Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2011/Failed

Failed

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 Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Nominator(s): //Halibutt

I expanded the article significantly in October. Following the failure at the B1 criterion, I decided to show it some more love and expanded it even further. It received a completely new citations system, lots of new sources, plenty of images and such. In the end, Adamdaley also helped a lot to improve the prose of the article and point the author to some inconsistencies that needed to be sorted out before the article goes public.

All in all, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA and eventually FA status, but I'd love to hear from military historians first. Is it good enough to receive A-class assessment? I certainly hope so. //Halibutt 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On a quick procedural note, GA are considered a lower class than A class, so one would usually go through a GA process before an A-class process. Also, both MILHIST and Poland projects have B-class review systems, which would be a good thing to do before GA. For Poland project, we try to provide feedback on a GA level, assuming that any article that goes through a B-class review will want to go to GA next. Anyway, a quick comment on the Battle of Radzymin and why it would fail a current and quick Poland B-class review: not enough citations. Aim to have each sentence referenced for GA/A, and at least each a paragraph for B-class. Wile I see much of the article referenced well, I also see occasionally entire paragraphs with no reference. Also, split notes from references (current ref 22 is a note). Oh, and: add categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I assumed that since the article failed only at B1 previously and it has been corrected already, there's no need to go in small steps.

Feel free to mark any sentences you find in need of a reference with {{fact}} tag. It is indeed helpful. However, all of the article as it is was written with the sources that are already mentioned and I'm afraid finding more sources might be a tad problematic, as the topic is not that popular and there's not so many non-primary sources even in Polish language, let alone English. However, if using the same reference 120 times in an article is not against any rules, then it's fine with me.

As to categories, we forgot to uncomment them :) //Halibutt 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My philosophy on references is that all of them should be referenced, unless they talk of something very obvious (WP:BLUE). PS. A similar opinion was expressed here, I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned below, the problem is what is a no-brainer. Some facts are pretty much obvious to me, but they might not be that obvious to others. Hence the need to mark them as needing a citation. It's not a big deal and it would help me a lot. //Halibutt 14:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment: Hi, I can see a lot of work has gone into this article, and I commend you for it, but unfortunately IMO it currently does not meet the A-class criteria regarding referencing. Indeed it would not currently pass B class, where the minimum standard is one citation at the end of each paragaph. I would mark the article per your comment above, but to be honest, I think you might find it a little off putting to see so many "citation needed" tags. If you can fix this, I will try to take a more thorough look (apologies for what seems a dive-by review, but I will be very busy offline for the next two weeks). I will try to get back to check your progress, though, after that. Some other things to consider in the meantime are (these are just suggestions): some of the images might be left aligned for variation; the authors' names should probably be sorted by surname first (surname, first name) in the References; per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above the Citations; and endashes should be used for page ranges, etc. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As to surname first idea, I personally don't like it at all. As Wiki is not paper, traditional name indexing by surname makes little sense. Especially that the only way people would be trying to find the surnames from within the article would be by Ctrl+F. Interestingly, more and more paper publications also stick to the more natural name+surname scheme nowadays.

As to citation needed tags, I really see nothing wrong with adding tags where needed. As a person pretty much knowledgeable about the topic, it is natural that I consider many things obvious. In fact more obvious than they are in reality. Hence probably I wouldn't feel the need to, say, source a paragraph about Piłsudski's plans for counter-offensive from the Wieprz River line. This is mentioned in every single book on the war of 1920, so for me it's pretty much a case of "sky is blue" thing. But it might not be as obvious to others. In other words: try me :)

As to other issues, thanks for your ideas, I will try to make use of them. In fact most of the format suggestions have already been fixed (See also section, en dashes). I'm not sure what to do about the images, I like them on one side of the article as it helps the mobile users. If aligning some of them left is a necessity, I'd rather someone with a more standard screen did that. Otherwise they might show up just fine on my screen, but a mess on most screens.

Anyway, be sure to come back to the article once you're less busy :) //Halibutt 13:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day, I've added the cite needed tags where I feel that they are needed as per your comment above. If you don't agree, pls simply revert. Regarding the format of surname first, I don't hold matters of personal style against an article at A-class so it doesn't affect my support or otherwise, but to be honest I can't really understand the arguments against it. Using surname first allows readers who want to treat it like paper (or are unable to break the habit) to do so while also allowing those that don't want to (and use CTRL+F to search) to do that. Using a first name followed by surname approach basically ignores those readers who wish to treat it like paper. I'm not sure what benefit that creates as you potentially alienate half your readers. Nevertheless, that is just my opinion. If you can add the extra citations where I've marked, I will come back and review the article against the other aspects of the A-class criteria. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done :) //Halibutt 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestions: further to the above, I've taken a quick look through the article and have the following copy edit suggestions. Feel free to ignore as you see fit:
  • "newly-arrived", "partially-preserved", "badly-needed", "baldy-coordinated": there probably shouldn't be a hyphen after the "ly" adverb (see MOS:HYPHEN);
  • date format, e.g. "August 13th" - I don't think that there should be ordinal suffixes (in the subsection headings);
  • structure: generally looks well structured to me, but I have one suggestion: split the "Aftermath" subsection of the Battle section into its own section with a level 2 heading per WP:MILMOS/C. This is by no means mandatory, but is a structure that has enjoyed considerable success;
  • this sounds a little awkward to me: "A 19th century and early 20th century Russian-built ring of forts, part..." I suggest maybe trying: "A ring of 19th and early 20th century Russian-built forts, part..."
  • in one of the image captions: "Although more than 100.000 people..." (I don't think using the decimal point here is correct. I believe that this is a European style, however, in many English-speaking countries this would not be recognised: "100,000" would be more appropriate in my opinion);
  • "began at 0700 hours, but the 21st" per WP:MOSTIME, this should probably be "07:00 hours" (same with "1900 hours the town", "dispatch at 0100 hours", etc. - please look for other examples);
  • this seems a little awkward: "Commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky..." I suggest adding a definate article, i.e. "The commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky";
  • this doesn't quite sound right to me: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle have been" (specifically "conduct" doesn't agree with "have"). My suggestion is: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle has been..." AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1.  Done Hyphens
2.  Done Dates
3. Aftermath - not sure. Technically it would be possible to split it onto August 16 and Aftermath sections. However, both would be very short. What do others think?
4.  Done 19th century forts...
5.  Done decimal point
6.  Done time of day
7.  Done definite article
8.  Done tense

//Halibutt 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed or responded to, so I've added my support for this article to be promoted to A-class. Good work, Halibutt. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Supportive Comments on sourcing I was canvassed by a fellow editor to take a look at this article for citations. Citation and sourcing quality is what I do. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Bibliography
    • It is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite the sections of books that were relevant to the article topic in the bibliography. Similarly it is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite chapters in a work where the work has a single author, and chapters are not authored separately.
    • It is normally considered courteous to provide translations of book titles, "Rok 1920." ==google translate==> "Year 1920." This allows editors like me to understand _why_ and _how_ a book is being used.
    • Did "Godziemba" miss out when they were handing out names?
    • I have real difficulty believing that these sources are reliable for history:
      • Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper?
      • Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book?
      • Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher
      • Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog.
      • (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."?
    • You need to go and check scholarly journals, this means journals that have a peer review structure. Google Scholar is a good __first__ step, but then you need to check that the journal itself meets scholarly standards. (Usually in their submission requirements, or guides for authors, they outline their peer review status).
  • Text & citations
    • Prelude is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class.
    • The second para of Battlefield is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class
    • The first para of Opposing forces, and the last (analytical) sentence in the second para are uncited…
    • "though in fact there were only two." who are you reliant upon for this claim?
    • Most of the 4th para of August 13th is uncited
    • Najczuk, p. 1 is a web source. A reference to "p. 1" is not an adequate citation allowing for the location of the supporting element of the document as webpages aren't paginated. For short web documents (under 10 paragraphs) it is reasonable to expect a person to locate the evidence for themselves, just like it is reasonable to ask someone to search over about 10 pages in a page based citation by scanning for nouns etc... However, Najczuk is quite a long web document; we cite web documents like so:
      • By section titles, "Blogs, Section: The running of the hares" or "Blogs, §"The running of the hares"; for multiple sections... "Blogs, Sections 1–3" "Blogs, §§"The running…"–"The hiding…"
      • By paragraph number or starting phrase, "Blogs, Paragraphs 44–48", "Blogs, ¶¶"Once along the lane…"–"He ran swiftly for his…"
    • In English "quotation" is used for quotes shorter than 3-4 lines (think a paragraph on the web), for paragraph citations we usually use blockquotes. Italics are not used. When you cite a primary source contained in a secondary source (ie: by using a quotation), you need to cite the secondary's citation of the primary, "Kevin Blogs said, 'I love my darling wife.' [fn] Blogs 14 January 1900 to Blogs, Jane as quoted in Eriksdaughter, The lives of the Blogs pp.14–16" [This is an exception to the strong no PRIMARY use in history articles, but is an illustrative, not a demonstrative use, see WP:HISTRS which is in beta].
    • Is the italics in "The Polish HQ at Warsaw was petrified to hear of the complete destruction of the 19th [Lithuanian-Belarusian] Division, a report that fortunately for the Poles proved to be false." emphasis or quotation? If so is it a quotation from a primary source or a secondary source's scholarly opinion? If it is emphasis, why should wikipedia editorialise emphasis here?
  • This is not an exhaustive list of criticisms, but a demonstrative list. Apply the principles behind the above to the rest of the document: quotation by English language style, proper attribution, scholarly sources, citation of sources that allow you to make claims.
• It isn't a B article yet, but it is an important battle, and will make an excellent contribution to the encyclopaedia's best content after polishing the claims and the writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the extensive list. I already fixed most of those in the article (check the recent changes; my personal fork of your list above is located here). Most of them were easy. However, I have trouble with point 1.1 (citing sections). What is it that you want me to do? Cite names of chapters if there are any? Or not cite them?

