To request the first A-Class review of an article:
Please double-check the
MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a
good article nomination or a
peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
Add{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following
these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply
QPQ).
Restrictions
An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to
featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the
A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed,
a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.
If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:
Comments Reviewing by Username
Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:
Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed
This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.
Requesting a review to be closed
A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at
ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a
source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are
reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.
After A-Class
You may wish to consider taking your article to
featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the
Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.
Demotion
If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please
leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.
A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
A-Class review
A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days
Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections
Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus
While nuclear weapons were obviously not used in the 1982
Falklands War, there's an interesting nuclear aspect to the conflict. The Royal Navy warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the British stockpile of nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. The British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her.
I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed
and rightly deleted. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and has since been considerably expanded and improved so I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments.
Nick-D (
talk)
09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hawkeye7
Great work on this article. A fine piece of scholarship.
fn 34: This is on pp. 57-58 (My 2005 edition may be different?)
It would seem so - the material on nuclear weapons starts on page 59 in my version, which is the paperback edition.
Nick-D (
talk)
10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider breaking up the 2nd paragraph to expand the length to the 4 paragraphs part of FAC criteria? I reckon you would want to take this article to FAC.
Shouldn't we mention in the lead that the weapons could have been put onboard ships and aircraft in order to counter potential Soviet involvement in the conflict?
Tim Hughes (soldier)(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
6,529
This article is about a decorated Australian Aboriginal soldier of the Second World War who went on to achieve success in the soldier-settlement scheme after the war and was appointed MBE for his inaugural chairmanship of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Not a lot of corporals with their own articles, but Hughes has his own entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Have at it.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Hawkeye7
Great article. Very little to say. Very impressive.
Perhaps change the "Aborginal" in the first sentence of the lead to "Aboriginal Australian"? I know that the former mostly always implies the latter but a clarification would still help.
"at the fifth grade": won't "till the fifth grade," be better?
"suffered with": "suffered from"?
Can we introduce in 1 or 2 words who Lowitja was in the lead and body, per NOFORCELINK?
"made a modest success of farming": "had modest success at farming"?
I reckon you would like to take this article to FAC. In that case, you should move around the lead a little so its length is 4 paragraphs instead of the current 3.
Why have we linked to South Australia in the body but not in the lead?
What was the reason for the first hospital stay in the Middle East?
"was recovered": "had recovered"?
Link to Wingfield?
"made a reasonable success of his farm": "had reasonable success at ..."?
Wouldn't the Tim Hughes stadium picture be better placed in the Post war section than in the footnotes?
Since we are using the 1993 edition for Wilmot, consider using ISBN 13 instead of 10, as done for all the other sources?
Consider adding images of the Battles of Tobruk, the Salient, Milne Bay and Buna Gona? For people who don't have many photograhps, I have seen photos od the events they were involved in being used on here.
It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up
William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral,
Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II.
Hawkeye7(discuss)
Matarisvan
Hi
Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.
Remove the double link to the Atlantic Fleet in the lead?
We say he got his first Navy DSC for the salvage of S-51 in the lead and body. But we do not mention what the other two DSCs were for in either the lead or body, only in the Citations section do we have those details.
What I have noticed is that Dates of Rank and Awards sections are ok at A class level but not at FA level. Especially since you already mention, in chronological order, his promotions in the lead sections.
Zawed might be best able to resolve this.
I was quite surprised to see you had used plain <ref> tags instead of sfns. I hope you will change to the latter before nominating for FAC?
I would greatly prefer it.
MOS:STYLERET: If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk pageHawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Add an archive link for ref #31? I can't access it, don't know if this holds for others as well. Also, consider running the Internet Archive bot through the page once.
Why did King receive the Philippine Camapign Medal? Our texts do not mention his being involved in the Philippine-American Wars of the 1910s. We do mention his involvement in the Philippine Campaign in WWII. I think this is is a mixup?
Shūri-dayū, (i believe its mistranslation from someone translation, it should be Shuri-no-daifu) is etymologically senior assistant minister of justice. a position from
Archaic Japan Empire office. Chikuzen no Kami is literally "lord of Chikuzen" its kind like noble titles
gonna do that
Iga Province obviously,
Iga ikki was not officially recognized by the central government.. in this case by Emperor and Shogunate
Hongan-ji during Nagayoshi reign was more like umbrella term for entire
Jōdo Shinshū followers here. as the split between west Hongan-ji (Higashi Hongan-ji) and east Hongan-ji (Nishi Hongan-ji) as the sect were more institutionalized were occured later in Edo period. other than that. i have not much knowledge about them, except of their rebellion activities during Onin war until Sengoku period
Ahendra (
talk)
10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
After taking an
ironclad (
CSS Baltic) and a
tinclad (
USS Marmora) to A-Class and FAC, I'm hoping to get another one of the types of American Civil War warships to A-Class and FAC - a
cottonclad. The cottonclads were converted civilian river steamers used by the Confederates. The lightly armored vessels were used as naval rams.General Earl Van Dorn sunk a Union ironclad in the
Battle of Plum Point Bend, and was the only Confederate cottonclad to escape destruction or capture in the
First Battle of Memphis. She was burned by her crew on the
Yazoo River about three weeks after the battle at Memphis.
Hog FarmTalk02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Comments
I think it would make sense to tell readers that the RDF was initially organized to defend New Orleans in the first paragraph of the Purchase and conversion section - then it would make more sense when you bring up later that the fleet had to be divided.
I've actually elaborated on this a bit - they were intended for the Mississippi River in general. The Confederate government actually intended for the vessels to be sent upriver, but local interests and a breach in a key river barrier are what caused part of the fleet to be retained at N.O. I remember reading, although I'm not sure where off the top of my head, that the Confederates for a time actually expected the worst threat to New Orleans to be Union forces coming down the river, rather than from the Gulf.
"The conversion into warships for the River Defense Fleet vessels involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of..." - I'd lead off telling the reader that they added a reinforced bow for ramming. I was attempting to picture what they added to the ship, but had to wait until the 4th sentence to figure out what we're talking about.
I've rearranged some stuff
This is better - the only other thought I have is, would it be good to clarify that the modifications to the bow were to reinforce it for ramming attacks? Theoretically it should be obvious, but you never know.
