improvements are they looking for?
  • "In January 2014, it was reported that Dassault offered a contract with full transfer of technology for much lower long-term support costs" - lower than what? (the original price, or the F-35?)
  • What's the timeframe for the Malaysian fighter replacement project?
  • Removed Malaysia section due to lack of widespread coverage. According to Defense Industry Daily, Dassault has not submitted a leasing offer to the Malaysian government. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you note why Singapore went with the F-15 rather than the Rafale? - Singapore's defence procurement processes are very well regarded internationally, and are considered to be quite influential as a result.
  • "The United Arab Emirates Air Force was interested in an upgraded version of the Rafale with more powerful engines and radar, and advanced air-to-air missiles" - when was this?
  • "Deputy Supreme Commander of the Union Defence Force, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, had called the French offer "uncompetitive and unworkable" - when was this?
  • More generally, the coverage of the UAE procurement seems a bit under-developed that this has been quite a saga (at one stage it looked like the Rafale was locked in, only for this to fall apart)
  • Strange. I couldn't find any sources that said the UAE were close to buying the Rafale. Perhaps you could give me a link? Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, these articles refer: [7], [8], [9], and [10] (somewhat speculative!) I suspect that I read this in various Jane's publications, which are difficult to access unless you're a member of an institution with a subscription (which I no longer am, sadly). Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more be said about the attempt to sell Rafales to Morocco? This is noted earlier as having failed in part due to poor cooperation between the French government and Dassault, but what this involved isn't stated. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd suggest working on the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've got the same concerns about your first paragraph as Nick does. The tone is wrong for FAC. It's fine to tell us what the company thinks about its fighter ... but only after you've described it as reliable sources would describe it. That's all I've got for now; copyediting comments would be premature. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the omnirole statement. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When deciding which articles to copyedit, I have to consider the odds that the article won't pass, and this article has only one support in 2.5 months. I'd like to see more activity here before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Nick suggests working on "the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC" ... and that sounds like something that should be done before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the three remaining issues. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a few edits, but I'm just not comfortable copyediting this. A lot of the material is new to me, and I know that reviewers at FAC are more demanding when articles concern current companies and their products. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of links to illustrate the point: WP:FA#Engineering and technology and WP:FA#Business, economics, and finance. Very few FACs on products, particularly big-ticket engineering products, have succeeded over the last 10 years. Milhist has had a little more success than most because ... hey, we're Milhist. But in general, reviewers and writers of these articles haven't seen eye-to-eye, and I'm just not sure how to copyedit across the cultural divide, or whether it's worth the time investment to try. Some phrases just in the lead section that you might or might not have problems with, in addition to the ones that reviewers perceive (or misperceive) as military jargon: "high level of agility", "air supremacy", "crucial advantages", and "planned to be introduced". WP:DATED is also cited much more (and applied unevenly) for these types of articles than for historical articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: Thank you for your input. Please see below.

Brief comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Dank's comments about the lead, and the article in general. In the lead, "high level of agility" is sourced from comments made by a French pilot and quoted in the Times of India (not exactly a third party reliable source, he's not going to talk it down is he?), and "crucial advantages" is not supported in the body of the article, all that is in the body of the article re: Libya is a mention of SPECTRA, which apparently allows it to operate without SEAD support. How that is a "crucial advantage" in any respect is not explained in the article. Both phrases lack neutrality as they stand, IMO. Things that are designed to do something are described as doing it, for example, SPECTRA. SPECTRA is designed to protect the aircraft, but does it? Nevertheless, it is described thus "which protects the aircraft...". The assumption that things that are designed to do something actually do it is a big call unless proven in combat. If proven in combat, there should be some third party confirmation of the performance.
  • While I appreciate that this article has taken a lot of time to develop, there is a lot of work involved in reviewing it, over 200 citations to check, and several obvious prose issues that immediately come to attention. I am also a bit concerned about giving a 7K word article my time when it appears to have neutrality issues from the get-go. I suggest the nominator takes these issues on board and rectifies them, otherwise it seems unlikely that it will be successful. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite gathering two supports, it appears that this article contains several prose issues, which I do not necessarily entirely agree with. The ongoing sales development with India and Canada means that it'll be difficult to update and maintain this article. Although I don't intend to see the ACR fail, it is apparent that the article needs some work. Unless an editor thinks that these problems are relatively minor and can quickly be rectified, a fail I think would be appropriate for this review. Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2015/Failed&oldid=697863711"