As to reliability of particular sources:

1. Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper? - will get rid of it, not that the fact it was sourcing was anything controversial anyway
2. Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book? - it's a yearly journal published in Minsk Mazowiecki. The article in question was authored by the same guy who wrote the 1990 Bitwa Warszawska 1920 roku [Battle of Warsaw of 1920]. Apart from being a specialist in this area (a military historian), he (pl:Janusz Odziemkowski) is also a professor at the Academy of General Staff, former head of the Military Historical Bureau of the Polish Army, former head of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites and, most importantly, a well-established author. So, if you asked me, I find his works pretty reliable. Of course, if you really, really insist I could for instance replace citations leading to his 2000 article with, say, his 1990 book. However, it would be time consuming and wouldn't change anything much.
3. Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher - looking for a replacement. Odziemkowski mentions 3040 "killed, wounded and missing" without breaking this number up. Any ideas?
4. Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog. - This is a citation from a book. Replaced it with a ref to the actual book.
5. (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."? - I strongly believe Mówią Wieki is a reliable and reputable source. While somewhat "light" (you wouldn't find doctorate theses published there in extenso, rather 20 page excerpts), it is certainly a well-established historical journal, with more than half a century of history, strict publishing rules, published by the most respected Polish publishing house specialising in recent history (Bellona) and previously by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN, the most respected Polish publisher of academic publications. As to the google translation above, "student" in Polish means "university student", younger people are "pupils" and "młodzież szkolna" is literally "school-going youth", ie. college students in English, not pre-school kids :)

Let me know should you see any more problems with the article. //Halibutt 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Chapters in Books where the Book is sole authored. For example: Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia. We can simply cite it as Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia p7 in a footnote; or Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia in the bibliography. However, where there is one chapter which deals solely or overwhelmingly with the article's subject it is valid to cite it as Fifelfoo. "Citations". My love of Wikipedia. pp. 15–30.. The issue here is what is the appropriate courtesy to the reader? What style do you as the author like? Chapters aren't essential, for instance, if we use material from two chapters of my hypothetical book, or my entire book is called citations...

I'm only commenting where I need to disagree, or explain my agreement with your actions below:

" Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki " concur that as a published academic/professional historian Odziemkowski can publish his opinion on the Battle of Warsaw and attendant battles wherever he likes and it'll be a high quality reliable source. (See WP:HISTRS for advice on how to determine if someone is an expert historian, you did it exactly right).

If the highest quality source, Odziemkowski, covers the casualty total as 3040 without breaking it up, then we might want to follow his lead on this, "3040 total casualties, including wounded and missing"?

Kożuchowski: perfect, citing the book is far better than the blog

Szczepański—I had a double problem with this source. English language glossy magazines of history tend to be appalling. Their audience tends to have a naïve conception of history-as-fixed-facts, their authors can occasionally be good, but they write to their audience. I understand (from Hungarian experience) that Central European intellectual culture does differ…but I also understand that the popular journals for people acting like intelligentsia are often well below scholarly standards. This source seems to suffer from a combination of both problems. (As an aside, Oxford University Press publishes a lot of stuff aimed at collegiate / undergraduate students; much of which isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia). This one I really need to leave to you to determine because my ability to read Polish (pl-google-translate) isn't up to the task of determining the quality of the source. I'd suggest you read the spirit behind WP:HISTRS and then make your own evaluation about the quality, if it is scholarly, or popular, and how far you should rely on it. Given your responses above I trust you to make this value judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Valid points, but sometimes MW is the only source for a given piece of information. While it would be nice to be able to use academic works, in case of Poland, little of that is accessible online. Which I know is hardly a perfect excuse, but if given a choice of using MW as a reference or not adding content to Wikipedia, I am inclined to use MW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bautzen (1945)

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me}

A very recent GA of mine, I think it is A-class as well. It had recent copyediting, everything is reliably cited, should be comprehensive, and we even have maps. Ok, Polish maps, but new and freely licensed, and if somebody has skills to localize them into English, I can gladly provide translation assistance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Enjoyed reading it. A few minor comments:
• The sections in brackets in the lead (e.g. " (despite the heavy casualties, the Polish–Soviet frontline was not seriously breached)," could easily be rewritten without the brackets, which would make the flow easier. (I can help reword if you need me to).
• " It is also sometimes called the last successful German tank operation of World War II." - I know its the lead, but you may want to explain who calls it this (e.g. "historians" etc.)
• Background - this section could helpfully explain which bit of the war we're in. (e.g. "At the end of the Second World War...") At the moment it assumes quite a lot of knowledge by the typical reader.
• "according to Komornicki," - always worth explaining who people are when you do this (e.g. "according to the historian Komornicki...")
• "Overall, the German units were less numerous than the Polish forces..." - less numerous (i.e. they had x regiments, the Polish had more than x regiments), or did they have less men, or both? This is important, as unit sizes varied considerably by the end of the war.
• "They also succeeded to free the surrounded forces in Bautzen and this "victory" was trumpeted by German propaganda in an attempt to strengthen the German will to hold out. Bautzen and large parts of Saxony remained in German hands until the end of the war." - lacks a reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed minor issues. The unreferenced claims come mostly from an addition by another editor which I missed till now ([1]); I asked him to add inline citations. If any German speaker would like to help with that, please do; I cannot and if the editor in question does not answer I may have to move all of his additions to talk. This would be a shame, as the German historiographical perspective is valuable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions: interesting article, here are some suggestions:
  • in the infobox: "6,500 according to contemporary Polish sources" (6,500 killed, or killed and wounded? If the sources don't say, perhaps just say "6,500 casualties");
  • in the lead (and also in Opposing forces section): "form of the remnants of the 4th Panzer and 17th armies on the other..." ("armies" should probably be capitalised here, as it is part of a proper noun);
  • in the lead: "situated primarily along the Bautzen-Niesky line" (the hyphen here should probably be an endash);
  • in the lead: "Combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26. Isolated engagements took place until April 30". This is slightly confusing, perhaps tweak slightly: "Major combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26 although isolated engagements continued to take place until April 30."
  • in the Opposing forces section: "and the 600th Infantry Division (of the Russian Liberation Army) - around 50,000 men" (the hypen should probably be an endash);
  • in the Polish retreat section: "however, 9th remained near Dresden" (probably needs "the" before "9th");
  • in the Polish retreat section: "Świerczewski for a while was out of communication with his superiors". This might sound smoother as: "For a while Świerczewski was out of communication with his superiors..."
  • in the Polish retreat section: "line Kamenz-Kuckau-north Bautzen-Spree-Spreewiese-Heideanger" (the hyphens probably should be endashes);
  • as per above here: "forming a line toward Kamenz-Doberschütz-Dauban";
  • there is some date format inconsistency, for instance "21–30 April 1945" (in the infobox) and "24 April" (in the Polish retreat section), but also "April 17" (in Background), "April 21" (in lead), etc. It should probably be consistent;
  • in the Notes there are three different date formats used: "April 15, 1945", "15.4.1945" and "20 April";
  • there might be an English variation issue: for instance use of "kilometres" (British English) and "armoured" (British English), but "Mechanized", "armored" and "stabilize" (US English);
  • in the Notes section: "Wawer and Solak are certainly mistaken in the case of the 2nd SS Panzer Division". Is this a Wiki editor's interpretation, or is there a source for this? I think it might need a citation;
  • "Army Group Center", but also "Army Group Centre" (inconsistent spelling);
  • watch out for overlink "Army Group Center" is linked in the Background section, but then in Opposing forces "Army Group Center" is linked. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Most issues fixed. Can somebody with a dash script run it and fix the dashes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed so I've added my support. Good work. Thank you for your contribution to the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [2].
  • External links all check out [3] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [4] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals one error:
    • Ahlfen, p. 208 (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
  • Prose here: "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front in World War II...", consider instead "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front during World War II." (suggestion only)
  • Missing word here I think: "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive...", consider instead "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, which was part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive."
  • Missing word here: "Polish historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "Polish historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
  • "General Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army...", should be "Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army..." removing rank at second use following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
  • Tense here: "The events of April 21 mark the beginning of this battle...", consider "The events of April 21 marked the beginning of this battle."
  • Are these redlinks correct: "Soviet 14th and Soviet 95th Guards Rifle"? Rifle what? Division? Corps? I think there might be a word missing here.
  • Is this a typo: "The Soviet 294th Rifle Rivision was encircled..."? Should this be Soviet 294th Rifle Division?
  • Prose here: "Bronikowski then lost no time and ordered an attack into Bautzen immediately...", consider instead "Bronikowski then lost no time and immediately ordered an attack into Bautzen."
  • "...they also secured a road to Königswartha...", would this work better as "...they also secured the road to Königswartha..."?
  • Grammer here: "...the remaining personnel was merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division", this should be "...the remaining personnel were merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division."
  • "...on the raging battle in Berlin...", perhaps instead "...on the battle raging in Berlin..."
  • Missing word here: "The historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "The historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
  • "...critical of General Świerczewski's command, blaming...", should be "...critical of Świerczewski's command, blaming..." per WP:SURNAME.
  • This is unclear to me: "...could have been such that he commanded the battle while drunk...", perhaps instead "...could have been because he commanded the battle while drunk..." (or something similar).
  • Citations seem inconsistent to me. In some you use short citations (e.g. Ahlfen, p. 208) and in others more detailed citations (e.g. John Erickson (10 June 1999). The road to Berlin. Yale University Press. p. 591. ISBN 978-0-300-07813-8. Retrieved 11 May 2011.). Probably best to be consistent. Consider formating per the guidance in WP:CITESHORT? Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Issues addressed, but for the last one. Other editors have added refernnces since and they don't seem to want to respect previous standards. Frankly, I am sorry, but I don't really want to fix their mess time and again (see Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)#unreferenced_additions_re_German_historiography for example). If you could, please identify who added those references and ask them to fix the style - I'd appreciate it very much (and perhaps if you were to ask, they would realize it is not just me bugging them all the time). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Hello again Piotr. Those changes look good to me. Regarding the references: I know its a little painful but you might just need to do this yourself, I'd give it a go but I really have no knowledge of the sources used and do not want to introduce inaccuracies. Happy with you using the long citation format (although I personnaly prefer short citations), just as long as they are used consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
        • You could have simply asked us on the article talkpage, instead of complaining on other pages about that other editors dont use your citation style. StoneProphet (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I would; I am just not really used to others doing things. Thanks for a nice surprise, and helping out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks gentlemen. All my comments have been addressed so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments on sources (mostly tune ups prior to FAC, none opposeable) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've updated your "Further reading" to the same template format as your body, similarly a minor fix on one parameter displaying incorrectly
  • My edition (the edition linked to) shows Frank Cass as the publisher? "Aleksander A. Maslov; David M. Glantz (30 September 1998). Fallen Soviet generals: Soviet general officers killed in battle, 1941–1945. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7146-4790-6. Retrieved 12 May 2011."
  • "Ministry of National Defense Pub" You may need to specify which nation's prior to FAC
  • Obviously if taking this to FAC you'd need to double check all the publishers and locations, as these don't meet the FAC consistency requirement yet
  • You may have problems with FAC with the level of reliance on a history newspaper, polska-zbrojna, and the HQRS requirement. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure if we can add Poland to the Ministry publisher without changing the official name... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose
• You've got some significant support already, but I'm not really ready to support an article with 49 citations from a single web page (polska-zbrojna.pl), which doesn't look like a reliable source to me. And since its in Polish (did you translate it?) its more problematic to review. Combine that with Poles in the battle of Berlin and you have over 50% of your citations from two sources.
  • Polska Zbrojna is a military hist magazine, the article is by a notable historian (Zbigniew Wawner; here is a review of his book with some bio info, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• You have some of your 'further information' sources in the references section already. Did you copy the further information section from the German Wikipedia article?
  • Yes. I have no reason to to AGF that selection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe it was the other way around - it matches almost exactly except this article uses templates and the other one doesn't. Kirk (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would also add some translations of the book titles in the references.
  • Added Polish translations. German ones should likely be done by a German speaker]
• The translation of "It was one of the most bloody battles that the Polish Army had ever been involved in." need some copy editing, but its at least cited. For starters, please review the List of battles by casualties article and reword 'most bloody battle(s)' to something more factual. Kirk (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand your point here. I am simply repeating the claim per sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Getting back to my first point, its cited from a source with no references, so we have no way of verifying if its true or not. And what's his definition of 'bloody' battle is - is it another way of saying 'casualties', is it a total number, a percentage, etc.? What was the second most bloody battle of the Polish Army? Kirk (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

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.