Parsecboy (
talk)
00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You might add April 1862 (and a specific date if known, but I'm guessing not) to the box for the |ship completed= field
The ironwork was finished on April 10, I've added that date to the infobox
Don't know that you have room for them, but there are a few images on the NHHC that depict events where General Earl Van Dorn was involved
here,
here, and
here. The first one gives a clearer image of the ship, which may be useful for the box.
I don't know that there's much room for image additions. My understanding of the caption on the first one is that the clearer ship in the foreground is actually
CSS General Sterling Price. I may be wrong though - that image may be preferable to the current infobox one anyone, as the current infobox image incorrectly lists the
CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana [sic]) as being present.
Hog FarmTalk00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's hard to say - the caption on the image seems to suggest the one further back is General Earl Van Dorn, but the NHHC caption lists it first, left to right (which I would read to mean the one in the foreground). The caption on the image is more probably correct, I'd guess. Maybe others will have opinions on what image is preferable.
Parsecboy (
talk)
00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that the article is only 1200 words long, I am concerned that a multi-paragraph lead would be disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article. I also don't think that there's anything not in the lead that is really the level of detail to include in the lead
" burnt by her": did you mean just "burnt" or "burnt by her onboard personnel"?
Have changed to "burnt by the Confederates"
Do we know who the builder was? Anyone significant?
I don't think it would be wise to include any such information - either the original vessel is unknown or its Junius Beebe, which I think is too uncertain of an identification to include information for
Are the speeds, complement and range for this ship known?
Not in any source that I've seen.
"setbacks further inland": Any specific battles or campaigns which could be added in the body or a note?
I've made this a bit more detailed
Could we have some details on how the rest of the Confederate Fleet was captured or destroyed at Memphis, per NOFORCELINK?
Her conversion into a cottonclad warship involved installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow to serve as a ram, and protecting her machinery with timber bulkheads packed with cotton.
Her conversion -> She was converted
The general rule: A subject pronoun (she) is used in the subject of a sentence. A subject pronoun indicates who or what the sentence is about. An object pronoun (her) is used to indicate what receives the action in a sentence.
Suggest -> She was converted into a cottonclad warship by installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her
bow that would serve as a
ram, and the ship's machinery was protected with timber
bulkheads packed with cotton.
Suggest adding this or something like it -> The Van Dorn was a
Side-wheeler powered by steam and was 182 feet (55 m) long. She carried a single cannon on her bow—a
32-pounder. (BTW, the dictionary spells it Side-wheeler as does the link.
The ships were intended to defend the Mississippi River.[2]
What part?
The Confederate-held part in general. There's some discussion of strategic deployment later in the article, but I think it's sufficient at this point just to note that they were to be used on the river, especially since they ended up being used on both ends of it. The source just says with a plan to seize and arm river boats for use in protecting the Mississippi RiverHog FarmTalk02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
<>Can we compromise with this general addition: The ships were intended to defend the Confederate-held part of the Mississippi River. This would make the sentence a bit more reader friedly since, as you know, the Missippi River is over 2,000 miles long and flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico.
Pendright (
talk)
18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The vessels of the River Defense Fleet were intended to be used as rams,[8] and were known as cottonclads.[9]
Their conversion into warships involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of iron plating backed by 4 inches (10 cm) of oak planking, on a framework of one-foot-square timbers to the bow.
General Earl Van Dorn was placed under the command of Captain Isaac Fulkerson,[11] and left New Orleans for Memphis, Tennessee, on March 25.[7] Defense Fleet.
The Confederate States War Department desired for [that] the ships to serve in the Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri area to protect [this] that portion of the Mississippi River, while [but] local interests pushed for the ships to remain at New Orleans.
Rather than sending all of the ships upriver, the Confederate commander at New Orleans, Major General Mansfield Lovell[,] held part of the fleet at New Orleans , after a river barrier defending New Orleans failed.[12]
General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single cannon on her bow – a 32-pounder cannon,[14] which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.[15]
Suggest: General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single 32-pounder cannon on her bow, which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.
Conspicuously absent is anything on the machimery that powered and propelled the Side-wheeler.
The sources just don't have much to say about this. I don't think it helps that it's not certain which prewar steamer she was.
Hog FarmTalk00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
<>But the sources do say that the Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer with boilers, engines, and used coal for fuel. These are sourced facts that could be cited and used to weave a brief sentence on the subject. While not ideal, it's preferable to Silence. Here is a starting point: -> The Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer equipped with
steam boilers and
engines that generated the power to propel the ship's
paddle wheel. She burned coal for fuel. Give this some thought!
Pendright (
talk)
21:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Plum Point Bend and Memphis
On May 10, [add year] the Confederates attacked , bringing on the Battle of Plum Point Bend.[7]
Seven of the Confederate vessels [envolved] were arranged in order of speed , with the fastest vessels at the front; General Earl Van Dorn was fourth in the column.[18]
At a council of war, Montgomery and his captains decided to fight the pursuing Union forces, rather than scuttle their ships and retreat overland with the army or scuttle a portion of the fleet and use the remaining coal to escape with the rest.[26]
Drop the comma after forces and add a comma after aarmy
Montgomery arranged his ships in three rows of two vessels, with General Sterling Price in the rear and CSS Little Rebel not having an assigned position.
<>If you're interested in some basic information om comma usage, Google this— https.//east,iu.edu/student-success/coursework/commas.html.
Pendright (
talk)
00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
General Earl Van Dorn was in the third row, along with General Bragg.[27]
@
Hawkeye7: I'm afraid while reviewing them for FP status, I found a problem: The first image says it's both from the Illustrated London News and Harper's Weekly. Those newspapers aren't even from the same continent. It's possible it appeared in both, but that would be at least somewhat unusual, and probably would have new woodblocks at the least. Pretty sure it's out of copyright either way, but the documentation needs fixed. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.8% of all
FPs.06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Adam Cuerden -
this supports the ILN publishing, and the supposed link to the Harper's publication was not actually of this image, so I've removed the reference to Harper's Weekly. What does bug me about that image - and I want to hear the thoughts of the other commenters here (@
Hawkeye7,
Pendright,
Matarisvan, and
Parsecboy:) - is that this shows the CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana) who was not at this battle. The image is thus inaccurate, but it's the only thing I can find that clearly and unambigously shows General Earl Van Dorn. Should this image even be used at all?