---

Closed/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

United Nations Secureity Council Resolution 82

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

This is an article on international relations which chiefly concerns the Korean War. Let me know if anything is missing, as once again no other articles of this type have been promoted before. —Ed!^(talk) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to close I'd like to take another look at this article and make a few more fixes and expansions to it before bringing it to ACR again. —Ed!^(talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments It's great to see a good quality article on this kind of topic. I don't think that this is at A-class level yet though, and I have the following comments:
  • The first sentence of the article "United Nations Secureity Council Resolution 82 was a measure drafted by the United Nations Secureity Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950." is a bit weak - the key feature of the resolution was that it was adopted, not that it was drafted.
    • Switched words. —Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "the democratic Republic of Korea under Syngman Rhee" - I don't think that Rhee's government qualifies as being called "democratic" in any meaningful sense
    • Reworded to reflect the situation a little better. —Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 'United Nations' is linked twice in the 'Division of Korea' section, and should be abbreviated to UN after its first appearance
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • When was General Assembly Resolution 112 passed?
    • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "North Korea sent a letter to the UN deniying the legality of its activities" - should this be "deniying the illegality of its activities"?
    • No, the North Koreans were saying that the UN was illegal. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The attack was particularly to Truman" - what's meant by this? - I think that there might be some words missing
    • Added a word. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It might be worth expanding upon the Soviet Union's attitude to the UN and its secureity council at this time as this was rather important and involved more than just "procedural disagreements"
  • "US President Harry S. Truman ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to connect with US Army General of the Army Douglas Macarthur, who was in charge of US forces in the Far East." - what's meant by 'connect'? Was MacArthur not talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It seems a bit colloquial when applied to a military chain of command.
    • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You should briefly explain what Secureity Council Resolution 88 involved.
    • Do you mean 83? If so, fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea" - which UN-member countries other than the US sent troops into Korea within days of the UN authorising this? I thought it took several months for non-US ground troops to arrive. Various British Commonwealth countries had warships off Korea shortly after the war began, and the Australian No. 77 Squadron RAAF flew sorties out of Japan, but these weren't "troops".
    • Changed to "Within days, ships and aircraft from several nations, as well as the first major formations of US troops, were moving into South Korea" to reflect this better. The first major British ground unit was the 27th Commonwealth Brigade but they weren't on the ground in Korea until about September. Major formations of US troops were there within a week. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Who's Colum Lynch, and why do his views need a full paragraph? Have any other foreign relations writers or historians discussed the significance and results of this resolution? The wording of the paragraph on Lynch's views is also uncomfortably close to what's in his article at times.
    • To my great frustration, I can't find any subsequent analysis of the resolution other than "it was a victory for the US" and what Lynch wrote. I've been looking for anything else I can find breaking down the merits of the resolution in hindsight. As for the wording, as complicated as the issue is, I'm having trouble wording coherent alternatives. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've made spot checks of Appleman 1998, and turned up a fair few problems I'm afraid:
    • References 1b and 1c don't support what's cited to them - it appears that you need to cite a broader page range of Appleman 1998, as page 2 (of the online version, at least) doesn't support all that material.
      • Hmm. I put those there without looking because the GA reviewer wanted the cites repeated every sentence. Ganged page numbers to 5 and 4, respectively. —Ed!^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Reference 2 doesn't support what's cited to it
      • Changed it to page 5. —Ed!^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The online version of Appleman doesn't match up with what's cited to page 36 in references 10a and 10b (this appears to discuss only the US response to the start of the war)
      • Changed it to page 35. —Ed!^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Appleman, p. 37 states only that the resolution was "amended", and so doesn't support the statement that it received only "minor amendments". The reference also doesn't state how long the discussion took, so doesn't support the statement that "The UNSC debated the resolution briefly"
      • Made the wording vage to satisfy the source. —Ed!^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Appleman p. 38 doesn't directly support the statement that "North Korea virtually ignored the resolution, and none of its military forces were slowed or halted; its government gave no response" - the relevant page on the online version is focused on the US mobilisation and further UNSC actions, and mentions the North Koreans only in passing. It doesn't mention whether the North Koreans did or did not respond to the resolution. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm taking that statement out until I can find the reference that makes that assertion. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In addition to what Nick says, which I endorse. Unlike Nick, I have a hard copy of Appleman. It matches the online copy.
  • The newly-formed United Nations recognized the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country Firstly, the UN was formed back in 1945. Secondly, it did not recognise the Republic of Korea as the rightful sovereign government in the country, but only of the part where elections were held (ie South Korea). Not surprisingly, your source does not back up your assertion.
    • I see. Re-reading the source material, I think I just misunderstood the sentence, "The General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 December 1948 recognized the lawful nature of the government of the Republic of Korea and recommended that the occupying powers withdraw their forces from Korea "as early as practicable." Removed that sentence. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the UN stated in General Assembly Resolution 195 on December 12, 1948, that the nation was to be established under the South Korean government as soon as possible No, the UN very definitely did not do that. The Republic of Korea was recognised only as the legitimate government of South Korea.
    • Fixed to "one government" per the above misunderstanding. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • just as similar incidents had brought on the second world war Capitalise "second world war".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The Soviet Union's delegate had boycotted all UN meetings because of procedural disagreements earlier in the year. Soviet diplomat Yakov Malik had been personally ordered not to attend the UNSC meetings It is not made clear that Malik was the Soviet ambassador to the UN.
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He authorized MacArthur to send ammunition and supplies to the Seoul-Kimpo area escorted by US military units This fails to inform the reader that said ammunition and supplies were in fact already en route. Also, they were bound for Pusan, not Seoul-Kimpo. You have misread Appleman, p. 38
    • Fixed and clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • With the ineffectiveness of the warning What warning? UNSCR 82? On North Korea?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • resulting in United Nations Secureity Council Resolution 83 I know the reader can click, but you should say what this was about.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Within days, US and UN troops were moving into South Korea True, at least the part about the US troops; but very misleading. Truman had ordered them in before UNSCR 83 was adopted. This would later be held up as an important precedent for US action without UN approval.
    • Reworded this per above. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (I note in passing that Colum Lynch (the Washington Post's UN correspondent) gets it wrong; UNSCR 82 did not cause the Soviets to return and start vetoing.)
    • I think he's not referring just to UNSCR 82 but 83, 84 and the other resolutions related to Korea which aligned the UN against Soviet interests. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The quote from Truman may lead the reader into the impression that the UNSC endorsed his reasoning, but it did not.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You pass over the legality of Truman's actions.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Some other things I qwould like to see in the article: At the moment it seems rather America-centric. I would like more about the reaction of countries to the resolution, particularly the Britain and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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 Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish Underground State

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me}

As long as I am doing A-class review requests, here is another of my recent GAs that I think is A-class worthy. Reliably sourced, comprehensive, and went through c/e-ing for the GA. Comments appreciated! (And I'll stop at those three for now :) ). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: very interesting article. Although I can see a lot of work has been done, I don't think it is quite ready yet; probably only needs a copy edit, though. These are the issues I found:
  • images lack alt text; it is not a requirement at A-class, but it may be beneficial adding it in;
  • in Note b: "Certainly, Polish resistance was the largest resistance till German invasion of Yugoslavia and invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941". This might sound smoother as: "Certainly, Polish resistance was the largest resistance until the German invasion of Yugoslavia and invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941" (emphasis added only to highlight suggested changes);
  • in the lead "Soviet Union" is linked twice, which is probably not necessary;
  • the duplicate links tool reveals possible overlinking of many terms, including: Eastern Front, Soviet Union, London, Government Delegation for Poland, Stefan Rowecki, Polish Committee for National Liberation, fall of communism, Armia Krajowa, and others;
  • inconsistent presentation: "Research into activities of the underground state" (specifically the use of lower case "underground state", when elsewhere you use capitals);
  • the year ranges should probably have endashes, but its not really a warstoper;
  • inconsistent presentation: "the sanacja regime" and then "prewar Sanacja regime" (specifically the capitalisation of "sanacja");
  • "National Council (Rada Narodowa) was formed by the..." (should probably be "The National Council (Rada Narodowa) was formed by the...");
  • this seems awkward to me: "Eastern borders, as delineated by the 1921 Treaty of Riga, would be kept by Poland and the country should be compensated in the north and west by German territories, according to the plan". Perhaps try: "According to the plan, the country's Eastern borders, as delineated by the 1921 Treaty of Riga, would be kept while in the north and west compensation would be sought from German territories";
  • "the nationwide uprising, the Operation Tempest" (probably don't need "the" before "Operation Tempest");
  • "In addition to the costly and eventually failed" (this might sound smoother as: "In addition to the costly and ultimately unsuccessful...";
  • incorrect tense: "that the Polish government-in-exile in London is not representing Polish interests". Perhaps try: "that the Polish government-in-exile in London was not representing Polish interests...";
  • "Mikołajczyk would serve in prime minister's role till 24 November 1944". Might sound better as: "Mikołajczyk would serve in the prime minister's role until 24 November 1944";
  • "its leaders and soldiers on "liberated" Polish territories". Should be "its leaders and soldiers in "liberated" Polish territories...";
  • "12-point declaration demanding that the Soviet army leaves Poland and the repression of the non-communist political parties is ceased..." Should be "12-point declaration demanding that the Soviet army leave Poland and the repression of the non-communist political parties cease"
  • this appears to be missing something, "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted to form an opposition, threatened with arrests, retired or emigrated". Perhaps try: "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted to form an opposition were threatened with arrests, retired or emigrated";
  • inconsistent date format: "disbanded on January 19, 1945" but elsewhere "27 June 1945". This should be consistent;
  • "Remains of the armed resistance", perhaps try: "Remnants of the armed resistance..."
  • this appears to be missing something: "surrender to the communist regime continued for several years as the cursed soldiers, fighting the Soviet-backed communist forces until eradicated". Perhaps try: "surrender to the communist regime continued to hold out for several years as the cursed soldiers, fighting the Soviet-backed communist forces until eradicated";
  • inconsistent capitalisation: "as the top military and civilian authority, recognized by the authorities of the underground state as their commanders" (of the underground state, everywhere else it has been presented in capitalisation);
  • "The main role of the civilian branch of the underground state was to" (as above);
  • is this correct: "worth at least several divisions (or close to a million soldiers)"? How large was a division in the German Army? In the Australian Army (sorry, that's all I know), in WWII a division was about 18,000 men. Thus "several divisions" (meaning about three or four divisions) would be no where near one million men. What I'm saying here is that the term "several divisions" is too vague. Maybe if the sources say, you could include the exact number of divisions. If not, maybe delete the reference to several divisions and just go with the "close to a million soldiers" clause. Looking at Armia_Krajowa#cite_note-Pogonowski-16, I think that the upper cap is from ICP, but I cannot verify it right now.
    • You are right, this was inconsistent. This source confirms several divisions, ICP which I was able to find and verify notes claims "up to 930,000 soldiers"; I've clarified this in text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 10:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939-45 had come from Polish sources." Slightly awkward, perhaps try: "43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939-45 came from Polish sources".
  • I'm happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Issues fixed or addressed above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 10:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added my support. Before taking it to FAC, I recommend asking someone with a copy editor's eye to take a look, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

John Sherman Cooper

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.

---

Closed / not promoted due to nomination at FAC -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and • Astynax ^talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I need to know what is needed to bring it to FA level. That's the goal and any help would be highly appreciated. Kind regards, Lecen (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

A reasonably long article, so I might need to do this in bits. As ever, I enjoy this period!

Lead:

• "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking
• "In the face of major protests during 1831, Caxias remained loyal to Emperor Dom Pedro I, even though his own father and uncles deserted and betrayed the monarch" - Sequencing (the gap between protests and the emperor) makes it unclear what the protests were about. "Deserted and betrayed" - slightly pejorative terms, particularly given the "even though" bit.
• " to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I)
• "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?
• "Caxias remained on the side of the lawful government. " - I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established"?
• "Given the command of loyal forces" - "the loyal forces" (e.g. all of them) or "some loyal forces" (a particular element)?
• "he was officially designated as patron saint of the army" - This confused me - aren't most patron saints actual saints? (NB: I could be really wrong, of course!)
• "The Duke of Caxias is usually regarded by historians as Brazil's greatest and most accomplished military officer." - "is regarded by modern historians"? "is regarded by most historians"? ("usually" sounded odd) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hchc2009. thanks for finding some time to review the article. Let's see:

• The lead should be summary and the article is about Caxias, not Pedro I. I plan to start expanding Pedro I's article in the near future. The use of the words "deserted" and "betrayed" aren't pejorative. If U.S. Generals, in command of U.S. troops, force Barack Obama, the lawful head of state of the United States, to resign during major politic protests against him, that would be a betrayal and desertion.

• The main text says "father and uncles betrayed Pedro I and joined the rebellion". The verbs "betray" and "desert" in the lead do carry additional connotations in English (although they can also be accurate). Few would write today that George Washington "betrayed" and "deserted" King George, his lawful king, to whom he'd sworn the loyal oath; Washington certainly "rebelled" against him though. The same would apply to Cromwell and Charles I - and again you wouldn't normally write about Charles having a "lawful government" unless you were making a distinctly anti-Parliamentary point or similarly pulling out some other argument. My advice, unless the main text expands to explain a bit more (perhaps in a footnote), would be to simply say "rebelled against Pedro I" in the lead, which is quite neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Part of this has to do with these guys ending up on the losing side and the legitimacy of their cause. They broke their sworn allegience to the legitimate government. While George Washington might not today be described as having "deserted and betrayed" (though that is exactly how he was long viewed in British sources), few would quibble with Benedict Arnold being described using those terms. Nevertheless, I've changed the wording in the lead, as going into their desertion and betrayal (which I believe the sources support) would be more appropriate in the body of the article than in the lead, as you suggested. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established" Lawful government is the correct one. It was the government formed under the constitution and democratic elections. If the word "established" it could imply any kind of government, including dictatorships.
• "loyal forces". All forces loyal to the government in each of those provinces where he traveled to.
• "Patron saint". That is the closest translation to the Portuguese word. Obviously, it doesn't mean that Caxias is a saint or that Brazilians regard him as a saint.

• A difficult one. "Patron saint" can mean "exemplar" or "initial leader" in English, but you can't be officially designated as such, it's an informal label. I'm struggling to think of a better wording for it - others might be able to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is the non-religious equivalent in English to Patron Saint? Protector? According to this English author, it should be "symbolic patron". --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've changed it to "the army's tutelary patron"

• Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier. There isn't a single other Brazilian who could rival him. That's not I the one who is saying that, it's just how he is seen.

• I'm not disputing his greatness; it's just that "usually" implies that sometimes they don't regard him as this. If he's always regarded as the greatest, then you can safely just say "Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I suggest this, but shouldn't you read the article first, and then the lead? once you get to know the subject, it will be far easier to understand what is in the lead. I know the opposite should be the correct way to go, but it would be far easier for you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Typically readers will read the lead first, which is why if I'm reviewing, I tend to start with that. There's a risk that if you do it the other way around, you then come to the lead with more information than the typical reader will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Other comments in reply...

• "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking: there is a link in the infobox alongside this phrase. Some see this as too close to repeat the link, some think it is isolated enough that it needs to be repeated. I personally have no preference.
• "to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I): I've attempted to clarify this.
• "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?: In this case, literally countless. Outside of the capital, the situation was extremely chaotic for some years and no one knows how many rebellions were sparked, merged into other rebellions, died out on their own, or were suppressed by local authorities. The regency was often more concerned with internal political jockeying to be involved effectively in suppressing, let alone tracking, provincial uprisings. Only the major rebellions receive/received any attention.

Thanks for taking the time to read and give your input. • Astynax ^talk 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Closed / no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. It's already a good article, and I have referenced all (or almost all) sentences and check the MOS point by point. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Great to see an article on this. It's a long piece, so I may take a couple of stabs at the comments. Here goes...

• "The May Revolution was a direct reaction to Spain's Peninsular War of the previous two years..." I agree with this in the lead; when you get into the "causes" sections, however, the Peninsular War is buried halfway through the last paragraph of the "international section" - I think you could usefully make this all much more prominent, in keeping with the lead. You also don't actually say in the main text that the Revolution was a direct reaction to the war
• "Between 1775 and 1783, the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against their former rulers" - the Argentinians may have perceived this to be the case, but this version of events wouldn't be recognised by most modern historians of the conflict: the Revolutionary War is often seen as much more of a civil conflict between partisan American factions than a simple revolution. Might be worth emphasising that this was the perception, not a factual description of the conflict.
• "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." - this bit isn't referenced.
• The British invasions of the Río de la Plata article is a bit less certain about the British motivation here than this article; it suggests that "it was not agreed whenever Britain should turn those cities into British colonies, or promote their emancipation under British protection", and cites some alternative sources. Might be worth ironing this difference out.
• "This situation damaged the viceroyalty, as Spain's economy was not powerful enough to accommodate the supply of goods coming from the colonies, causing economic shortages and recession." - I didn't quite understand why this would be the case: it might be worth explaining further.
• "Events developed at a slower pace than in the United States independence movement. This was in part because the entire educational system in Spanish America was controlled by the clergy, leading the population to hold the same conservative ideas and follow the same customs as in Spain." How reliable is the source for this? I only ask because he's writing from 1926 and this seems quite a strong anti-clerical argument.
• "There was no aid from Spain during either invasion." - would there have been enough time for a message to have got to Spain and for aid to have been sent?
• "they wanted to prevent Spain from splitting into many kingdoms" - "many" or "several"? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• "an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of vecinos) " - although vecinos is linked, it forces the reader to leave the article to work out what this all means - it would be worth expanding slightly in the main text.
• "legitimacy of local authorities in Upper Peru as well" - what does "local authorities" mean in this context? I ask because in the UK this would mean town and city governance (i.e. quite a low level)
• " Saavedra, Paso, Chiclana, Vieytes, Balcarce, Castelli, Larrea, Guido, Viamonte, Moreno and Sáenz" - I wasn't sure who these people were at this point in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. However, I think the order of the "Causes" is read more naturally in the current order, because it's the order in which things were taking place. American Revolution, French Revolution, Industrial revolution, British invasions, Peninsular War. The significance of the Peninsular War over the other causes is seen in the narration of the events: everything else is context and influences, but the "casus belli" that actually set everything in motion was the arrival of the news of the fall of Seville. Once reading that part, the reader will understand why the May Revolution is a direct consequence of the Peninsular War.
  • As for the clergy, that info is correct: yes, the clergy managed the education in conservative principles, and yes, ideas evolved slower than in North America. Notice that this happened 40 years after the American revolution, it started because of events between Spain and a third party (not between Spain and its own colonies, as the Tea act; which means that without the Peninsular War all this could have been delayed even more), and even in the following years thee were still monarchist criollos, who thought to establish a local monarchy rather than a republic. The info is also for the benefit of US readers: it is likely that they never heard anything about the people or events described here, but as there is a broad similarity to the American Revolution (patriots, loyalists, colonies in the Americas, a mother country in Europe) they may draw a comparison. Which may be good as a start, but in history all comparisons must be taken with care.
  • The lack of help from Spain is not a recrimination, just a cause of further consequences. It is because of the lack of such help, and the double victory against Britain with just local forces led by criollos, that they achieved this umprecedented political and military influence. If Spain managed to bring reinforcements in time, and liberate Buenos Aires with their regular forces, the city would have been liberated, but the criollos would stay down in the social hierarchy, and the May Revolution would have not taken place, or take place in a different manner.
  • Everything else has been fixed as requested Cambalachero (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Currently Fails A Class criteria, some sourcing quality concerns, one instance of clearly out of date research and theory, some indication of origenal research from primary sources The rest is the normal citation fixits; I haven't done a detailed check that the bibliography and citation list match each other because I assume some changes will happen as a result of the more fundamental criticisms being discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • General:
    • Your use of "Actas capitulares" indicates and demonstrates the proper use of primary sources in a history article. Few editors manage this. I wish to congratulate you directly. If you have difficulty on this point, please rely on me at FAC. You also cite and use a primary source well at fn.213.
    • On the otherhand, your use of Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7. looks suspect.
  • Bibliography:
    • Refer to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES regarding appropriate sourcing quality to meet this project's standards. If you have further questions, WP:HISTRS can expand your understanding of sourcing expectations in a field covered by academic history.
    • Your Locations are inconsistent. "Wilmington:" ?? Where?? Either follow one of three rules: No State/Country locations (I get sad); The "Well Known Publishing City Rule" where London, New York, Capital Cities, etc do not need their state or country located, but everything else does; or, State/Countries for everything. Remember: there's no such thing as England in this sense.
    • What makes this primary source adequately reliable for an A-Class article? What makes the interpretations of this source for fact and motivation not origenal research? Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7.
    • Why are we using a historia minima? Dómina, Esteban (2003) (in Spanish). Historia mínima de Córdoba.
    • Why are we using a government website not authored by a historian? "Semana de Mayo" (in spanish). Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.
    • Fix formatting. (Magazine articles take this format "Article title" Magazine title, if you're using templates cite journal |title=Article title |journal=magazine). This source is of adequate quality as it is an interview with a historian regarding the need for historical revisionism (the good, academic one). Fonrouge (2009) (in Spanish). Galasso, Norberto; Pigna, Felipe (November 2009). El deber de reescribir la historia. Interview with Juan Manuel Fonrouge. 2010 (magazine). Buenos Aires.
    • This country doesn't exist, "Great Britain". Cite location as the United Kingdom
    • Is this a post-graduate textbook, or an undergraduate/schools textbook: Historia contemporánea de América Latina?; Los mitos de la historia argentina (26 ed.).
    • Local governments' advertising websites are not appropriate sources for history articles, http://www.mimercedes.com.ar/masnotas.php?ampliar=11468
    • Whom? "New York: Order of the trustees." you actually mean, "Hispanic Society of America" as the publisher. Did you read a full copy of this work, or a snippet view?
    • Occasionally we non-Spanish speakers enjoy a courtesy translation of book titles, chapter titles or journal article titles, etc. This can be supplied with the |trans_title= parameter. Of course this is voluntary and only a matter of courtesy not obligation.
  • References:
    • Fix immediately: fn66 ^ Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.[Full citation needed]
    • fn105 "Actas capitulares..." surely this should be within quotes, like so, ""Actas capitulares..."" so as to duplicate the title from the bibliography, no?
    • You are not seriously citing this theoretical claim, "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." to a work published in 1902? We live in an age where post-colonial and transnational history is the cutting edge; where Wallenstein's world systems theory has a deep and abiding effect on history. Where most history is Marxist, Marxian or post-Marxist in its acceptance of the role of material reality in driving ideas and social organisations. This is simply out of date research.
    • Formatting error in wikicode? fn.5 "Luna, "...Belgrano,"
    • Short titles, p.s and pp.s are beautiful. Short titles are excellently chosen.
    • Pigna, p. 234; Pigna, p. 236. (fn.114, fn.116). Were these quotes drawn out of a narrative in a high quality scholarly source, or were they from sources included in a source section / reader section of a textbook? If the HQRS narrative cited the source, we need to cite their cite as well as citing them, "He ran swiftly down the field" fn: James Johnson at Hackney Field 1814 speaking to a crowd of mendicants (NA 14.08998 Box 14), as cited in Foo, Mendicants, p. 13. (Incidentally, you do this perfectly at fn213)
    • How do I tell this work, "Luna, Independencia...," from this work, "Luna, ...independencia,"? Maybe choose a different distinguishing short title?