Hog FarmTalk19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's ok to use, but it may be a good idea to add an explanatory footnote mentioning that it's an artist's impression and includes a ship that wasn't present for the battle.
Parsecboy (
talk)
19:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because HMS Sardonyx was one of only a few Royal Navy destroyers designed in the First World War (albeit launched shortly after the Armistice) to serve at the Normandy landings in the Second. She had a career rare amongst ships of her class, finally being broken up in 1945.
simongraham (
talk)
11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support by Nick-D
It's good to see such a detailed article on a destroyer. I have the following comments:
The lead is a bit short for the size of the article: 2-3 paras is the norm
That sounds a very good idea. Which aspects would you recommend including please? More from the specification or more from the service?
The service history, mainly, but I'd suggest noting the ship's role and key features (especially the 1940 refit that probably resulted in a different role)
Nick-D (
talk)
10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I have expanded the lead as you suggest.
The first para of the 'Design and development' should note what the role of these ships was at the time they were ordered.
Added.
The last para of that section should be tweaked to note that this was the armament upon completion.
Added.
"Sardonyx was commissioned into the Reserve Fleet" - what does this mean? (e.g. does it mean that the ship was put into reserve straight away?).
I believe so.
If possible, it would be good to note why the ship was completed and retained after the end of the war given the RN would have ended the war with vastly more destroyers than it needed
The year referred to in the first para of the 'Interwar service' is unclear.
Added.
Can more be said about the ship's service in the Baltic? There have been some recent works on the RN's activities in this campaign.
That sounds very interesting. I have referenced Dunn but if you have any other pointers, I would be grateful.
What happened between 1920 and 1925 when the destroyer is active again?
It seems that she was laid in reserve.
Likewise, when was the ship decommissioned following this period in service ahead of returning to service in 1931? What was the destroyer's role from 1931?
It seems that the 1925 mission was a one-off. I have altered the paragraphs to match.
The last para of the 'Interwar service' section is a bit repetitive and confusing
Amended.
"updated for the escort role" - not sure that 'updated' is the right word, given these modifications tended to involve reducing capabilities associated with front line fleet service to improve their usefulness as convoy escorts. It should also be noted that this was part of a larger program of modifying destroyers in this way.
Amended.
"The destroyer reentered service" - when?
It is sometime in the middle of 1940, but the sources are not clear.
What was the destroyer doing in 1943? This was the crisis of the Battle of the Atlantic. Had she been relegated to other duties by this time?
It seems so. There is no record of any duties after 20 May. Added some more background information.
"On 8 June 1944, the destroyer escorted the troops that took part in the Normandy landings" - this is a bit confusing. Was she escorting convoys taking reinforcements to the beachhead? The wording also makes it sound like she was the only destroyer involved in this. What the ship's role at this time was should be made clear.
Clarified
Can anything be said about the experiences of the ship's crew? I imagine that Atlantic convoy duty in an elderly destroyer wasn't much fun.
Nick-D (
talk)
07:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I cannot find anything explicit. There is some generic material in books like Brown's Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II but it seems to relate more to corvettes than the S class. Any guidance would be gratefully received.
simongraham (
talk)
02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nick-D: Thank you for all your comments. I believe that I have made the changes you suggest, but would value any guidance on additional sources.
simongraham (
talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider expanding the lead section by 1-2 paragraphs with material from the body?
Expanded.
Link to John Brown & Co. in the infobox? Also, is the Curtis here Curtiss-Wright?
Linked.
"Sardonyx ws": "was"?
Corrected.
Link to sister ship at mention Sabre instead of Scimitar?
Linked.
Link to superstructure?
Linked.
Link to British 18-inch torpedo?
Linked.
Per NOFORCELINK, specify that the Dumaresq was a fire control computer?
Clarified.
Is the pennant numbers caption for the table necessary? We already have the section heading.
Removed.
Provide links for the following news articles?
"The Lost Submarine"
"Little Hope for M2: Officers and Crew"
"The Great Gale"
"Stories Of The Gale"
"News in Brief: Destroyer Aground"
Added, thanks to the Times Archive.
Provide a link or identifier for Head 2009? If you received this paper via resource request, you should specify this in a hidden note so that future reviewers do not consider this source to be invalid.
According to an 1986 article in Warship (Brady, Mark (1986). "The Old 'S' Class Destroyers". In Lambert, Andrew (ed.). Warship Volume X. pp. 12–23.
ISBN0-85177-449-0.), Sardonyx was a tender to the Signal School in 1938 - there is a photo of her during this time (p. 14). The 50 cm radar trials also appear to have been carried out under the Signal School (p. 22), and eventually led to the development of Type 282 radar. Incidentally, in this case 50 cm is a wavelength, so should probably be converted to a frequency.
According to Brady, it was planned in the late 1930s to send Sardonyx to the Far East to join the S class destroyers already there, once she had finished her duties and been refitted, but the refit was still underway when France fell, which generated a great need for more ships in Home waters.
Sardonyx does NOT appear to have been fitted with Type 271 centimetric radar - Whitley and Brady says this was only fitted to Shikari, while Friedman p274 only refers to the ship's close in armament, not radar. Please check your sources to see that nothing else like this has slipped through.
re. the question about what Sardonyx was doing in 1943, there is more in Denis Rayner's Escort: The Battle of the Atlantic - by this time the S-class survivors were concentrated in the 21st Escort Group - in the early part of the year they were employed (when they weren't broken down) on escorting fast convoys of troopships from Iceland, where they could put their high speed to good use. In the summer, the 21st EG was employed in Operation Rosegarden, an attempt at a joint operation with RAF Coastal Command to interdict U-boats between Iceland and the Faroes. This failed, partly because of the inability to cope with the weather conditions. In autumn 1943, the group was used to provide training for submarines, simulating enemy escorts. Brady notes that they didn't have the range to take part in the major mid-atlantic convoy battles in 1942–1943.