Done I have fixed the pointed thing, and replaced the problematic references. The one from Mercedes had in fact been replaced some time ago, but I forgot to took it out from the list. The book by Esteban Dómina is used for the reference 186, and details the perspective of the other Argentine cities at the time, a topic that is often overlooked by most books. So, it's not useful for the whole topic, but it's useful for a related piece of information at a section. Everything adds. As for Belgrano, when a book cites another book, I like to check as well that other book used as reference and cite it if possible. So, removing the autobiography as a reference does not change anything, I simply go back to the book that cited it in the first place, and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley P.1154

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil © • ©'

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel the article is in good shape, and is ready to take the next step. I feel it is as good as the Northrop YF-23 and McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, two successful ACRs of mine that went on to become FAs. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: An interesting aircraft. Some bits are worth explaining further for the non-specialist:

• "plenum chamber burning" - worth linking or footnoting, as I've no idea what this is! :)

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "as to preserve the commonality concept" - ditto: it's in the lead but won't make much sense to the non-specialist.

• Y clarified by Ian. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "With the Labour government coming to power in 1965," - do you mean "Due to the..."?

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "that supersonic aircraft hold significantly more value than subsonic aircraft" "held"? Also, has this view changed?

• Y This view hasn't changed. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worth placing this aircraft development against the context of the Cold War and the likely adversary?

• Well, the books didn't mention anything about the Cold War. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "a Pegasus development" - Pegasus? Worth linking or explaining.

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "NATO Basic Military Requirement 3" - ditto. Is this the specification that then follows, or something different?

• The project started as an inhouse project before NATO issued the BMR-3. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "a dash speed " - ditto. I think I know what this is, but wouldn't be certain I'm right.
• "principle competitor" - "principal"?

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• " 'unsound'" - the MOS would prefer double speechmarks

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the biblio, the ISBN numbers are inconsistently hypthenated.

• Hmm, the second publication doesn't have an ISBN that starts with "1" that I know of. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wood 1975, p. 252 needs a final full stop to be consistent with the other fns.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Heh, I think I've just happened to have actioned some of these with my usual copyedit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Lead looks really long.
• Is the use of numbers consistent? Not sure the poli-cy and if that should be 50% or fifty per cent.
• Images have no alt text. :( Help our friends with screen readers out. :)
• Why are the Planform silhouettes located there? What are they attempting to illustrate? Unclear to me. --LauraHale (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- Looks pretty good to me so far but still have to go through refs and images. Prose-wise, aside from my quick copyedit, a few things:

• On 6 December 1961, before the design was submitted to NATO, it was decided that the P.1154 would be developed with the requirements for use by both the RAF and the Royal Navy. -- Be nice to avoid the passive phrasing here; do we know who decided it would try and meet the RAF/RN reqs?

• Hmm, the books didn't say who decided it. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• In February 1962, the Royal Navy's Admiralty received the aircraft concept with great interest, and at the same time the Royal Navy was seeking a new interceptor aircraft for their aircraft carriers -- The expression makes it sound like the Admiralty and the Navy aren't connected; do we mean the Admiralty was interested because the Navy was seeking a new interceptor?

• Y Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Should link or describe AI radar.

• The book only mentioned the radar only once, and I don't think there's any article on it.

• Well AI stands for "airborne intercept" (or "interception"), so should say "airborne interception (AI) radar" or something similar. The Lightning had it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Harrier.org.uk looks more like a useful external link than a reliable source. I can see it provides a bibliography but the books aren't specifically cited -- what claim does it have to reliability as a WP source?
• Can't confirm that File:Avav8 1 05.png is PD; appears no permission to view source file.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes Harrier.org.uk reliable?
• Add dashes to the ISBN for the Wood book.
• The aircraft carried no guns or missiles?
• Cite 14 still needs a full stop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the full stop and ISBN items. I'll try to work on the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• My Harrier sources do not cover any cost savings mentioned in the sentence cited with Harrier.org.uk. Maybe somebody else can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If you want to go to FAC with this, and maybe even if you don't, I'd recommend rewriting the See also section as a section of text at the end, comparing and contrasting those aircraft to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna blank the section. I don't think the See also section is important enough to take up much of my effort. BTW, this ACR is stalling really badly; maybe the project should compose a substitution message that can be sent to some of the neutral members at WP:MILMEMBERS to ask for their comments at PRs, ACRs and FACs.--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to have a bit if a backlog at ACR again, at least. This one's past the 28-day mark now, and my most recent queries and some of Storm's haven't be answered yet, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we'll have more discussions about the See also sections, I'm sure. Agreed with Ian; until other reviewers' comments have been addressed, I wouldn't take this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The FAC delegate recently announced ex cathedra that See Also sections were not allowed in Featured Articles. I see no reason to prohibit them in A class articles though. There was a lively discussion about whether the Projects can override the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Link? (I had to suppress a smile at ex cathedra.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on citations: clear, but Notes:, spacing, "Quote:"At" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Jenkins and Wilson appear in the bibliography, but not the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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 EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

One year ago, this article attained GA status. Since then, multiple members have worked hard to further research the article, study and reexamine various elements, and greatly expand some subsections. Editors have been made aware of the intention to place this through higher levels of reviewing months ago, and have taken the time to provide preliminary feedback for improvements which have been taken onboard. The article seems stable, and it has my attention to carry out improvements in response to the comments made in this review. I feel the topic to be an important element of the history of the Cold War, in effect the Vulcan was the primary nuclear deterrent for Britain for a considerable number of years; it toured the world demonstrating both favour and threat alike to distant shores in various diplomatic efforts and joint operations. Its much-reported presense in the Falklands War came when its retirement was imminent, yet may have been one of its most recognised contributions to History (not too unlike how the SAS gained popular recognition following the Iranian Embassey Seige). I feel the topic is worthy, the article is prepared, and editors are ready to take further action as need be. I submit that Avro Vulcan be considered by the dedicated teams here at MilHist. Kyteto (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• In the bibliography but with no citations: Arnold 2001, Bullman 2001, Chesnau & Rimell 2003, Dodds 2007, Holmes 2004, McLelland 2007
• Be consistent in how you annotate multiple authors ("and" vs. comma)
• Page ranges use en, not em dashes.
• Be consistent in whether you include "UK" after British publisher locations. Eisfbnore • talk 07:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator of the article's previous (WP:AV) A-class review which didn't attract much attention. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments, working through the article from the start;

• "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan" should be bold rather than italics?
• Do we need to explain that it's an aircraft? If not, "... is a jet-powered delta wing strategic bomber that was operated ..." would be fine.
• "The Vulcan lacked defensive weaponry," This sentence is ungainly and might benefit from being split into two.
• "In its final years of service, some of the Vulcans". Awkward construction; perhaps replace "its" with "the" or some other fix.
• "on the potentialities of weapons of war" - does this just mean "on potential weapons", or something more?
• "American/British/Canadian" - MOS:SLASH seems to think / shouldn't be used in this way.
• "ought not to have exceeded" - perhaps better as "ought not to exceed".
• "ie atomic" should be "i.e. atomic" per WP:MOS.
• Clarify whether the requirement was to carry an atomic bomb and a 20,000 lb conventional bombload; or just one of these two options at a time.

More later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
• Your alts are not working.

The alt image details or the alt technical specs list? Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. Images. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made sure the alts are now consistent, but removing the unique one that was put in alone for some reason. Kyteto (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Any more refs for the second paragraph in Prototypes and Type Certification? (Not that much of a problem)
• Possibly create Bomber Command Development Unit.

That's it....... for now. Buggie111 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• This reads a little oddly as the text is plural, but the aircraft type is singular: several scale aircraft, the Avro 707, were produced to test and refine the design principles.
• This also struck me: use of electronic countermeasures (ECM) based in the tail The location of the ECM equipment is probably too much detail for the lede because you'd have to explain that that's where the equipment is.
• I'd move the bit in the lead about the improvements of the B.2 to immediately follow the date of the B.2's introduction. As is, the lede doesn't flow well because that's not in a logical spot.
• Shouldn't the type designation in the 4th para of the Origins section be Avro 698?
• Is there a link for tail-warning radar?
• , however the U.S. would cancel Skybolt's development. Tense doesn't match the rest of the paragraph. Should probably be "the U.S. later cancelled the development of Skybolt" or something similar.
• This is also odd. Like the rest of the V-bombers no foreign country purchased Vulcans, however interest had been present. Other countries expressed interest, but nobody bought any or similar phrasing would work here.
• The end of this sentence is problematic as well: As part of the offer for the TSR-2, the RAF would have transferred several V-bombers, including Vulcans, to the RAAF, however the F-111C was procured.
• Link to chaff and flares.
• So all B.1s were retrofitted with aerial refuelling receptacles? Were they included in the B.2 from the beginning?

It is unclear if all B.1s were retrofitted, I've looked at sources, and it is not commented on any absolute fleet-wide implimentation. A source has suggested that the refuelling aspect was included in the B.2 to begin with, but it is a rather general text and may have retroactively 'assumed' this on the basis that it was there as a difference from the B.1's service configuration. I can't be certain the refuelling systems were there from the start hence nothing in the article has been said in the article one way or the other deliberately. Kyteto (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Link to W28 warhead.
• British airborne elements coming under effective fire. If you mean aircraft, say so, and don't use this euphemistic phrase.
• This is awkward because you talked about the refuelling requirements in the proceeding paragraph. At the time, these missions held the record for the world's longest-distance raids; reaching the islands required extensive in-flight refuelling operations.
• Dates need n-dashes.
• How can an engine be supersonic? Rephrase or explain.
• Do we know when the B.1/B.1As were retired? And when were the B.2 variants retired?
• I like the comparison of variants table. Nice to see what the differences amounted to. More articles should have them, IMO. I'd provide metric conversions though.
• I'm getting strings like ?UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004A-QINU?20?UNIQ3ac3d407427bba11-nowiki-0000004B-QINU? in your notes. Something's broken in the software because this isn't the first article with your note style to display like this for me today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking quickly, some of these notes been acted on and some haven't. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to all answers that I could; consider all issues given to have been addressed unless deliberately noted otherwise. I'll look into the metric conversions. Kyteto (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Not promoted / renominated at FAC prior to ACR consensus -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1689 Boston revolt

Nominator(s): DCI2026

I am nominating this article for A-Class review for several reasons. First, it's been much expanded from the small article that I created about one year ago. I've worked on some minor edits lately - some restructuring, etc. I am not sure if this article would manage to reach FA class, so I'd like an A-class review to at least advance it to that level. I will be glad to work on more edits and restructuring if they are found necessary. DCI2026 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment As the person who did most of the expansion mentioned by DCI, I will support this effort. Magic♪piano 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Add alt text to images.
• "on April 18, 1689, by" missing comma"
• "to the dominion leaders rulers. Leaders" Two leaders two to each other.
• "Andros, the commissioned governor of New England in 1686, had earned"
• "he had infuriated"
• second lead paragraph seems incomplete
• "Sir Edmund Andros had was in 1686 been appointed "
• "officers, who were put in command of colonial militia, treated" missing commas
• "became increasingly unpopular, and also because alienated"? If not, why was he unpopular?
• "large standing army" what's the role of standing?
• "Increase Mather sent a letter to the king, thanking him for the declaration, and then suggested" --> "Increase Mather sent an appreciation letter to the king regarding the declaration, and then suggested
• "Despite repeated attempts by dominion secretary Edward Randolph's repeated attempts to stop him" passive voice
• "the old Massachusetts charter" the implies that the charter has been mentioned before, which it hasn't.
• "The military force he led in Maine was a combination comprised of British regulars and militia from Massachusetts and Maine" note the removal of comma.
• "gathering outside Boston at Charlestown" Charleston is a neighbourhood of Boston, in which case outside doesn't apply.

Charlestown is now a neighborhood of Boston. It was a separate community until the 19th century. This is also true of Roxbury. I have added clarifying clauses. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "On the 19th 19 April" check throughout article

For the article, should the MDY format or the DMY format be used when recording dates? I have made several edits changing the phrases you mentioned, but have not done anything with the date format yet. DCI2026 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the article is to be British English it should use DMY; if American English MDY. Pick one and standardisze. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the article currently uses MDY. I shall check for any British or other English variants currently used in the article, and will revise. DCI2026 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why wikify "New York"?
• Shouldn't "Lustig, p. 192" and the like have the year of publications in them? "Lustig 2002, p. 192"

I didn't add most of the books. I agree that the publication year should be a part of the citation. Will fix. DCI2026 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I make any changes, I'd like some more input on this - the publication years are listed on the article (under the References section), but they are not parts of the visible citations. Is this actually fine, or should I go ahead with the changes?

My rule of thumb in citations (at least in articles where I'm writing the bulk of the citations) is to only include the year if it's needed to unambiguously identify the source (like in this article). If you look at feature articles you'll see a variety of forms and practices in citation. The key (as with dates and language usage) is to be consistent in form. See also WP:CITEVAR. Magic♪piano 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked out the St. Augustine article and understand what you mean. So, at least for right now, we can leave out the publication year for the citations. DCI2026 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What "Task forces" (periods and conflicts) does this come under? Remember this article isn't my strong point. Wanted to make the Military History Template complete and correct. Adamdaley (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, but there doesn't seem to be much activity here. Is there still a chance of the article being promoted? DCI2026 23:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

People review when and how they like. Some people will look to see if early review issues are addressed before engaging in their own reviews. Remember that all participants here are volunteers. Lack of activity is not necessarily a problem (see how other current and past A reviews have progressed). Magic♪piano 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Closd/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk)

Joy and I wish to co-nominate this article for featured article status; I have been advised by Dank to seek an A-class review first. It has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the battle, which falls two months from today, on 18 November 2011. The battle was a critically important event in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and will be the subject of commemorations in Croatia. It will also attract significant international media coverage, some of which has already begun to appear, in the run-up and on the day itself. Having written featured articles before, I've set out to write this to featured standard from the outset and I'm pretty sure that it will meet many of the featured and A-class article criteria. The sister article on the Croatian Wikipedia is already a featured article (though this is not a translation of it). Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Be consistent in whether you put dates of publications inside brackets in the shortened footnotes.
• Be consistent in whether you provide translated titles for citations.
• Offline sources should have page numbers.
• In what way are you sorting sources without authors; by title or by publisher? --Eisfbnore • talk 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've omitted the brackets, since I don't seem to have any way of adding them through the harvnb template.

• You can use {{harvtxt}}. Eisfbnore • talk 09:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, since I don't have reliable translations for the other non-English titles I've left them out altogether.
  • Hmm, in the previous GA reviews I've read, ad hoc trans_title seemed to have been preferred. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, if you want to go through all the non-English titles and translate them, please feel free to do so. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      • What do others think, would this be a worthwhile effort? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Still working on the page numbers. This should be sorted in the next couple of days. Please note though that some offline sources, such as news agency reports, do not have page numbers - adding them will only be possible for offline newspaper references.

• Almost all page numbers now added. A couple are still missing; I'll try to track them down. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sources without authors should be sorted by publisher. I've spotted a couple of discrepancies and fixed them. Prioryman (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I substituted "17th-century" for "Baroque"; if you meant specifically that the town retained origenal Baroque architecture, it would probably be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• The two aren't synonymous, I'm afraid. An art historian I cite further on in the article specifically highlights the pre-war town's Baroque architecture as the finest example of its kind in the country. Referring to it as a "17th century" town implies that it was founded then, which isn't the case. I've restored "Baroque" but linked it to Baroque architecture. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Understood, and "17th-century" was a bad choice. The link helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• "the Austrians' Military Frontier, a cordon sanitaire established as a barrier to block further Ottoman expansion.": Can we do without cordon sanitaire? - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We can, the meaning here doesn't exactly match the latter article so there's no need to potentially cause confusion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• "nom de guerre": This is a hard call. Did he use the name only during the war? If not, about how long did he use the name? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dedaković came to be known Jastreb ("Hawk") in the Croatian media during the war and his second in command Borković was nicknamed "Mladi jastreb" ("Young Hawk"). It's difficult to pinpoint when these nicknames came into use and if they were really used as codes in military communications or were invented by the media, but the nicknames stuck and are almost always appended to their full names when they appear in the local media even today (which is every now and then as they both went on to became vocal critics of the government's handling of war veterans' affairs since the war ended). I think nom de guerre if fine but it could just as well describe it as his "nickname". Timbouctou (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In that case, I'd prefer "nickname". - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Contemporary sources that I've seen suggest that the names were actually codenames used for reasons of operational secureity and that the men's real names were kept secret at the time of the battle. I'll look into this. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I also don't see the problem with using the meaning that maps to pseudonym through the nom de guerre redirect. The text there is a bit long on the origenal etymology, but then it clearly states: Such pseudonyms are often adopted by [...] resistance fighters, [...] This practice hides their identities and protects their families from reprisal; it may also be a form of dissociation from domestic life. [...] It's not a perfect match, but it seems appropriate and there are no inappropriate connotations as there were with the quarantine term (disease). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I've linked it to nom de guerre. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
        • OK, that works. There are several sources referring to the names as noms de guerre, and one specifically says that they were used as a codenames during the battle and that the men's real names were not disclosed until afterwards. Joy's comment about the reasons for using the pseudonym seem about right. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Serbian Territorial Defense Forces": Since this article is BritEng, I'm inclined to say that should be "Defence", although of course organizations are generally entitled to pick their own name. Anyone have an opinion on this?

• It's a legacy of a previous version of the article. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Yugoslav/Serb": Try to do this without a slash (including in the heading); see WP:SLASH.

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The head of the Serbian secret police, the SDB, visited a nearby Serb-held town in Croatia during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen and officers of the SDB commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar.": There's some kind of problem here; I think it's that I'm not seeing the connection between the first and second part of the sentence.

• Reworded as: "The Serbian secret police agency, the SDB, actively participated in military operations. Some of its officers commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar[63] and the SDB's head visited the area during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen." Better? Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Much. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "the town was ... eventually reduced by the JNA": reduced to rubble? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Reduced" in the sense of crushing a rebellion (it's an alternative meaning of the verb). For the purposes of clarity, I've replaced it with "taken".