There is more on how the ships coped with Atlantic convoy duty in Brady and Rayner. Basically not well - they were very badly overloaded and overcrowded, and probably unfit for the North Atlantic when short of fuel but still carrying a full depth-charge load. They appear to have been popular with crews, however, as they spent much more time ashore as the ships were having weather damage repaired.
Nigel Ish (
talk)
18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
Bibliography:
Brady (1986): location? publisher?
Added.
Dietrich-Berryman & Hammond (2013): location should be Annapolis, Maryland
Corrected.
Jackson (1997): You don't need the page number in the bibliography
fn 31: I am not convinced that "the need for ASW escorts was, of course, pressing as the prospect of another U-boat campaign against shipping in the North Atlantic became a reality" equates to "the Royal Navy required all available destroyers to be made available to combat the German submarine threat".
If you travel to
Saratoga National Historic Park, you will probably come across this somewhat bizarre monument of a boot. Its honoree's name is never mentioned on it, and it would take some research to figure out that it's actually honoring
Benedict Arnold. I am nominating this for A-class because I'd like to take this to
FA and so I would need to see what further improvements need to be made to it to get it there. Thank you! Relativity ⚡️00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is all way outside my area of expertise. I presume that Benedict Arnold was rehabilitated long ago. Article looks more like a GA than an FA. Some comments:
Can be have a consistent date format? Three different ones are used. (Recommend using dmy and adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)
Done
"Arnold's betrayal to the British" implies that someone betrayed him.
Changed to "Arnold betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army"
Do we know what Arnold's actual, rank was? (Same for Clinton, Gates and Lincoln)
Yes, and Done
Is there any reason why the town of West Point was worth twenty thousand quid?
According to Nathaniel Philbrick's Valiant Ambition, the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?
The lead says he "attempted to give crucial information about the fortification of West Point to the British" but the body says "offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point. Arnold met with British Major John André, who Arnold had solicited communication through, and André was later captured on his way back to New York with the plans for West Point being discovered"
Good catch, reworded in the lead to "He later attempted to help the British capture the fortification of West Point but was discovered and fled to the British army."
"solicited communication through" sounds awkward to me.
Reworded to "Arnold met with British Major John André so he could pass on information on how to best attack West Point,". Let me know what you think.
"College boys on a trip stole the toe and spur from the Boot Monument,[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer informed the battlefield official that the toe was stolen by "a graduate of a New York State educational institution."[23] The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Do we have dates for these events?
Unfortunately no. All of the newspapers used as citations are from around the same time but there is no actual specified date when this happened.
"The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is four feet tall." Source required for the height. And add a conversion for those of us living in the twenty-first century instead of the eighteenth.
Added a conversion. And it does have a source already?
Provide a link or identifier for "The Shrine of the Memorial Museum"? If you received it via resource request, specify that in a hidden note?
That source was there before I started extensively editing this article. I tried to find it, but couldn't. Since there's another source there, I've removed it.
Here is a link for Leopold 1994:
[1]. Consider adding?
Added, thanks for finding that. Hopefully, I've done it correctly.
Link to Lawrence Journal-World, The Lewiston Daily Sun and Boca Raton News as done for the other newspapers? Also I guess Ration is a typo, should be Raton?
Done, and yes, that was a typo. I fixed that as well.
Provide a link for Duffus 1930 and MacIvor 1954?
For the MacIvor one, I found it off of the Wikipedia Library, and can't seem to find a way to add a link to it other than having a link go directly to the Wikipedia Library. Here's the permalink:
[2]. I added an ISSN though for it. As for Duffus' source, I found
the link, but there's an error page saying that there are technical difficulties with it showing up. I've added it for now, and I'll see if I can do anything else about that.
Link to Social Forces, McFarland, The New England Quarterly, University Press of New England, NYU Press, Regnery Publishing, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Casemate Publishers? You've already linked to Random House so to be consistent you will have to link everywhere else. Otherwise you could consider removing the links for publishers altogether.
Add a date for Brumwell? The website provides one.
Done
What is your policy on linking to authors? I can understand if you do not wish to in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE. If you do wish to, however, consider linking to Alexis Coe, Gary Alan Fine, Donald W. Linebaugh, Richard M. Ketchum, James Kirby Martin, Dave Richard Palmer, Nathaniel Philbrick, Willard Sterne Randall?
Done Not a huge fan of the SEAOFBLUE, but I think that it's better this way.
To be consistent, you will have to decide to include the locations of publication or not. For most sources you have them, but for some you don't.
@
Relativity, you should consider changing the references from ref tags to sfn tags, because that will be required at FAC. Also you should add the Wikipedia Library link for MacIvor 1954 which you have.
Matarisvan (
talk)
05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: First off, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Just so you're aware, I am going to be unable to be active on Wikipedia for about two months, give or take a week or two, so if you add any comments starting tomorrow, it is very unlikely that I will be able to address them. My apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers Relativity ⚡️04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right. If you are going to be off-Wiki for more than a couple of weeks it seems - donning my FAC coordinator hat - that this nomination is certain to be archived. It may be best to withdraw this nomination and renominate once you have the time to allocate to it.Gog the Mild (
talk)
18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a petrol/pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A career officer of the Indian Army, he saw service in several campaigns and the Boer War prior to the FWW. A follower of Haig, he saw quick advancement once the war began, initially on the Western Front and then in the Middle East where he made his largest impact in command of a cavalry division of the Desert Mounted Corps. This is one of my first largescale dabbles into FWW content and I would appreciate any and all comments.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Hawkeye7
I had heard of Macandrew, as commander of a division in Chauvel's Desert Mounted Corps, but knew nothing more about him. His death reminds me of Brigadier General
John Royston, who was invalided out of the service after deliberately inhaling poison gas. Another chapter in the great deeds of the British cavalry. Looks good; some comments to prove I read it:
I don't think so. Going by the the school's website it has been called the Inverness Royal Academy since 1793.
"Macandrew's position as a brigadier-general was a temporary rank, and he was still a substantive lieutenant-colonel" Well yes, but for some weird reason, all brigadier-general appointees were temporary.