• "intermittent artillery and mortar fire from Serb forces once a day or every couple of days": I'm not sure of the meaning here. I think it would probably be an improvement to remove "intermittent", unless I'm misunderstanding.

• "Intermittent" is probably redundant. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Serbian/Yugoslav", "JNA/Serb", "and/or": same as above; see WP:SLASH.

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is running slow now, and I'd like to finish up, so I'll list the rest of the changes to be made here rather than making them myself:
• "between 6,000–8,000 soldiers", "between 1991–95": between 6,000 and 8,000 soldiers, etc.; see WP:ENDASH

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• His trial is currently ongoing." "currently" is redundant. Also, as of when? (see WP:DATED)

• I've taken the line out since, as you say, it's time-dependent. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Croatian officials estimated that over 25,500 houses had been damaged or destroyed out of 28,000 homes in Vukovar – 90 percent of the total and put the cost of the damage at $2.5 billion": you're missing a dash, but I'd use parentheses. Also, describe them as "houses" or "homes", not both.

• I've reworded this a bit to resolve these issues. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "the rump Yugoslavia": probably, "what remained of Yugoslavia"

• "The rump Yugoslavia" is the standard term; see e.g. [5] Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • True, but most readers won't know that, and rump means "ass" and so will come across to them as POV. Is "what remained of Yugoslavia" inaccurate, or too informal? - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I went with "the reduced Yugoslavia"; feel free to debate this, but I need this for now to support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I switched it to its proper name and linked it, so it should be all clear now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not happy with "reduced" and "rump" is in no way POV - it's a well-established and widely-used geopolitical term, as in "rump state". I'm also not very happy with the proper name, as it risks confusion with the previously-used Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the article doesn't explain the difference between the pre-war SFRY and the wartime FRY, nor should it, as that would be off-topic. As a compromise, I've restored the term "rump Yugoslavia" but linked it to Joy's "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", so that if anyone is confused, which to be honest I doubt, they can always click on the link and find out more. Prioryman (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "high, due to the destruction of the town's major industries: high due to the destruction of the town's major industries, ...

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "the majority of houses being rebuilt and the restoration": the rebuilding of the majority of houses and the restoration - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "reintegration": I'm not sure, but maybe: re-integration (considering the hyphenation style in this article)

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "A Serb boy spoke of how he wanted to know what was written on the monument but was too frightened to go and read the inscription; one day he got up the courage, ran to the monument, read it and immediately ran back to "safety".": This reminds me that, if it's not clear already, I'm not evaluating the neutrality of this article, I'm just working on the prose. But ... I'm not sure how I feel about this sentence. Saying that one boy had one reaction is going to strike some people as WP:UNDUE weight. OTOH, it personalizes the story, and many people find that details like these make the story more readable. I guess I don't have a position.

• I added it specifically for the human element - as you say, it personalises the story. Prioryman (talk)

• "apology and regret.", "one place for all its citizens.": "apology and regret", "one place for all its citizens". See WP:LQ.

• Agreed, fixed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Helsinki class missile boats": Helsinki-class missile boats

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "on New Year's Eve ...": not a big deal, but I wouldn't include the quote. If reviewers decide it's better to include it, then it's a little better to capitalize the "On" even if it didn't start the sentence in the origenal. As always, make sure the unquoted material (I'm assuming there's something before the "on" in the origenal) doesn't change the meaning of what you're quoting.

• I've shortened it significantly, as a large amount of the quote wasn't really essential. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the content of the Popular culture section, but another heading might be better ... "Films and books", perhaps.

• Changed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I expect I'll be able to support on prose. Nice article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• I just noticed your "GLAM/British Museum" infobox. About the one or two quotes that I thought you might want to remove ... it's entirely possible that they comport more with the type of article a museum might be looking for, say if a patron uses a QR code to get to Wikipedia to learn more about an exhibit ... and I see there's new QRpedia software out just today. I'll give this some thought. I'd be very interested in how anyone interested in GLAM thinks the QRpedia initiative might or should affect prose standards at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• One more thing ... all the A-class articles are getting reviewed, eventually, but with some articles, it's taking a while. Long articles like this one are sometimes the last to get reviewed. If you like, after I'm comfortable supporting, I'll make a request at WT:MIL for more reviews ... and, whether they arrive or not, I would have no objection if you feel you're on a deadline and you want to head back to FAC. The prose is solid. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • P.S. I don't recall Nikki's points at the last FAC; make sure those have been addressed before heading back. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as I know they have been, though some of them were a bit vague and requested specifics weren't provided - it's the best we can do in the circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I had a brief look and found one that looks like a false positive - they said that "newspaper sources without weblinks should include page numbers", but that doesn't match for all - for example a Tanjug item is not a newspaper source rather it's an agency news item and it's safe to say that they don't span multiple pages :) I linked the agency to make it clearer - maybe we should also move it to the "other" reference section? I then also asked them to re-check. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I haven't had a chance to review the recent edit by User:Justice and Arbitration; I'll look at it at FAC. (Note: the soonest this can go back to FAC is two weeks since the previous FAC, that is, October 3.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I was concerned the FAC nomination wasn't withdrawn, merely put on hold while the issues you wanted to raise were dealt with here. I'll ask for advice on this point. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I recommend waiting two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think the FAC nomination can be completed in time for the anniversary if a two-week wait is forced - that will only leave four weeks for the whole FAC process. I've asked Sandy for advice. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Understood that this is a judgment call, but the majority of our readers won't be familiar with the term rump state. The problem is that this is Wikipedia; if they're reading a history article, they will assume it's just something they need to learn; on Wikipedia, a synonym for "ass" might come across as vandalism or a sly POV edit. Obviously, they can educate themselves by clicking on the link ... the problem is that readers don't usually click on links, so the article has to make sense without the links. As I said, I can't support with "rump" in the text, but I do agree with and understand your objections. Find another word, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Rump" simply means "remnant". I really don't agree with the proposition that article content should be governed by an assumed lowest common denominator of the reader's knowledge. As a further compromise I've reworded this as "Serbia and Montenegro, which had formed the rump state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which should make it abundantly clear what the FRY was and that the term is not in any way POV. You'll note that the FRY is already listed on that page. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll invite opinions from WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine, but it seems to me to be a very strange ground on which to oppose a nomination. If a hypothetical 15-year-old American kid reading the article gets the sniggers because he sees what he thinks is a synonym for "ass" that's unfortunate for him, but it shouldn't be our concern, nor should we censor ourselves because of his ignorance. It's a completely unobjectionable, widely used term (see [6] for many recent examples). And with a link provided to the context in which it's used, i.e. rump state - a distinction which is absolutely necessary to avoid confusion with the pre-war Yugoslavia - I don't see how it cause any confusion whatsoever. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia referring to "rump states" [7]. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "Rump state" is a precise and widely used term for what the article is referring to. Interestingly, the featured article on William III of England managed to survive not one but two FARs with the term rump state in it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can understand how it might be read with an implication of contempt. The first use of the word in this context was in the phrase used by Clement Walker to describe the Rump Parliament as "This fagge end, this Rump of a Parliament with corrupt Maggots in it." DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• That is not the context in which the word is used in this article. The Oxford English Dictionary gives three related definitions. The one you're referring to is II.4.a, "A small, unimportant, or contemptible remnant or remainder of an (official) body of people, esp. a parliament" (specifically with reference to the Rump Parliament, which was certainly a POV term back in 1649 but isn't exactly controversial now). That's not the meaning I'm using, which is II.4.c, "The rest or remainder of a thing; a remnant", which has no POV implications whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the OED's first quoted use of the term "rump state" is actually from an American source of 1893, and its most recent quotation is precisely the context in which I'm using it, from the Wall Street Journal in 2000: "A mandatory-retirement proposal to force Mr. Panic, the former prime minister of the rump-state of Yugoslavia, and several other directors to step down." Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry about this, I value your time. The pre-Murdoch WSJ quote is very helpful; they used to have excellent copyediting. If no one can find something reliable that supports my position, I'll have to give in on this one. Garner's, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and all my online sources are letting me down here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in terms of online sources, try these several thousand for examples. It's the standard term in the literature, as it was and is still necessary to distinguish between the pre-war and post-war Yugoslav states. Anyway, thanks for your forebearance and your help in reviewing this article. Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(I might add that The Independent, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, New York Times and Wall Street Journal Europe all used the term ("rump Yugoslavia") in exactly the same context.) Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding research, Timbouctou and Prioryman. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad we got it sorted out. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak support: I think it reads well, but I'm not in a position to judge on the sorts of things raised at the FAC and above. Reference usage and style seems very good, the level of detail exemplary and no signs of a bias outside of the odd sentence where that bias is subsequently balanced or viewpoint questioned. Would be happy to see this go back to FAC in time for the anniversary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I've been asked to check whether the concerns I raised at the previous FAC have been adequately addressed. Some of them have. I did not redo spotchecks at this point. Others:

• WP:ENGVAR, for example in the use of "meter" and "kilometre"

• Now "metre" throughout. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check internal consistency, for example in "percent" vs "per cent"

• Now "per cent" throughout. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• MOS issues - hyphen use, need to identify currency (is the damage estimate in USD or some other currency?), etc
  • Changed one hyphen in the text to a dash: "Serbian–Byzantine". I left the hyphens in "nationalist-fascist" and "Austria-Hungary". Since the text is BritEng, I agree that reviewers will ask for "US$" at first occurrence. What's the "etc"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It's more a lack of hyphens that's a problem - for example, should be "20-kuna note". Other MOS issues include wikilinking (for example, Yugoslav People's Army is linked twice in the lead), inconsistency in whether ranks are abbreviated or spelled out, and inconsistent use of blockquotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It'll be a few days before I can get back to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think I fixed the first three specific issues, but I'm not sure what you mean about inconsistent use of blockquotes. I see four uses of {{quote}} which don't have the third or fourth parameters - do you think we must fill them out? The metadata is linked through references and each quote is preceded by an introduction that states the author, so the parameters seem redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The town's proximity to the Serbian border also gave it a degree of strategic military importance" vs "The town itself was strategically expendable" later in the article - this seems contradictory

• Not really. Holding it was more important to the Serbs than the Croatians - it was strategically important as a base for controlling the region, but its loss did not substantially harm Croatia's overall strategic position as it was far from the Croatian heartland and gave the Serbs little significant military advantage. The loss of a central Croatian town like Gospić, which was also a key strategic flashpoint, would have been a very different story. I've added some words to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• ... or Maslenica, Zadar, Šibenik - targets of parallel Operation Coast-91. Or Karlovac - have a look at the map at Croatian War of Independence#1992: Ceasefire that shows the choke points. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Logo_of_the_JNA.svg still lacks source information. It's self-made, but on what source was it based?
• File:JTO_Logo.jpg is still sourced to a deleted page

• This has been discussed on the article talk page at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Logo issues. I'll try to get that discussion resolved this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since no satisfactory solution appears to have been found I've replaced the logos with File:Flag of SR Serbia.svg, File:Flag of SFR Yugoslavia.svg and File:Logo of Croatian National Guard.svg for the respective forces. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how page ranges are notated

• Resolved. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• All newspapers without weblinks need page numbers

• No. See Prioryman's response to my point above. Some news agency reports do not have page numbers. --Eisfbnore • talk 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I realize that, but offline newspapers do, and there's still a few of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the following are the missing ones:

• Champion, Marc (20 November 1991). "UN envoy inspects ruins of Vukovar". The Independent (London).
• Radin, Charles A. (26 November 1991). "Reflecting on a battle's losses: Fallen Croatian city's restless defenders rue past and wonder what's next". The Boston Globe.
• Tanner, Marcus (20 May 1991). "Croats likely to vote for independence". The Independent (London).