Possibly a left-over from the older appointment of brigadier-general, from which the holder would revert when no longer commanding a brigade? Am aware this was how it worked in the Napoleonic Wars, at least
"before in 1916 he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division" seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'before he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division in 1916'?
Done.
"Battle of the Somme and Battle of Cambrai." Is there a consensus among RSs to have those upper-case B's?
Sources vary but I think the majority are with the upper case here.
Infobox, rank: Why the upper case G?
Changed.
"Macandrew was educated at The Inverness College". See
MOS:INSTITUTIONS: "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage".
Changed.
"he was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General Intelligence (DAAGI)" and "as DAAGI Army Headquarters Staff in May." Why the upper-case initial letters?
Likewise: "was appointed a Station Staff Officer, 1st Class"; "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General"; "as a General Staff Officer Grade 1"; "as his Brigadier-General General Staff (BGGS). I shall stop, but a trawl through the rest of the article seems in order.
My sketchy understanding of
MOS:OFFICE led me to this. I'd be happy to be directed otherwise if I've understood it wrongly?
MOS:OFFICE is what you want. If discussing an office (or rank or title) in general terms it is given in lower case, as you do with "He was instead appointed brigade major" or "Macandrew was subsequently promoted to lieutenant-colonel". And as you should with "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General" or "He brought Macandrew with him as his Brigadier-General General Staff". If an office is, to quote the MoS, "followed by a person's name to form a title" it takes an upper-case initial(s); eg "replacing Major-General William Walker". Does that work for you? I could just about grit my teeth and let this go at ACR - "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant". But if this is aimed at FAC it may be as well to make it MoS compliant now.
Always happy to receive constructive criticism! Have changed all those I could identify.
"Macandrew was promoted to substantive major-general on 1 January 1917". Just checking, this was directly from brevet colonel?
If we ignore the various temporary ranks, yes.
"with Haig singling out an action of Macandrew's division". Singling it out for what?
Reworded.
"In many cases the infantry had not pushed back the German defenders as expected and the cavalry were too cumbersome to react to new weaknesses in the enemy lines." Optional for ACR, but this could be phrased more felicitously.
Reworded.
"impacted by the failure at Cambrai". Impacted seems an odd word, perhaps 'influenced'?
Done.
"As such, in the same month, Macandrew travelled to Palestine with the Indian portion of his division and the 1st Indian Cavalry Division, which had since been renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... In an attempt to continue the legacy of the Indian cavalry from the Western Front, on 23 July the two divisions were respectively renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." I assume that the 4th cavalry wasn't renamed twice.
The renaming referred to here is from "1st Mounted Division".
No, I am still confused - this happens regularly. You have "renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." Either two separate divisions were renamed 4th Cavalry Division, or you are repeating the same information, or the prose has befuddled me.
I'm not too sure how this could be reworded. 1st Indian Cavalry Division becomes 4th Cavalry Division. 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions are moved to Palestine, where their troops are used to create the 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions. These two divisions are then renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions. The earlier 4th/5th do not have the same unit composition as the later 4th/5th.
Should the last two paragraphs of Divisional reforms not be in Palestine campaign?
Moved.
"The three Indian regiments killed around ninety Turkish soldiers and took a further ninety-one prisoner." Are the Indian casualties known?
Added, although the source doesn't differentiate wounded and killed.
I'm not sure why Amman would be relevant? Added Megiddo, although the Sharon article covers most of it. Our articles for this campaign are very intertwined!
"the rate of the attack was increased". What does this mean?
Changed to "rate of the advance"
It may just be me, but I find the repeated references to "Macandrew's division" jarring. Other formations are referred to by their names.
Removed a clump of these.
Any chance of giving a reader an idea of the strength and make up of a cavalry brigade and division?
Added a detail for the number of regiments in a brigade, I think the number of brigades in a division is covered.
I meant tell a reader the number of men in a cavalry brigade and division. Eg, in 1914 a British cavalry division had an establishment of 9,269 men, 24 guns, and 24 machine guns. Is similar information available for the formations Macandrew commanded?
I think I could provide some general statistics for the size of cavalry units, but I'm not sure these would be very useful, as the actual numbers fluctuated drastically. See for example the size of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, which fought at Haritan with a total of 500 men despite our (GA) article stating the nominal size was 1,700.
'Twas ever thus in war. I think it would be helpful to give the establishments. If necessary note when formations were greatly under strength (as you do at one point), or give their actual numbers for particular engagements. I think it would be very useful to give a reader some sense of scale. Otherwise they will have little idea of the level of Macandrew's responsibility. Even a knowledgeable reader may be aware that in WWI full-strength infantry divisions varied from <8,000 to >28,000; or that in 1914 British, French and German cavalry divisions had 9,300, 4,500 and 5,200 men.
@
Gog the Mild: I have totally failed to find sources that provide accurate establishments for Macandrew's commands. There are plenty of orders of battle available for the Somme, etc, but none seem to provide numbers to go with the formations. I don't know if you had any particularly sources/direction in mind?
"He sent his armoured cars forward first, leaving Homs the same day. I am unclear about this. Do you mean that the armoured cars left on 20 October, the same day Chauvel told them to halt?
Correct
"a force of Ottoman soldiers that outnumbered them, with around 3,400 men". How many men did the 15th Brigade have?
Added. They were very outnumbered!
Cite 46: what does "p. supp." mean?
Awkward I know. Basically there's a supplement stuck on the end of the Army List in which the page numbers start afresh.
Then I think it needs listing separately, as you would if there were separate chapters, each contributed by a different author. What do you think of how I have tweaked it?
"Two years later he transferred to the Lincolnshire Regiment on 10 November 1886" - "Two years later" is a bit of a duplicate statement, since you're already giving the exact 1884 and 1886 dates
Removed.
Is it known how he ended up with the army in Bengal? Was the Lincolnshire Regiment stationed there, or was this a transfer of some sort?
The 1888 Army List has Macandrew serving in the 1st Battalion, which was in Dublin, while the 2nd Battalion was in India. The 1889 Army List removes his battalion designation and has him on "probation" instead. He may have done a quick transfer to the 2nd Battalion and then to the Indian Army, or it may have been a straight transfer from Dublin. Unfortunately sources don't clearly say.
"Macandrew was still well thought of by Haig, and the latter quickly appointed to a new command. - is this missing a word? "the latter quick appointed to a new command" while the context suggests this is something involving Macandrew, the grammar suggests this was a new appointment for Haig
Yep, missing word!
The infobox lists him as being part of the main British Army until 1899 and joining the British Indian Army that year, but would his 1898 probationary assignment in the British Indian Army count as when his service switched over to that unit?
It's made slightly confusing in that when his probationary period ended his Indian Army seniority was set to when he was promoted lieutenant in 1886. For the sake of keeping the infobox sensible I think it's probably best to keep the dates as official as possible, so 1889 is when he ceased to be a member of the British Army.
Hi
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, some comments on the sources, will comment on the main text later.
Refs #105, 106 and 110 need links, future reviewers would require them for spot checks. You will be able to find them on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com.
Have added links but am awaiting the response of another editor who helped out before I can add the exact newspaper reports (they don't appear on either of those websites). The link for #111 would need to be provided by someone with a BNA subscription, which I do not have and
has lapsed for the editor who added it
The Cavalry Journal 1923, Pitman 1923, Rowcroft 1923, Robbins 2001 need links, if you received these via resource request then you should add a hidden note to that effect.
"promoted to become": remove the "become", instead use "the rank of"?
The "become" refers to the role of BGGS rather than the rank of BG, so I think it works as is
"Brigadier-General General Staff": you will have to somehow rephrase this occurrence of
WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I can't think of how.
SEAOFBLUE does say "When possible" and I'm not sure what else to do in this circumstance. I don't think I can logically introduce the links for either BG or GS any earlier in the lede to avoid the need for one or other of the links there
The lead is great but a little short, consider expanding to 3 to 4 paragraphs?
Expanded.
Link to Inverness College?
We don't have an article, or really any content, on the college. I've linked to the building it was once housed in
Link to Delagoa?
Linked the full Delagoa line
"appointed to a": "appointed him to a"?
Yep, HF also caught this error
Link to Ghorniye (Ghoraniye)?
Done
For FAC reviews, I've been asked to remove the Dates of Rank section. I think these are OK at A class but you might be asked to remove them at an FAC review.
I'm aware these aren't a fan favourite and haven't used one before. This is by way of an experiment to see what people think. If I get pushback that's fine
This is an article that Gog and I worked on some time back. It is unusual in that it is about the American Army in the Normandy campaign. While the Brits and Canadians have subjected Normandy to exhaustive study in the last few years, the Americans have not shown much interest, preferring to produce yet another book on the Battle of the Bulge. To say that the battle described in this article is not well known would be a major understatement, but I feel that it deserved one.
Hawkeye7(discuss)18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Wtfiv
I thought I'd give a try to help out with this article. I'm coming as a reader who knows nothing about this aspect of the Normandy campaign, so much of what I'm bringing up is requests for clarification. So many of the comments are more organizational.
Lead
First paragraph reads more like the beginning of the second. Shouldn't first paragraph give a brief summary of the battle: its purpose and significance?
Y Reorganised the lead along these lines.
In the first paragraph (even if it is moved to later) what was the purpose of straightening the line? Should that be made clear to the casual reader?
Shouldn't the background section be setting the stage for the battle? At the end of this section, a reader who is not already familiar with Normandy would not know why the battle was being fought or how this would involve Middleton's units.
Background is high-level strategic, but opposing forces moves immediately to equipment and context. The article jumps from high-level strategic to squad-level tactics. It seems a smoother transition would be to set up in (Background) Why Middleton's Corps would need to move forward, then this section would move down to a strategic oveview within the scope of the battle, explaining the units that make up Middleton's Corps and then, the German forces opposed to them. The following comments will assume that Opposing Plans follows Background. Opposing forces could go just before Battle, giving context to the issues faced in the battle.
I suggest moving up Opposing Plans to follow Background. This would make the flow of description from larger strategic to fine-grained tactical more smooth.
Since the initiative is with the United States forces, they should be covered first.
The first paragraph of the United States in Opposing forces seems like it is well suited to being integrated as the last paragraph of Background. The second paragraph seems like it is the start of the battle, so would begin the next section following background.
¶ 2. Mentions three division and then only discusses two. All three could get brief mention in the first paragraph as part of the VIII, placing their relative geographic position and objectives. final sentences of ¶ 3. with the mission of the 82nd could be part of the previous paragraph that outlines the mission of all three divisions in the corps. It would help the reader get an overall sense of how the three divisions were orchestrating the advance.
If ¶ 2. Were restructured, ¶ 3. Could discuss the problematic nature of the 90th and the experience of the 82nd. It could also note that the 82nd was scheduled to be taken out of the line once it was pinched out. Might want to mention why it was being moved out.
Also, this would make a good place for discussion of it being replaced by the 8th Inf. In ¶ 3. The discussion of the 8th Infantry Division was a bit confusing. On the first read, I was unsure how it moves the narrative forward. It was described as not yet deployed on the continent and it isn't playing an active role in the upcoming narrative of the battle. Reading later in the article, I find out that it does play an active role in the battle, though that's not clear here. If the 8th Infantry is going to be mentioned, maybe it could be mentioned mentioned later or reintegrated a bit more smoothly.
¶ 3. The penultimate sentence starts Its mission, would that be the 82nd or the 8th? Context says 82nd, anaphor says 8. I think a rewrite explaining all four divisions would be good. (Maybe giving 8th's expected time of arrival? And it might help readers if the order of the units described is the order of the units described in the battle.
¶ 3. 82nd is described as most experienced of the three divisions, but the description of the VIII corps as a three Corp division had not yet been introduced. It enters unexpectedly. Also its geographic position relative to the other two is unclear. (The map shows it has the middle position between them, it wasn't expected to take la-Haye-du-Puits, but just the hills due north.
As mentioned, German subheading might be better following United States. It seems to me to make for a smoother narrative as the Germans are responding to American initiative.
Consider integrating first sentence of the first paragraph integrated into background. It's a higher-level strategic point that not about the immediate front, but the British front. It is important information that lets the reader know that German options were already restricted by issues outside the immediate scope of the battle being described.