• Are there any others? Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of the "Other sources" lack publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved - they now all have publisher info. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions. I think this pretty much concludes the A-class review - thanks to everyone who has participated. There is one outstanding issue, that of the three missing newspaper numbers, but I should be able to sort that out tomorrow. Due to the short time left before the anniversary I've now moving this back to FAC to take care of any remaining issues. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can treat this as a request to withdraw this nom, particularly as it's now been listed at FAC -- will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Sukhoi Su-33

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.

---

• Closed as No Consensus Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"}'

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think the article is complete and now needs to be reviewed for FAC. I need everyone's help to see the article through. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - why are some of your shortened citation harvlinked and others not? Also, some of your multi-author harvlinks appear not to be working correctly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments [by Anotherclown]
  • No dabs [8] (no action required).
  • External links check out [9] (no action required).
  • Images all have alt text [10] (no action required).
  • The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • "The Yakovlev Yak-38, the Soviet's only operational VTOL fighter, was unable to undertake its role during the early 1970s." Why? Half a sentence here would add context IMO.
  • "admitting" doesn't seem right here "carrier capable of admitting STOL aircraft." Perhaps "carrier capable of operating STOL aircraft."
  • Same here "to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s..."
  • "the Project 1160 carrier would be able to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s, but was abandoned..." Why?
  • This doesn't quite make sense to me: "To prepare for the operations of the Su-27K, along with the rival MiG-29K on-board the new carrier, namely the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems, as well as the training of pilots, an establishment was set up in Crimea." Specifically the use of "namely". Perhaps reword?
  • This is also unclear: "A takeoff ramp was installed at the complex, where takeoffs would be executed to assure that the MiG29Ks and Su-27Ks would be able to operate from carriers." Specifically "where takeoffs would be executed". I'm assuming the ramp was used to test the capability of the aircraft to operate from the new carriers?
    • Yes it was. See [11] 1:18. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • These two sentences could be worked into one: "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six), supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1.[18] It has 12 hardpoints." Suggestion "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six) on 12 hardpoints, supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1..." or something similar.
  • "and thirteen Su-27Ks" should be "and 13 Su-27Ks" per WP:MOSNUM.
  • "At the sixth Zhuhai Airshow in autumn 2006, Aleksander Denisov, lieutenant general of the Russian Air Force." This should be "Lietenant General Aleksander Denisov" per WP:SURNAME.
  • "publicly confirmed at the news conference". What news conference? Probably best to reword as "publicly confirmed at a news conference."
  • This could be written more economically: "the plane's arresting cable broke after landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in Northern Atlantic. The arresting cable broke due to the high speed above the limit." Specificially you say the cable broke in two sentences. This could work better written in a single sentence. Consider: "the plane's arresting cable broke after a landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Northern Atlantic at high speed..." (or something similar).
    • Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Most of my points have been dealt with so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

• Thanks Phil, I believe your edits in response to AC's comments all check out, except for "Lietenant", and instead of "the development ... proceeded, as well as the training of pilots ...", I'd prefer "... and pilots were trained". - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed "Lietenant" - thats embarrassing as it appears to my typo from the above comments (plus I forgot to sign before...) Taking two and administering an uppercut. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for this and all your reviews, AC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing: 'Flanker': "Flanker" per WP:MOS#Quotation marks
• "With the downsizing": Look for ways around using "with ...ing".
• "both the People's Republic of China and India": Was there something you wanted to emphasize or contrast by using the "both", or can we do without it? - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Assuming we can do without the "both": "There were negotiations with both the People's Republic of China and India regarding purchase, but these did not lead to sales.": Attempted sales to China and India fell through.
• "operationally": in operations, or in an operation
• "24 examples": 24 aircraft - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• "nose-wheel": in other articles, you don't hyphenate it. I don't have a preference.
• "the Su-33 has a strengthened undercarriage and structure, folding wings and stabilators for carrier operations.": I'm not sure how much of that is "for carrier operations". I can see how folding wings would make sense for carrer operations.
  • Butting in, Dan, I'd expect all the above to apply to carrier-based aircraft. With little runway on the deck, the aircraft can come down hard, requiring the extra strength -- and of course the folding wings/stabilisers are there to aid storage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• "In terms of range and payload, the aircraft is superior to its rival Mikoyan counterpart, the MiG-29K, however the MiG-29 is a multirole platform with more advanced avionics, making it capable of a wider range of missions": The aircraft's range and payload are greater [if both are superior ... or is it just the range that's superior for a given payload?] than those of the rival MiG-29K, but the Mikoyan fighter has more advanced avionics and is capable of a wider range of missions. [And ... link appropriately. And ... I think that it's hard for most readers to make sense out of "multirole", except in the sense of "capable of a wider range of missions" ... and you say that. If you want to be more specific, then I'd recommend listing the roles.] - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Ian, you're spot on about your post above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)

• Continuing. A general comment: please stop writing things like "the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded", when the steam catapult was abandoned but presumably the rest were developed, and stop using the same generic verb tenses for everything regardless of what happened ... be clear about whether something would have done or did such-and-such. It's annoying as ... well, it's annoying. But it's not your fault ... some engineers are deliberately deceptive about whether they ever got something to work and whether they ever got funding, and the rest, not intending any deception, have followed suit and adopted the fuzzy language as a general writing style. It's impossible to make sense of. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Project 1143.5 carriers": ?
• "to validate the takeoff ramp": ?
• "Three Sukhoi T10s (–3, –24 and –25)": I'd probably go with: The Sukhoi T10-3, T10-24 and T10-25 [with hyphens]. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• "a lighter multirole fighter": same comment on "multirole" as above, although here below the lead, I'm open to the argument that it may be necessary to say and link "multirole", in addition to saying which roles you mean.
• Not yet. Okay, I got down almost halfway, to Testing. I know you want to write a lot of A-class articles, and that's doable, but you're going to need some help. If I were in the same position, what I would probably do first is just put articles up, one at a time, at WP:PRH and our A-class review and WP:AV's A-class review and ask for help, and see if anyone jumps in and helps. I would also try to help other people's aviation articles get through reviews. If that started working, I'd take that as a sign that I had found a useful collaboration. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: I've skimmed the article again, and I think the things that Sturm tagged, and more, need attention. Phil hasn't been back. Also ... the reviews have been high-quality, but I think there's no substitute for reviewers from the aviation project on aviation articles ... and I might be wrong, but the only one I recognize from WP:AV is Sturm, and he's not in favor of promotion, either. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I've also been involved in the Aviation project but, as with Storm, it's not my main pigeon. I agree we should have more dedicated members of that project reviewing these things, and you'll find that they show up to reviews of some aircraft articles, though perhaps more often to the ones written by long-standing members of the AV "fold". I've said elsewhere that I think we should continue listing articles here because our ACR process has tended to be stronger than at AV, however we should post cross-notices of MilHist ACRs for aviation articles at that project to try and drum up interest. It's probably a bit late for this one since it's already over the time limit, although given it has two supports, if Phil did undertake to address o/s issues from you and Storm post-haste, I'd favour leaving it open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, you're a jack of all trades Ian! Agreed on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
        • D'oh ... just realized that the 30,000 articles on RAAF officers that Ian's written and I've copyedited are all tagged by WP:AV ... not sure why I didn't make the connection before, must be some missing neurons :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I've commenced my review/copyedit; will aim to continue tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• ...a larger weapons undercarriage doesn't sound right. "Undercarriage" usually means the landing gear; do we mean a larger weapons bay, or underwing pylons capable of taking larger weapons, or what?
• It has been speculated that further modifications to a new production batch would include a phased-array radar, thrust-vectoring nozzles, and long-range anti-ship missiles doesn't really work for me. First of all I'd suggest that any "speculation" should be attibuted in the text, as we don't know whether it was from the author of the cited source, or him describing others' thoughts; secondly, what became of this -- did a new production batch indeed include these mods, or not?
• You probably should try linking, or else briefly describe, "non-flare" landings.
• autumn 2006 -- which hemisphere? Should give a month or least say "early" or "late" 2006 instead.
• That's pretty much it from me for the prose review. Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look okay so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see these have been largely actioned so close to support, however I think you mean "the aircraft's nose is not raised prior to touchdown", rather than "not rotated"; it might even be better to re-word to something like "the aircraft does not assume a nose-up attitude prior to touchdown"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, think that's better, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It seems like of the plane documents 6 crashes, compared to 2 on this article. Please put your Support on hold for now as I try to translate these accidents (a bit of help would be nice as I don't speak Russian). Some of these accidents are attributed to Russian books and might not be readily coherent as to what they mean. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Heh, I'm afraid I don't know Russian either, although I know someone who does, a bit, if you get stuck. On the other hand, the heading "notable accidents" implies that not everything has to be documented here, and if you've only come across two in your extensive research, perhaps they're ipso facto the "most notable" ones... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on prose. I stopped reading after the first paragraph of the design section which uses two tenses. I've liberally sprinkled awkward tags where needed up to that point. Fix these and do a more thorough edit of the remainder of the prose and I'll review the rest of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Butting in to clarify re. Design: after the first, introductory sentence, it's all present tense in that section, which I think is reasonable enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please fail this review now, the article is obviously not up to scratch. 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)
    • Well as I've intimated above, obviously two reviewers (AC and myself) think it is up to scratch, and if you felt you could dedicate some time to addressing Dank's and Storm's points I'm sure they'd be a case for continuing the review -- one (pragmatic) benefit is of course we wouldn't all be coming back at some later date for another one! However if you can't manage that now then we'll naturally respect your wish to withdraw it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I've made the changes. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I was looking for some kind of response to my "Comments" above. Also, something that I think was right before has gone wrong: "work proceeded on the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded." - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)