¶ 2. begins with the discussion of the Seventh Army and then goes into detail about the terrain it held. I think the last two paragraphs would be a bit clearer for readers if it paralled the American description: (1) Seventh army was deployed in depth with counterattack reserves. (2) Description of LXXXIV Corps (3)Description of the terrain that it held. It would make the introduction of the Mahlmann line and the 353rd more clear.
¶ 3. By accident or design, the position was held in great depth Doesn't the description of Haussner's echelon-in-depth deployment for the army suggest it was by design?
¶ 3. Suggest rewording last two sentences to make the reserve status of the 15th parachute Division and 2nd SS the topic of the sentence. (Making it clear they weren't initially part of LXXIV's command structure.)
Consider starting starting from east to west: 79th first, as it is introduced first, 82nd second, 90th last. At the end of the section on the 90th,
it might be worth mentioning that the 82nds pinch out wasn't complete. The 90th was still three miles from the 79th. (This is in the next section but it seems worth noting that the objective wasn't obtained, as it sounds like it was one of the criteria for moving out the 82nd. It'd be a good summing up of what the 90th had (or hadn't) accomplished.
Somewhere in here it might be worth noting the 82nd was taken out of the line. In the narrative it, just disappears in the next section. It might also make the introduction of the 8th Infantry more clear to a reader.
8-14 July
Casualties
Would it be worthwhile having a section summing of casualties on both sides, if at all possible would help clarify total losses. German losses are unclear. There is mention of 578 casualties, but it sounds like that was just one day's fighting. One of the key points in the lead is the cost to both sides, so it would help give a sense of the fighting. The strain of the casualties on the Germans is also given as part of the significance of the battle in the lead, so it would help to illustrate this point.
Aftermath
I may have missed it, but I'm not sure how the aftermath directly addresses the impact of this battle on the subsequent campaign. Is there anything that can be added. What goals were met by the Germans? What goals by the Americans? That would inform the final bit of the lead.
Would it help to mention it was the XIX Corps that struck St. Lo, since the First Army is in the midst of this battle too? Did operations here have any impact on the attack on St. Lo?
Hawkeye7, I was waiting for a ping on this one when you were done. Should I take a look again or should I wait?
Thanks for reorganizing the material. For me, the context of this battle is becoming more clear. I have a second round of comments as I feel I get dive a little deeper into the details.
Opposing Forces- German
First paragraph feels like background involving the higher-ups focused on larger strategic issues—Rommel and Rundstedt—, larger entities beyond the scope of the article—Army Group B— and operations outside of Middleton's operation—Epsom and Caen—seem more appropriate in the background section. The "American" section begins with the actual forces, it'd be good if this does too, and German strategic concerns can be moved to background. (Minor suggestion follows) the second paragraph already mentions depth, so maybe a bit of the first paragraph can be integrated into it to make it clear what defense in depth means.
This may not be an issue, but the earlier narrative was that the 82nd was to be pinched out. Once it obtained its objectives, did it remain static for the remainder of the campaign or was it withdrawn for refitting? As the narrative is written, it is not mentioned again, so as a reader, I'd assume it remained in position until 14 July. If that's not correct, a final sentence describing its fate would help readers.
The Germans were dealt with. How? Were the tanks destroyed or retreated? "Germans" sounds like there were more than three AFVs.
Y There were only three. The source says: "Because artillery and antitank weapons reacted effectively, the disruption to the attack proved only temporary".
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A task force consisting. Sentence is a bit long with two conjunctions. First blames slow progress on terrain, second artillery. Suggest deleting "and" and using new sentence. Consider final clause with following section on counterattack using "and", as both address German action. And is the "too" needed?
The last sentence has me a bit confused. I think it is meant as a summing up of the section, but it isn't clear. The paragraph focuses on the 314. It mentions the 315th that was discussed in ¶3.
I'd suggest something like shifting the mention of the 315th after the second sentence: Here's one suggestion: start the paragraph "On On the morning of 5 July, Wyche". Then add the bit about the 315th, as it would continue the narrative of the previous, then shift to the travails of the 314th, ending with the failure of the envelopment, which should be obvious to the reader from the repulse of the 314th.
¶6 Consider rearranging first sentence. One of the key points of the sentence includes that the mortar and artillery fire was hard to suppress. The following sentence appears to be referencing the artillery and mortar fire as well. The sniper fire feels like a tack on. Consider putting the sniper fire first or separating some other way.
¶7 Paragraph is implying that Hausser brought up the 15th Parachute due to casualties. If it is in the sources, it'd be good to state this explicitly, as reserves can be deployed for other reasons. This ambiguity may be resolved by moving the Hausser sentence after the point about troop losses.
¶1 This paragraph is still a bit unclear. I can get that the 8th was suppose to relieve the 90th, but it takes a bit of figuring this out. Sentence 1 describes how the 8th was intended to be deployed. Second two is a bit confusing, as it seems to be describing the present state of affairs. Or is it describing why the 8th was originally going to move to Foret de Mont Castre? Or is the 3 mile gap a disruptive aspect of the decision. For the last two sentences: The first sentence states the 8th would disrupt the German attack, but doesn't make it clear it was intended to be deployed for a spoiling attack. (It's deployment could have disrupted the attack by filling a gap, for example.)
Reading further, I think this section could be strengthened by reorganizing. Current structure looks like this:
¶1 Intended deployment of 8th, state of 90th, shift of plan for spoiling attack, failure of deployment
¶2 Introducing 8th, discussing its greenness, the German counterattack
¶3 Officers being killed or relieved.
Would it be possible to rearrange this? Here's one suggestion, but you may be able to do better:
¶1 Keep the first sentence of intentions, and maybe the second sentence up to the clause link up with the 79th Infantry division. then introduce the division.
¶2 Discuss the situation in one smooth flow: Problem of original plan due to 90th being behind schedule, german plans, 8th to be used for spoiling attack, plan failed, German attack failed, 8th not advanced
¶3 Discuss the change of command structure. Beginning with MacMahon relieving two commanders for failure, Walker's death (how? seems important given he gets a service cross.) Ultimately, MacMahon's relief? (Explicitly why?)
Y Changed as suggested. Walker had a ship named after him, but no Wikipedia article.
Eisenhower "recognized that while McMahon was unsuited to a combat command he had his uses as a staff officer and used networking knowledge to place him with Lieutenant-General Mark Clark, commanding general of Fifth U.S. Army in Italy. Clark had been McMahon's roommate at West Point, and the two had been good friends ever since. Eisenhower initially contacted Devers, Clark's superior officer, playing down the reasons behind McMahon's relief."
In my opinion this division was well trained by McMahon before going into action but due to certain rather unusual conditions and to inexperience throughout the division, a considerable confusion resulted which was at least partially traceable to him and which necessitated his relief. I think McMahon still has real usefulness either in command or in a staff position but I think it would be difficult for him to function successfully in this theatre at this time.
McMahon was accepted as Fifth Army's deputy chief of staff, G-1, Personnel. Eisenhower then explained McMahon's case to Marshall:
McMahon has been relieved from the battle line by his corps commander, fully concurred in by Bradley, for failure to lead his division effectively. His division had been in action only four days but both corps and army commander felt that his test had been sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that he is not, repeat not, a good division commander in spite of acknowledged qualifications along other lines... I know he has many fine qualifications, and in my opinion it was tension and over anxiety that caused his poor performance as a division commander.
The discussion of Eisenhower's key factors seems like a summing up. Do you think it would have more context after the discussion of the casualties in ¶2 and ¶3?
Would the sentence beginning On 11 July, the First Army began... in the article's pentultimate paragraph be appropriate as the start of a new paragraph as it now introduces Saint Lo offensive and broadens out to the entire First Army? Looks good...support.
Wtfiv (
talk)
03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
By the way, I did't comment on them as the goal is to just get through the review, but thanks for the expanded explanations. Those moments, like when McMahon gets relieved but nobody wants to say why, are fascinating side point though best left out of the article. The conjectures come easy, but more interesting is that the generals "took care of their own." I appreciate them.
Wtfiv (
talk)
20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The site says the image was taken from the US National Archives. Unfortunately, archivesnormnadie has gone dark and the Wayback machine has done its usually poor job of archiving. But you can tell it was taken by a US reconnaissance aircraft. I found another copy
hereHawkeye7(discuss)21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
File:American howitzers shell German forces.jpg - one source link is to a general home page, and the other is for the photographer (and doesn't work at least for me). Additionally, since the file is post-1929, a more specific PD tag will be needed than the one being used.
I still don't think that the CC 3.0 tags are appropriate. The archivenormandie website may be distributing that under the CC 3.0 license, but we need something to indicate why that website is/was able to freely distribute the image, which would be a PD tag indicating the status of the actual work itself.
Hog FarmTalk18:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's US First Army": consider rephrasing to "the US First Army commanded by Lieutenant General Omar Bradley" to avoid
WP:SEAOFBLUE? Also consider rephrasing in the body and for the Dempsey Second Army sentence?
"the American troops of Major General Troy H. Middleton's VIII Corps": change to "the American troops of VIII Corps commanded by Major General Troy H. Middleton" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
I mean they include casualties incurred in other actions on the American front and in the case of the Germans, in some actions against the British, because detachments fought all over Normandy.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise. UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it! UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Cheers - probably a bit rich for my blood (it's 288 pages, and doing the maths on that made my wallet hurt), but I do periodically keep an eye out in case one turns up second-hand online for a reasonable amount. Could give it another go at
WP:RX too. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
" On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort. UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
Bertram gives it as "it is believed" -- I don't suppose you know anything about RNAS flight training? I failed to find much background information; I assume this was simply what usually happened? UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
Pegram messed that one up a bit: it's engine weight, not total weight, and it was 170lb. Fixed from another source. Good spot -- I'd missed that, but it was a bit silly! UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makes The Channel Islands and the Great War pass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography, Wings, which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assume could be easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 at
WP:MILHIST - Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry.
Hog FarmTalk21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing. UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States.
Hog FarmTalk01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role.
Zawed (
talk)
09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:
Starting off in "admin duties"
Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.
Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons? UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hawkeye7
Typo: "propellor"
Convert horsepower to Watts?
"the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the"s?
I fixed two CS1 warnings
Any details about his marriages? (I found his
divorce)
Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has the date of his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn't definitively say that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've got the service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there. UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review - pass
Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
The source page gives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
"Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"was organised by the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force, Italo Balbo": consider changing to "was organised by Italo Balbo, the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force"? The former phrasing could be seen as
WP:SEAOFBLUE, only a comma is separating the links to Balbo and the IAF.
Thanks for those details: agreed, that source is pretty much certainly straightforward copyright infringement, as the magazine is less than 20 years old and this is clearly not an authorised open-access release by the copyright holder. Downloading it and uploading it somewhere else would, therefore, also be copyright infringement. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I had somehow forgotten about that due to the age of the subject matter. But now at least you won't have any issues with the spot checks. Also, I will do the source review here as WPMH requires one, the image review is already done.
Matarisvan (
talk)
16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. As
User:buidhe pointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags.
Schierbecker (
talk)
22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old.
Schierbecker (
talk)
14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags.
Schierbecker (
talk)
18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this.
Hog FarmTalk19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delist and Comment - I am not likely to be able to do more with the article than I did in the past few hours. It is not enough to avoid a delist. I have reduced the number of citation needed tags to three. My guess is that a source was used for the two comments about life at the fort for which there are no citations but it may be difficult to find it and thus determine whether it is reliable. I have removed the reference to the Historical Marker Database and replaced it with a citation to a JSTOR article which says the marker was placed by the Arlington Historical Society; I added at the "approximate" location. Although I think the Official Records are probably reliable enough for some of the routine facts for which they are cited, I think the use as a source for so many of the facts in the article is problematical and not appropriate for extensive use in an A class article. It is not reliable in the example(s) provided by HF.
Donner60 (
talk)
08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: @
Hog Farm and @
Donner60, I've made some preliminary edits. I would like to try to restore this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? 20 days seem to be enough to me. I know this reassessment has been open for 3 months now but I might be able to get a rewrite done.
Matarisvan (
talk)
12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @
Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me.
Donner60 (
talk)
19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply